Re: The sad results of prohibition.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The original post certainly implied there is a link
[/ QUOTE ]
How so? I thought, perhaps incorrectly, that D$D was referring to the general prohibitionist stance against gambling in the US (ie illegal in the majority of locals, or severely restricted, $5 bj hands at local bars).
This results in underground games with sketchy security and large piles of cash and hence incidents like the one mentioned in the article.
[/ QUOTE ]
Looking at it again, I have to agree with LFrog- I misinterpreted D$D's post title.
(and after I mixed it up with Skall about making assumptions.... [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] )
My apologies, D$D
However, I still say that, legal or not, it doesn't change anything. Not everyone is going to play in monitored clubs, and this kind of thing can and probably will happen regardless of the laws.
Making poker illegal DOES make it harder to present a risky front to potential criminals, unfortunately....
[/ QUOTE ]
Not a problem. I'm used to getting yelled at, the net is pretty mild.
But over all without the prohibition people would be less likely to play in underground games, the same way there were no speakeasies.
IMO Frank DeSena's adopted son, fatherless again, who Frank as a parent had decided to stay home with to help with the child's education deserves a college fund in his father's name. IMO "we" poker players could make that happen. A few well ogranized charity events similar to "Put a Bad Beat on Cancer", would make this 16 year old's life much easier.
D$D
|