[JPFisher55]

I think that we ought to equate all forms of gambling. The skill argument to elevate poker above gambling is a very good legal argument. However, for political purposes we ought to argue that casino gambling=horse racing=lottery=fantasy sports=all online gambling. Thus, we can argue that a state has two logical options. Permit all gambling or ban all gambling. When our foes argue that Internet gambling is worse than casino gambling, we can cite studies and technology to argue that Internet gambling is no more addictive or more susceptible to underage gambling than casino gambling. I can testify that I first played $2 blackjack at the MGM casino in Las Vegas at the age of 19. We can argue that this option, ban all or none, complies with the WTO decision. I know that this might not be true, but it is much more likely to comply than the IGREA, which only regulates some forms of Internet gambling. In addition, this argument points out the hypocrisy in the foes of online gambling and exposes their true goal to eliminate all gambling. Plus, how many states will want to give up their lottery. If forced to choose, I bet almost all the states will choose to permit all gambling rather than ban all gambling.