Re: Poker IS legal, why pretend otherwise ? Why want regulation ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Poker IS legal. Why do you keep saying it is not ? Unless you are "on the side" of folks who are afraid to enter this already legal market ?


There is no need to "go back to then", Poker's legality NEVER changed. Read the UIGEA, nothing changed. The real fight is to keep unwarranted interference OUT of the legal poker market, not to invite regulation in because that suits your US-based casino interests.


Legal need not mean "regulated". The trend for the US is actually toward de-regulation and freeing of markets and trade. Why do you think de-regulation, free trade, and private business is a thing of the past ?


Why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ?

Again, why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ? A conflict with vested interests in US gaming ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

Re: New Report: Internet Gambling Does Not Lead to Problem Gambling
 

[ QUOTE ]
Good post. I'll look for your release on Google Alerts.

Be prepared for the following negative comments..... Your release mistates that problem gambling has not increase. Rather, the survey at most says that the RATE of problem gambling is not affected. This does not mean there aren't MORE, due to the growth of Internet exposure, just that the rate at which people develop problems is unchanged.

The most you could say is that this survey seems to indicate that Internet gambling is no more addictive than any other form.

[/ QUOTE ]

Smart point about rate vs numbers.

But we should also remember that prohibition doesn't mean zero usage.

Even if a person only looked at the increase in problem gambling cases and ignored the rate, and used the increased numbers to argue for prohibition, the number of problem gamblers that would still use online gaming even in a prohibitive scheme would have to be subtracted out to get a reliable total.

This is the fallacy of prohibition. Prohibition may slow, but rarely stops a behavior. Our opponents always conveniently forget that point. We should never let them.

Prohibition is meant to punish sin, not eradicate or prevent it 100%.
 

You write "This is the fallacy of prohibition. Prohibition may slow, but rarely stops a behavior. Our opponents always conveniently forget that point.'

Our opponents do not care. They are happy to "slow" the behavior and punish those who support it. ... All the while denying to everyone their right to the 'pursuit of happiness".

Do not forget, the other side is quite happy with a legal system which:

slows sinful behavior,
punishes sinful behavior, and
deters behavior.

That it is not 100% effective is not a problem to them.

Our "friends" want a legal system to

Tax sinful behavior,
monopolize profits from sinful behavior,
amd, in the interim, prohibit and punish sinful behavior

The Wexler Bill does the least to interfere with your "pursuit of happiness" by playing poker online.

Why settle for less ?

Re: Prohibition is meant to punish sin, not eradicate or prevent it 100%.
 

This is the correct site address:

http://safeandsecureig.org/

Re: Prohibition is meant to punish sin, not eradicate or prevent it 10
 

Milton, methinks thou doest protest too much.

I doubt there is anyone on this board who actually wants government regulated online poker as their first choice. I certainly do not.

But neither do I like the current situation where half the world's poker sites wont let me play and its a damn difficult chore to move money around the other half.

If I thought we had the clout to get the Wexler passed as is, I'd not even mention the other "minimal regulations" that I have previously expressed tolerance towards.

So lets all agree:

Best result: Wexler Bill, online poker is a skill game with almost no government interference.

Second Best result: Wexler bill with minimal regulations regarding age verification, etc...

Third best result: Status quo

Fourth result: Highly regulated government and big business run online poker.

Worst result: outright poker prohibition.

Some folks might mix my 3rd and 4th result (i.e. prefer massive regulation to the status quo) but until we are at a point where option #2 is unavailable, why argue over it?

My analysis of the political climate leads me to advocate for #2 because that same analysis tells me we are not going to get #1 but can get #2.

Skallagrim

Re: Poker IS legal, why pretend otherwise ? Why want regulation ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
'I think I'm on your side. I want legal, regulated poker."

Why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ? We HAVE legal poker, the Wexler Bill would remove it from government interference under the poorly drafted UIGEA, a really clean fix.

Poker IS legal. Why do you keep saying it is not ? Unless you are "on the side" of folks who are afraid to enter this already legal market ?

My "side" wants to get/keep the government off the backs of US players.

What your apparent "side" wants is a green light to enter the market and to throw sh*t on it in the meantime.

There is no need to "go back to then", Poker's legality NEVER changed. Read the UIGEA, nothing changed. The real fight is to keep unwarranted interference OUT of the legal poker market, not to invite regulation in because that suits your US-based casino interests.

Legal need not mean "regulated". The trend for the US is actually toward de-regulation and freeing of markets and trade. Why do you think de-regulation, free trade, and private business is a thing of the past ?

Why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ?

By the way, the California Gold Rush analogy stinks, unless what you really mean the analogy is between the Internet and California; then believe is that everything Internet needs to be regulated. That is where your Nanny Statism leads you. Nope, you are not on my side and are not even a good ally in this fight for US players.

Again, why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ? A conflict with vested interests in US gaming ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You might as well make the same argument for alcohol, guns, porn, age of consent, etc, etc.

You want zero government intreference with what you want to do. Ain't gonna happen in this world.

So, take what is doable, or tilt at windmills.

Tuff

Re: Poker IS legal, why pretend otherwise ? Why want regulation ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
'I think I'm on your side. I want legal, regulated poker."


[ QUOTE ]
Why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ? We HAVE legal poker, the Wexler Bill would remove it from government interference under the poorly drafted UIGEA, a really clean fix.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one that I know of doesn't support the Wexler Bill.

[ QUOTE ]
Poker IS legal. Why do you keep saying it is not ? Unless you are "on the side" of folks who are afraid to enter this already legal market ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your side of the argument or the "pond?" I'm possibly confused.

