PDA

View Full Version : My Newspaper Column


Dan Burns
07-20-2006, 01:35 AM
I write a column for a few weekly newspapers in northern New Jersey and this week I wrote about the potential online gambling ban. I have also posted this on my website here: www.satellitewinner.com/articles/internetban.html (http://www.satellitewinner.com/articles/internetban.html)
Keep in mind this was written for an audience that might not be as knowledgeable as the good people at 2+2, so please forgive the cheesy rock-and-roll band example.

Webmasters, feel free to post the column on your websites if you wish. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but we need to speak up now, while our senators are listening. After they pass it is too late. -Dan

A Ban on Gambling is a Ban on Freedom


by Dan Burns

The recent actions of the U.S. House of Representatives have convinced me that 317 of our congressmen need a refresher course in civics.

Mr. and Mrs. American politician, your first job as legislators is to protect the rights of American citizens. Your second job is to make laws that help run the country. Once again, protection of rights comes first, all other business comes second.

The problem — as illustrated by the House passing HR-4411 on July 10 by a vote of 317 to 93 — is the typical American politician considers safety, social order and many other factors to be more important than their constituents’ civil liberties. Our liberty has declined in status from the supreme ideal this nation was founded on to something that is now a secondary consideration.

HR-4411, known as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act, aims to block American citizens’ access to certain online gambling Web sites. Access to online poker rooms and casinos would be restricted, and those sites would be unable to receive payments from U.S. banks and credit card companies. Online wagering on horse races, fantasy sports and certain state-run lotteries would not be affected.

The bill is sponsored by Congressmen Robert Goodlatte, R-Virginia, and Jim Leach, R-Iowa. They claim Internet betting can be so addictive that people can lose their life savings making wagers online. They also claim it is too easy for minors to make bets on the Internet.

Those points are well-taken and should be considered by parents everywhere, but they’re not sufficient evidence to ban online casinos.

You don’t ban something 99 percent of people enjoy because 1 percent of the people who use it have a problem with it. That’s not democracy, is it? Prohibition of alcohol didn’t work. Burning books didn’t work. Banning online gambling is not going to work.

And are we to believe all of the bad things legislators point out about online gambling – the addiction, the handful of people who allegedly launder money through online casinos, etc. – don’t apply to online horse wagering? Most of the people I know who make bets online on horse races (which they will never get a chance to even see, by the way) are more compulsive than the dozens of people I know who like to play a little $2/$4 hold’em before they go to bed.

This idea of legislating morality has got to stop. Americans might look to the government to protect them from foreign invaders, but they certainly don’t need the government to protect them from themselves. What we do in our own home, with our own money, in our own free time is our business and nobody else’s.

When I was learning the ins and outs of America’s two-party system in high school, I learned the Republican Party advocated a “hands off” approach to governance and was in favor of small government. What has happened to them? Now they feel they have to pass laws protecting us from ourselves and deciding how we can spend our money.

If you want to protect me, please begin by protecting my civil liberties. Once you’re sure they are secure, then by all means, legislate away.

As you might have guessed by now, I’m an avid Internet poker player. I am one of thousands of American residents who treat online poker as a part-time job. Any attempt to ban online poker would rob me and my colleagues of something our founding fathers called an “unalienable right” endowed by our creator, which is the pursuit of happiness. Indeed, the financial plans of many young Americans rely on their access to online poker in the next few decades.

I know some of you might be saying, “You’ve got to be kidding me. Your financial goals rely on poker?” Well, they do.

Imagine being a talented rock musician whose band is about to make it big when your government decides to outlaw rock music. Rock music gets people too excited, the government reasons. Studies have shown many violent crimes occur right after rock concerts, and teenagers who take drugs like to listen to rock music while they’re getting high. Some people, including men and women with families, spend hundreds of dollars a month on rock concerts and albums, they say. That’s money that could be spent on productive things.

This fictional government makes a good case. I guess we should outlaw rock music. No fame and fortune for you.

There is a negative side to every creature, commodity and concept in the world. It’s very easy to make a convincing case to ban anything if you choose to focus on the horror stories. Things such as guns and alcohol, for example, destroy thousands of lives more than online gambling every year, yet they remain perfectly legal.

Banning online gambling is not the answer to solving the problems that arise from it, but neither is leaving things the way they are.

The United States should pass legislation legalizing online gambling, but requiring operators to set up an office within the country. Then regulate the industry and force the owners to pay taxes, taxes, taxes and more taxes. Tax the hell out of them. They’ll pay it, because legal status and an image of legitimacy will be good for business.

This issue is in the Senate’s hands now. Senators everywhere, particularly my senators, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ, and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, I encourage you to speak out against this bill on the Senate floor. My congressman Mike Ferguson, R-NJ, did not agree with me, but I’m hoping you will.

If you decide to vote in favor of the Senate’s version of HR-4411, then please do me one favor. Attach an amendment to the bill calling for the discontinuation of “the land of the free” as one of our country’s mottos, because that phrase would no longer be applicable.

Dan Burns is the co-founder of Satellitewinner.com, a website dedicated to strategy for poker satellites. He can be reached at Dan@satellitewinner.com.

Analyst
07-20-2006, 02:51 AM
Outstanding column - great job!

One thing I would have included is that the taxes thus collected could, and should, be earmarked for treatment for addicted gamblers and especially for educational programs. This model has proven very successful with tobacco in curbing underage (and all) smoking.

redbeard
07-20-2006, 04:32 AM
nice article dan. did either of your senators reply? i'd be interested to hear what they said especially since a response to you might be more likely than a response to me given your status as a member of the media. (yes i have written three senators -- and heard nothing yet)

NY60
07-20-2006, 04:34 AM
That's an excellent article Dan. Thank You. I wonder if I can have permission to use portions of it in a follow up letter to my Senators??

