LA Times Article

[spidey74]

Here is an article that made the front page of the LA Times today that paints gambling in a very bad light. At least for poker, I'm pretty darn sure that for every person who loses their house from gambling online, there is someone else who bought a house from their gambling online. Where's our front page article on the successes of online gambling??

LA Times Article (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-gambler1nov01,1,7102379.story?page=1&coll=la-headlines-frontpage)

[The Bryce]

The article doesn't really have anything to say about online gambling, it's just a story about some fellow with a compulsive / addictive personality who failed to accept responsibility for his circumstances.

[Hock_]

FWIW, I've practiced before this judge and he's extremely good. Frankly, I think this guy got off easy.

[jlkrusty]

This article is really about a thief trying to use something else as an excuse for his stealing. The last three paragraphs (the judge's sentence) of this article are the best part:

"We can't let everybody who comes in here and wants to use an addiction, whether it be compulsive gambling, whether it be compulsive drinking, whether it be drug addiction, we can't as a society let them utilize that as a method of getting out of their wrong acts. You know, it's like my saying I'm addicted to beautiful women and fast cars, so I get to steal from the court's trust account….

"He's here because he's a thief. He's a thief. That's the bottom line. He's a thief. And he needs to acknowledge that, not use the gambling as a crutch. He let down his family. He let down his friends. He let down his employer. He let himself down. But the bottom line is he's a thief, and he needs to be punished for being a thief.

Four years."

[blueodum]

This article is in line with the thinking of most 2+2'ers, I would guess. Read the judge's thoughts (at the end of the article):

"We can't let everybody who comes in here and wants to use an addiction, whether it be compulsive gambling, whether it be compulsive drinking, whether it be drug addiction, we can't as a society let them utilize that as a method of getting out of their wrong acts. You know, it's like my saying I'm addicted to beautiful women and fast cars, so I get to steal from the court's trust account….

"He's here because he's a thief. He's a thief. That's the bottom line. He's a thief. And he needs to acknowledge that, not use the gambling as a crutch. He let down his family. He let down his friends. He let down his employer. He let himself down. But the bottom line is he's a thief, and he needs to be punished for being a thief."

This is a powerful statement of the crucial importance of taking responsibility for your own actions.

Yes this guy was an addicted gambler - and he should get treatment to help him. But he must take responsibility for the money he stole. Thievery was his way out of his problems.

Fundamentally, he's a weak person who couldn't (can't?) control himself. What society ought to do about these types of people is a tricky question, but letting him off lightly is not the option I would choose.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
This article is in line with the thinking of most 2+2'ers, I would guess. Read the judge's thoughts (at the end of the article):

"We can't let everybody who comes in here and wants to use an addiction, whether it be compulsive gambling, whether it be compulsive drinking, whether it be drug addiction, we can't as a society let them utilize that as a method of getting out of their wrong acts. You know, it's like my saying I'm addicted to beautiful women and fast cars, so I get to steal from the court's trust account….

"He's here because he's a thief. He's a thief. That's the bottom line. He's a thief. And he needs to acknowledge that, not use the gambling as a crutch. He let down his family. He let down his friends. He let down his employer. He let himself down. But the bottom line is he's a thief, and he needs to be punished for being a thief."

This is a powerful statement of the crucial importance of taking responsibility for your own actions.

Yes this guy was an addicted gambler - and he should get treatment to help him. But he must take responsibility for the money he stole. Thievery was his way out of his problems.

Fundamentally, he's a weak person who couldn't (can't?) control himself. What society ought to do about these types of people is a tricky question, but letting him off lightly is not the option I would choose.

[/ QUOTE ]Correct,i feel bad for him or anyone who destroys their life.But to blame gambling is idiotic,the gambling was just the aim of his obsessive uncontrolled behavior as you stated.If there was no such thing as gambling he wouldve found another vice to abuse.Too bad majority(or alot of people at least) cant understand this simple reality.

[c5Nfold]

This is no different than Mel Gibson or Mark Foley blaming alcohol for their dumb deads. I am a RECOVERING alcoholic and do get tired of these dweebs blaming all their troubles on alcohol or now gambling. The time comes in everyones life that you must take responsibility for your own actions. And, as I did alot of stupid things while I was drunk, alcohol itself was not the cause of my problem. So banning alcohol for everyone because I could not control myself would be stupid. This is just the kind of thing that Frist uses to justify his action on gambling. Never mind that he is under investigation for misappropriation of funds and insider trading.