But if you mean current US players! Then while poker might be legal to play and fine if you don't need to put any new money on an existing US "friendly poker site". But as some one who is at this very moment in the process of trying to deposit the current legal enviroment SUCKS! At a minimum I have to pay an e-wallet at least 5%, without any US banking protection to an e-wallet that might be the next NetTeller or worse! Not to mention all the fishy games on poker sites I can't deposit to!

[ QUOTE ]
My "side" wants to get/keep the government off the backs of US players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee my side is that the US government can have some portion, but not all of my 5% to give me save, secure, legal deposits to all poker sites. If to get that I have to throw the under aged players under the bus, F'em! If I have to let the government fund a dozen annual problem gambler studies or 12 step clinics out of lisencing fees from the on-line poker sites, under the bus they go as well! Finally if I have to take a pay cut or volunteer what ever talents I have to help the PPA become a grassroots organization that will address the F'ed up poker taxes, I'll crawl under the bus my wife is going to drive over my head and ass. Yes I know that some of you, like she thinks that is where my head is located most of the time.

[ QUOTE ]
What your apparent "side" wants is a green light to enter the market and to throw sh*t on it in the meantime.

There is no need to "go back to then", Poker's legality NEVER changed. Read the UIGEA, nothing changed. The real fight is to keep unwarranted interference OUT of the legal poker market, not to invite regulation in because that suits your US-based casino interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pure BS. See above for complete disclosure on my motives.

[ QUOTE ]
Legal need not mean "regulated". The trend for the US is actually toward de-regulation and freeing of markets and trade. Why do you think de-regulation, free trade, and private business is a thing of the past ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Heck I even favor some sort of on-line gaming commission if for no other reason than I don't ever want to see another "on-line poker is rigged" post or comment!


Sure over regulation will kill on-line poker. The minimum regulation I have seen discussed and supported in this site, others, and by the PPA doesn't come close IMPO to any where near any over regulation. Barring entry to a free market by existing US friendly poker sites would be a step in that direction. Making the regulator bar much higher that proposed is a step in the wrong direction and I would oppose.

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ?

By the way, the California Gold Rush analogy stinks, unless what you really mean the analogy is between the Internet and California; then believe is that everything Internet needs to be regulated. That is where your Nanny Statism leads you. Nope, you are not on my side and are not even a good ally in this fight for US players.

Again, why can't "your side" simply support the Wexler Bill and get the government out of the poker market ? A conflict with vested interests in US gaming ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be happy to support the Wexler Bill all the way. But IMPO it is not politically pratical given the leg up the other side has in this political fight. So I fully support the bill I do not expect it nor am I personally willing to only accept such a deal.

So if you want to call me a 1/2 a loafer to be able to eat so be it. In my opinion the status quote SUCKS as well. For me to get what I consider is a full loaf I'm willing to give away a few in my opinion crumbs. I get it you may not agree to my view of the size of the loaf and you opinion of what constitutes crumbs.


But there it is since you asked,


D$D

Re: Prohibition is meant to punish sin, not eradicate or prevent it 10
 

Nice post Skallagrim; I agree with you. We don't prefer regulated poker to unregulated, explicitly legal, poker. Rather, we're being pragmatic.

We lost the HR 4411 vote 317-93. To me, that was a huge wake-up call.

Some comments:

- I think #1 and #2 are virtually the same. If Wexler's bill passes, age verification will surely be included (it's there now).

[ QUOTE ]
SEC. 4. SAFEGUARDS.

(a)(1) Appropriate safeguards to ensure that the individual participant depositing funds is 18 years of age or older.

[/ QUOTE ]

- I think #3 and #4 are close. Highly regulated poker would bring back a lot of fish. Also, the environment would be a lot more stable than the status quo, which could get worse at the whim of the DoJ, the UIGEA regs, or any other number of things. I mention it because fighting for #4 (IGREA) helps us to keep #3, by allowing us to have this tool to use politically to show our opposition to UIGEA.

- There is a fifth result, where bad UIGEA regs are created that significantly hamper our ability to play but are short of an outright prohibition. Or, a Reno or Giuliani-type AG decides to "clean up" the country of whatever s/he personally considers "illegal Internet gambling" by harrassing the industry just short of testing the Wire Act. Again, our advocacy of #1/#2 and #4 help us here as well.

Re: Prohibition is meant to punish sin, not eradicate or prevent it 10
 

All good points Engineer. I forgot that Wexler's bill had age verification in it. I think it will take just a few more bones (RNG certification, problem gambling ID software, money laundering ID and reporting, full tax reporting, US agent, and (maybe) a licensing fee or cut of the rake/money transferred - I definitely wouldnt give up these last 2 unless absolutely necessary) and we can have enough votes to pass it late next year and get a Dem pres to sign it in '09.

And yes, its very important to remember that the "status quo" is ever subject to change and could get a lot worse very fast. In fact, I think at this stage all we really need to argue for politically is openly legal online poker in any form - as our enemies attack us with scare stories we give up the "bones" as needed to make sure the fence sitters fall on our side.

Skallagrim

Re: Prohibition is meant to punish sin, not eradicate or prevent it 10
 

[ QUOTE ]
...
Third best result: Status quo

Fourth result: Highly regulated government and big business run online poker.

...

Some folks might mix my 3rd and 4th result (i.e. prefer massive regulation to the status quo)

[/ QUOTE ]

#4 >>> #3, if you play poker to make money and not just for the competition/fun.

but [ QUOTE ]
why argue over it?

[/ QUOTE ]