Moneyline
07-20-2006, 05:01 AM
Nice job, Dan. Have you received any feedback from newspaper readers on your column?... always interesting to hear the non-poker playing public's take on these bills.

Dan Burns
07-20-2006, 11:27 AM
Thanks for the positive feedback guys. Yes, anyone who wants to use portions of this to strengthen their letters to their senators should feel free to. In fact, anyone who was considering writing their senator, but wasn't sure exactly what to say, I hope this letter gives you enough ideas that you feel comfortable doing so. There's a few other letters 2+2ers have written floating around this forum as well.

The column came out today, so no feedback yet. I actually wrote a seperate letter to my senators before this and called them, but haven't heard anything from, as I'm sure most of you haven't yet.

Keep fighting the good fight. - Dan

DING-DONG YO
07-20-2006, 12:42 PM
Everything until the quote is fine. The following quote and the ensuing attempt to link online poker to rock music is just bad.

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed, the financial plans of many young Americans rely on their access to online poker in the next few decades.

I know some of you might be saying, “You’ve got to be kidding me. Your financial goals rely on poker?” Well, they do.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've already explained my HO about why this argument is bad and should be avoided. Link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=law&Number=6529676&Search page=2&Main=6529676&Words=argument&topic=&Search=t rue#Post6529676)

There is a winner and a loser with all forms of gambling and anyone making money off poker is profiting off someone else.

TraiViet
07-20-2006, 01:41 PM
keep up the good work!

Snafu'd
07-20-2006, 01:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There is a winner and a loser with all forms of gambling and anyone making money off poker is profiting off someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
This statement is absolutely true but can't this logic be applied to any good or service sold for a profit?

DING-DONG YO
07-20-2006, 03:13 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a winner and a loser with all forms of gambling and anyone making money off poker is profiting off someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
This statement is absolutely true but can't this logic be applied to any good or service sold for a profit?

[/ QUOTE ]

eh, I think you would have a hard time with it. To do that would be comparing a gambling transaction to a business transaction. In a business transaction, one person is exchanging something of value with another person for something else of value. They agree on what would be an equitable transaction for each party.

In gambling, both parties are risking something of value on the outcome of a random event that neither party has control over.

I think that's where you might get tripped up. Feel free to disagree. It's better if we can refine arguments on here with each other first and then present them to our senators.

Xhad
07-20-2006, 05:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is a winner and a loser with all forms of gambling and anyone making money off poker is profiting off someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
This statement is absolutely true but can't this logic be applied to any good or service sold for a profit?

[/ QUOTE ]

While money does have to come from somewhere in any transaction, generally other businesses involve trading something for the money rather than just taking it.

IronDragon1
07-20-2006, 05:25 PM
As we are all aware, in the vast majority of cases these recreational players are trading their money for entertainment.

Dan Burns
07-20-2006, 06:25 PM
I don't think we should have to make any apologies for being winning players, but I do agree that it is one of the weakest arguments we can make. I only brought it up in the piece to clarify where I was coming from. It would be a little suspicious, I think, if I went on a long rant about what is an obscure topic (for most people) without explaining why I was so interested in it.

Interestingly enough, I received a reply from Senator Menendez today. Typical reluctance to commit to an opinion, but I'm not too discouraged. He says we have to strike a balance between preserving the freedom of the internet and making sure it contributes positively to society.

Our representatives need to realize that in America, our rights come before what is good for society. It's probably good for society for the government to assign people professions, tell them what to eat and tell them when and where they can take vacations. That would improve social order and function tremendously, but do we really want that?

stormy455
07-20-2006, 06:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
It's probably good for society for the government to assign people professions, tell them what to eat and tell them when and where they can take vacations. That would improve social order and function tremendously, but do we really want that?

[/ QUOTE ] No it isn't. It would just make criminals of those of us who will continue to eat greasy burgers and vacation in Las Vegas despite the law. No matter what the do-gooders have to say, they will never, ever be able to legislate away human desires. And as long as there are desires, there will be people to fulfill them. It's a war that can never be won, but the do-gooders keep their blinders on while they fire away hoping to pick off the suppliers. It's just completely nuts.

repulse
07-20-2006, 07:27 PM
Very nice article. I like the rock music comparison a lot. I usually find that the standard comparison of banning online poker to banning alcohol to be pretty strong (but not flawless) -- most people use both for entertainment, both can be dangerous when not carefully moderated, and both lead to some amount of harm in some people, crime, and some negative socioeconomic results. Of course, the dangers of alcohol and the % of people whose lives are negatively impacted by it are much larger than the comparable poker/gambling numbers. And, of course, alcohol has some relevant historical precedent in terms of prohibition. This is a strong comparison that concisely illustrates some of the key problems in the proposed legislation.

I like your rock music comparison as the other side of the coin here... the lower bound, perhaps. There are people who might support increased regulation or a ban on alcohol. The true quantifiable downsides and dangers of online poker surely lie somewhere between alcohol and rock music, and nobody except the craziest stereotypes could be in favor of banning rock music.

I'd say the only danger of the rock music comparison, especially in a broad public forum such as a newspaper, is that most people will see the comparison as laughably distant. Somebody who does not understand poker would tend to think that it is a much larger danger than rock music and may discredit your opinions for making the comparison.

Heh. A more accurate musical analogy to 4411 would be the government banning ALL forms of music for the reasons you cited... but making an exception for Country.