Dinner With A Congressman

[Sciolist]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can remember at least a half dozen stories of daytraders killing half an office and then themselves after the tech market went busto. I haven't heard of 1 poker pro killing himself or anyone else after losing his entire bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1299780

[/ QUOTE ]

OK that's one now. At least he didn't take an office full of brokers with him. Young people kill themselves everyday. Maybe gambling,maybe unbalanced? Good link though,thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeh, there were other factors here too, but then there always are with suicides.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]
You can also get addicted to Cigarettes - shall we ban that, or regulate it?

[/ QUOTE ]

To my mind, tobacco is the best example to use. Cigarettes can be addicting and harmful, as gambling/poker can be for some people - to deny that is futile and wrong. However, smoking is being addressed very successfully not by any attempt at prohibition but rather regulations against underage smoking (admittly not perfect but they provide at least some barrier) and especially education. This approach has dramatically reduced smoking while still allowing adults the freedom to make their own choices - why not try this same proven approach to online gambling? The fact that the taxation of gambling, just as tobacco, would be a windfall for the government is yet another reason that he should support a licensed and regulated industry rather than prohibition.

[Poker CPA]

Huge Mistake. You can't win when it comes to vices, not over the dinner table with family members and friends. Invite him to play golf and bring it up. What's worth more, NOT changing his mind, or future insights or favors.

[rokstedy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Addicted to day trading

[/ QUOTE ]

8 year old article... best you could find????

[/ QUOTE ]


A. It was top of the google search.

B. Does it really matter if it was 8 years ago? Or is everything all better now? The fact that that article is 8 years old suggest to me only that this is an old problem that has been largely ignored for....8 years.

But really, my only point in making the comparison is that there was no major outcry by the public about this. And that's fine with me. The choices we make with what to do with our money is ours. Maybe they're good for us, maybe they're not. But they're ours. If someone wants to risk their money trading stocks, playing poker, investing in real estate or whatever, there will always be inherent risks involved. It's the very nature of capitalism.

If this really is a push by the right to rid us of an evil, to protect us from ourselves, how can they so blind to this? I see them talk and talk and talk about other issues like porn, alcohol and drugs, but they're still around and there doesn't seem to be any chance of them going away either. And for this reason, I feel comfortable that poker will stay as well.

[Poker CPA]

You might try the "Organizied Crime" effect. This ACT generates more capital and power for the "Mob" to continue and expand their evil ways, especially drugs. Don't bring up that you play poker.

[Piece of Cake]

1. Money, money, money. More tax revenue from taxes. More revenue for domestic corporations if they can enter the market, instead of the current situation were nondomestic companies are making a killing off of US consumers.
2. Prohibition doesn't work - see alcohol.
3. Prohibition doesn't solve the problem he is trying to prevent. He doesn't want addicts and underaged playing and doesn't want it to be used for money laundering. Forcing poker underground doesn't stop the abusers, it only stops the law abiding users from playing, domestic companies from profiting, and the US government from effectively taxing and regulating the industry. Legalizing and regulation allows for implentation of means to prevent abuse. The UK sites have done a number of things to this effect.
4. Freedom of discretionary income. If I want to spend $400 on a bottle of wine, or a round of golf, or a game of poker, it's my choice. It's entertainment.
5. Separation of church and state. Gambling is a form of entertainment paid for out of discretionary income. One's religion may prevent them from partaking in the activity, such as it does one from drinking alcohol. But our country was formed on the freedom of religion.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd just go with "Yes, you can get addicted. You can also get addicted to McDonalds - shall we ban that? You can also get addicted to Cigarettes - shall we ban that, or regulate it? You can also get addicted to alchohol - shall we ban that? Oh, we already tried, look how well that worked. You can also get addicted to betting on horses, shall we ban that? Oh, we specifically allowed it"

[/ QUOTE ]

1. As I've said before, this argument doesn't say anything about what should be done with Poker. At best it points out that there is an inconsistency in the law. No surprise. The argument needs to be based on WHY this bill doesn't address the problems with Poker, while creating whole new problems.

2. Everybody that compares this to Alcohol and Tobacco are missing a key point. The government isn't banning poker. They're focused on ONLINE poker.

If you try to buy alcohol over the internet there are laws that require you to be identified as older than X years, and that can be checked on delivery. Another difference is that Alcoholics can't jump online and get a quick drink to keep drinking when they run out. Problem gamblers can go broke, reload, and keep spending money. There's no cool down period in the system.

I don't know the status of buying cigarettes over the internet, but I imagine its the same, that you prove your identity when you receive the product. Online casinos have no way of enforcing age requirements, and I think most of us on here know of people underage gambling.


Anyway, I'm just saying that these arguments are flawed. Getting back to the OP, the arguments I'd use would be based on accepting that there should be some regulation for problem gambling, fraud, taxation, etc. but that it comes down to a matter of personal responsibility and personal choice (something Republicans love to talk about, but rarely allow). If you're an adult you should be able to spend your money how you want and if that includes playing poker then so be it.

The horse racing bit should definitely be brought up though. Its such blatant evidence in the hypocrisy of politicians.

[Mondogarage]

[ QUOTE ]
I still think it is comparable to alcohol. Many, if not most, college students start drinking alcohol before it is legal to do so. Many of them develop alcohol problems, but the majority learn how to control themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just silly. Underage drunk driving kills thousands of people a year. Binge drinking kills college students yearly. Gambling problems can certainly lead to other problems, but to compare the two as simliar doesn't do your argument any favors.

If you want to convince your congressman never to vote to allow online poker, just tell him it's like underage drinking.

[rokstedy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still think it is comparable to alcohol. Many, if not most, college students start drinking alcohol before it is legal to do so. Many of them develop alcohol problems, but the majority learn how to control themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just silly. Underage drunk driving kills thousands of people a year. Binge drinking kills college students yearly. Gambling problems can certainly lead to other problems, but to compare the two as simliar doesn't do your argument any favors.

If you want to convince your congressman never to vote to allow online poker, just tell him it's like underage drinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Any comparison to other ILLEGAL activities is just stupid. Why create the association?

[Mondogarage]

You want to know how to get Congress to authorize online poker?

1. Convicne MGM / Harrahs / Station / Isle of Capri / various Indian casinos, etc. to lobby the politicians they are already tight with, and convince them to operate their own sites under regulation. Right now, those that don't own the offshore sites don't have a horse in this race, and the more shortsighted of them have possibly been against online poker, thinking it costs them revenue. Convince them to take a stake, and you'll have a more powerful lobbying group than PPA can ever be. And convince the NFL officials to stay out of the battle.

2. Don't compare online poker to any other activity whose offline version is still illegal (e.g. drugs, underage drinking, prostitution, sports betting, etc.) If you're painting with a brush with any existing stains on it, your canvas will reflect that.

3. Accept that poker is a form of gambling, but also a game of skill. You cannot argue with a straight face to a congressman that, just because a great deal of skill is involved, poker is not gambling. And you cannot teach a congressman what is the +EV play. Besides, you don't want to convince a congressman that, because poker contains a large skill element, a minority of overall poker players can make a lot of money. Why? Becuase you've just convinced him, at the same time, that poker is truly gambling for the majority of poker players. And if there's anything a politician likes to trumpet, it's their record of saving people from themselves.

4. Demonstrate that the sites can be rock solid protected from underage players being able to access it. If you can prove the technology will truly only allow over 21 to play, then you defuse the issue about minors getting into trouble.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm multi-tasking here...