[Uglyowl]

He got addicted by going through a local bookie also. This new bill is just going to give rise to more of these local bar guys running gambling rings (with crappy odds)

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
At least for poker, I'm pretty darn sure that for every person who loses their house from gambling online, there is someone else who bought a house from their gambling online.

[/ QUOTE ]
One word: R-A-K-E. Because of it, I'd say the ratio is a long way from 1:1. On top of that, the social costs of someone going broke from gambling far outweigh the gain the other party makes or the benefit that provides.

[ QUOTE ]
Where's our front page article on the successes of online gambling??

[/ QUOTE ]

What success? You're naive if you don't think that online gambling is a social ill, just like meth or cocaine. Sure, adults should be free to do what they want. But you have to realize that statistically, the existence of online gambling results in more problem gamblers, more college dropouts, greater numbers of mental health suffers and socially isolated individuals, and more fraud. It's not in any way a positive for society. It's a burden and nothing else.

The only credible arguments against prohibition are:

1. Prohibition may not be the most effective way to manage the social burden of gambling
2. The government shouldn't tell people what to do with their money.

[burningyen]

Like it or not, rightly or wrongly, we players and the industry now have the burden of convincing people that it's possible to prevent this kind of thing from happening via regulation or industry self-policing. IMHO any hope of getting a poker carve-out bill passed will depend more on this line of argument rather than any arguments for civil liberties and personal freedom, which no longer seem to hold any water these days.

[Voltaire]

The LA Times is notorious for its anti-gambling stand. They do not post baseball or basketball lines. They may post football lines for fear of losing readers (which shows their hypocrisy). Every few months over the many years I used to read the Times they manufactured some anti-gambling story to please the ownership. Now that they are owned by the Tribune people, I'm surprised that the anti-gambling bias continues--or maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

[blueodum]

It's not in any way a positive for society. It's a burden and nothing else.

I would disagree with this. Losing players derive entertainment for their money, just as they would when they pay to go see a sporting event.

[5thStreetHog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At least for poker, I'm pretty darn sure that for every person who loses their house from gambling online, there is someone else who bought a house from their gambling online.

[/ QUOTE ]
One word: R-A-K-E. Because of it, I'd say the ratio is a long way from 1:1. On top of that, the social costs of someone going broke from gambling far outweigh the gain the other party makes or the benefit that provides.

[ QUOTE ]
Where's our front page article on the successes of online gambling??

[/ QUOTE ]

What success? You're naive if you don't think that online gambling is a social ill, just like meth or cocaine. Sure, adults should be free to do what they want. But you have to realize that statistically, the existence of online gambling results in more problem gamblers, more college dropouts, greater numbers of mental health suffers and socially isolated individuals, and more fraud. It's not in any way a positive for society. It's a burden and nothing else.

The only credible arguments against prohibition are:

1. Prohibition may not be the most effective way to manage the social burden of gambling
2. The government shouldn't tell people what to do with their money.

[/ QUOTE ]There is no perspective in your arguement.On the range on things that effect our society,this falls at the bottom of the scale.You cant govern a free society by using the lowest common denominator as your basis for reaction.If we did this,we would not be free anymore.Does not religion cause greater numbers of mental health suffers and socially isolated individuals, and more fraud than gambling???Does not fast food and or smoking cause more social costs($)than gambling?You want to make those a crime too?In fairness,your arguement is well stated,and has some valid points.But in reality,they are all irrelevant.FREEDOM is far more valuable than eliminating this so called "burden on society" you speak of.

[5thStreetHog]

Btw,about comparing gambling to cocaine and meth.Meth is a relatively newer fad,so i will put that aside for sake of arguement.Your example could end up being a bulleye,but for destroying the arguement you try to make.Because the reality is that the war on cocaine and the results of this "war" have turned out to be ten fold the "burden" on society that cocaine itself couldve ever been.But sorry,i better just shut up here before i open a can of worms /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
Btw,about comparing gambling to cocaine and meth.Meth is a relatively newer fad,so i will put that aside for sake of arguement.Your example could end up being a bulleye,but for destroying the arguement you try to make.Because the reality is that the war on cocaine and the results of this "war" have turned out to be ten fold the "burden" on society that cocaine itself couldve ever been.But sorry,i better just shut up here before i open a can of worms /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

i bought a gram of coke yesterday. i plan on railing it this weekend and pulling multiple ADHOC's.