[jlkrusty]

A good approach is to have maybe three main points that you want to get out. Organize and memorize those points in your head. Then, regardless of what the guy asks, somehow get those three points out in your answers.

Now, as for what those points should be, people have already made very good suggestions. One of your main points should NOT be that you win lots of money doing it. If I were doing it, my three main points would be:

1. People should have the freedom of choice. We are free to eat fast food, smoke tabacoo, and drink alcohol, but are being told that we cannot play poker on our internet. Where are the greater harms?
2. Prohibition of activities that most people don't really think is wrong has never worked. We tried prohibition before and it failed miserably. Better to regulate than to prohibit.
3. The legislation is hypocritcal. While trying to ban online poker, it makes exceptions for horse racing, lotteries, and betting on fantasy football. That's hypocracy at its finest.

Now, if you want to bring out different points, that is fine too. But, you just want to stay focused on getting your main points out. Don't let the interviewer take you on any tangents. No matter what they ask, always swing your answers back to your main points.

If they ask specifically what the UIGEA has done, I would say that it is not targeting any individual poker players; rather it is targetting banks by prohibitting them from making deposits with online gambling sites. This has caused some online gambling sites to exit the U.S. market, but several others have stepped and are welcoming U.S. players. Thus, the impact of UIGEA will likely only be short term. Again, this is because prohibition does not work. People will always find a way around barriers; it just temporarily slows them down. (Notice how even on this question, I eventually moved back to the point on prohibition).