![]() |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
I guess I’m just not wanting to see (in the midst of poker trying to become more credible for various reasons) some story on the news taking ten random students who have over 75k in college loans in default that they can’t pay back, and like 30k of that is on poker alone. This has nothing to do with governments taking our freedoms, and so on. It has to do with poker trying to become more credible, and the things that will make that credibility more difficult to attain. [/ QUOTE ] This really is the point. These are made up numbers, but I think 15% of the public hates gambling, 15% love gambling, and 70% are mostly ambivilant towards RESPONSIBLE gambling. The battle going on really is to persuade the middle that our side is correct. To that end, we have the argument and bias of American's towards personal freedom. On the other side, there is the picture of IRRESPONSIBLE gambling and its consequences. To that extent that we can demonstrate that gambling can be allowed to be readily available (at the push of a button) we have to be able to demonstrate that the scourge of irresponsible gambling will not become too great a burden. For that reason, sites voluntarily set deposit limits, age limits etc., to combat the fear that they are preying on the overly vulnerable with the gravest of consequences. see "click a mouse, lose your house". It pays to be proactive on these types of issues. By the same token, t would not be a good thing if people converting student loans to gambling bankrolls became a problem. Notwithstanding the fact that college students "know everything", they are young people with virtually no money management experience who are MOST prone to addicition. It would be much better to deal with this proactively then to let it become a great weapon for the anti-gambling crowd. |
|
|