Re: PPA Statement
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, IMO if a federal law giving poker this exemption is passed, then, under a line of cases referred to as the dormant commerce clause cases, that exemption would preempt state laws on online gambling.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. I ask again, why would PPA then need to promote regulation of something that has just been made perfectly legal?
[/ QUOTE ]
It would not appeal to a libertarian but regulation can be used to help problem gamblers, ordinary players and help promote the game to a wider audience.
In Sept 2007 any UK based site will have to do quite a few "good" things because of the regulations. Ok things a site could choose to do anyway but under the regs they must...
Hold players money in a segregated account
Pay out promptly
Clearly and accurately show the odds (casino etc not poker really)
Ensure the games are fair and have them tested/audited
Make users set deposit limits per week/month
Show users what their total loss/win is
Show users how long they have been playing that session
Ensure all registered players are over 18
Allow players to self exclude
Link to gambling help sites/groups
Have a responsible gambling policy
Seek to identify and help problem gamblers
Pay towards gambling research and gambling welfare services
Be "fit and proper" people - no crims.
Monitor for and report potential money laundering activities.
After all this they get official sanction which makes the site more attractive to the casual player. (More Fish)
[/ QUOTE ]
So you are saying you can't have an exemption or carveout without also having regulations for that exemption? That doesn't seem to be the PPA (and others) stance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Is there regulations for online horse betting? Are banks pulling out on online horse betting sites?
No...so don't worry about the other garbage people post on this forum.
If poker gets an exemption like horse betting, we're fine.
|