Any chance the "ban" is a setup for future opportunity?

[cowboy.up]

I could be out in left field on this one but...

We all know the US government is a little upset that they aren't collecting any tax money on this multi-billion dollar industry (not to mention the billions of dollars that exchange hands between players that is taxable). Could this ban be an attempt to get all the U.S. players off of their current sites and allow U.S. based casinos to set up their cardroom infrastructure and then repeal this ban with all of the laws and regulations in place to allow for taxation?

Just a wild idea...I might be dreaming.

[Bilgefisher]

If that is the ploy, I find that the House failed on their research again. As long as an american online casino offered the same service, I would move my money to them in a heartbeat. I haven't been wronged by the big online poker sites yet (It isn't in their best interest), but I would still feel safer with my money within american borders. I don't think I'm alone in this sentiment.

[cowboy.up]

True - but honestly, of the countless fish and others at the SSNL tables, I bet a bunch of players think most of these companies are based in the US already.

[Foucault]

That's more than a little conspiracy theoryish, but I do believe that US taxation of online gaming sites that want to do business with US players is the only long-term alternative to a ban. An industry of this size simply cannot do business unregulated in the US forever.

[Gregg777]

[ QUOTE ]
That's more than a little conspiracy theoryish, but I do believe that US taxation of online gaming sites that want to do business with US players is the only long-term alternative to a ban. An industry of this size simply cannot do business unregulated in the US forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not "conspiracy theoryish" at all. That is exactly what is going to happen over the next few years. (IMHO)

Both the gov't and the US gaming wants their piece of the pie, that's all.

[PoisonIvy]

[ QUOTE ]
That's more than a little conspiracy theoryish, but I do believe that US taxation of online gaming sites that want to do business with US players is the only long-term alternative to a ban. An industry of this size simply cannot do business unregulated in the US forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Because of the absolute insane greediness of the US?

[Foucault]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's more than a little conspiracy theoryish, but I do believe that US taxation of online gaming sites that want to do business with US players is the only long-term alternative to a ban. An industry of this size simply cannot do business unregulated in the US forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not "conspiracy theoryish" at all. That is exactly what is going to happen over the next few years. (IMHO)

Both the gov't and the US gaming wants their piece of the pie, that's all.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't mean that it has been planned ahead of time and that Congress has decided to ban it based on a backdoor agreement with US casinos to re-legalize as soon as their software is up and running.

[Foucault]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's more than a little conspiracy theoryish, but I do believe that US taxation of online gaming sites that want to do business with US players is the only long-term alternative to a ban. An industry of this size simply cannot do business unregulated in the US forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Because of the absolute insane greediness of the US?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not disputing that characterization, but I don't that wanting to tax internet gaming is especially greedy of them. In fact I would support such a tax, and not only because I think it would be good for the long-term legitimacy and stability of the game.

[Bilgefisher]

True, but the fish may be more willing to come to a US online gambling site. Many folks are still afraid to play online, if they feel they have the assurance of an american company under the american legal system, they may be willing to take that gamble. (pun intended)

[Gregg777]

[ QUOTE ]
That doesn't mean that it has been planned ahead of time and that Congress has decided to ban it based on a backdoor agreement with US casinos to re-legalize as soon as their software is up and running.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but Goodlatte, the author of the bill made the following statement:

""These offshore, fly-by-night Internet gambling operators are unlicensed, untaxed and unregulated and are sucking billions of dollars out of the United States."

He has personally said the gov't wants their piece of the action.

I don't see how anyone can read the statement above and think this is not about the money. The author of the bill has admitted as much.

[momo24]

If there really was support for this, Congress could just do it now. There's no reason why Congress couldn't, in one bill, make playing on the current, foreign sites illegal, while permitting online gaming at highly regulated and taxed, domestic sites. And there's no reason to think that if a majority of Congress wanted to do this right now, they'd choose to wait and see how many of them will get voted out of office before they move to step two of their plan.

[cowboy.up]

If you follow American politics there's always one explaination for everything...and that's follow the money trail. This "moral crusade" that the politicians are on is complete crap.

When they outlawed hemp products (not just marijuana) in the US in the early part of the 20th century it wasn't because of the possible distribution of the drug, it was because the logging/paper industry lobbied Congress heavily and threw a ton of money their way because it was hurting their business (hemp makes much better paper than conventional wood does) this is a big reason why drugs are banned in general too, the sale of them can't be taxed. I think this is a reason the American Gaming Association is kinda on neutral ground with the ban since they don't profit from offshore gaming. They figure if they can't profit, nobody should.

[Wake up CALL]

I suppose none of you who think that internet gaming if banned will ever become legal in your lifetime ever heard of marijuana.

[momo24]

I didn't question whether Congress sometimes has ulterior motives in adopting legislation. I just question how often the ulterior motive in passing "Bill A" is that three years from now they can pass "Bill B" -- especially when Congress could achieve the combined effects of Bills A&B today in a single piece of legislation.

I know nothing of the hemp ban in the early 20th century, but the analogy misses a key ingredient: Was the logging industry able later to convince Congress to lift the ban and regulate hemp in a way that benefited them? And most importantly, was this second legislation under consideration when the hemp ban was put in place?

[cowboy.up]

momo - the logging industry had no reason to want to have the ban on hemp lifted. it grew trees, not hemp. they lobbied congress and created themselves a monopoly in the paper industry in america. i was just making a point about money, taxes etc.

[Gregg777]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose none of you who think that internet gaming if banned will ever become legal in your lifetime ever heard of marijuana.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I don't suppose you have ever heard of prohibition?

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suppose none of you who think that internet gaming if banned will ever become legal in your lifetime ever heard of marijuana.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I don't suppose you have ever heard of prohibition?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was awaiting the hapless soul who would take this bait. Open wide little fishy, now bite down hard, good job, you are snagged.

Prohibition (I am assuming you are referencing the 18th and 21st amendments) was for public sale of alcohol, private production for personal use in your home was still legal.

18th Amendment
[ QUOTE ]
Section 1. -After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.


[/ QUOTE ]

Secondly Prohibition was an Amendment to the Constitution, not a simple law passed by Congress alone. So you see there is no reasonable comparison of the illegality of marijuana to Prohibition as there is to internet gambling and marijuana.

Thanks for playing!