Great Boston Globe article today on gambling (KY race included)

[Uglyowl]

Great article in today's Boston Globe about gambling. Mr. Jacoby is the only right-wing leaning columnist for the Globe.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editori...e_american_way/

Key points:

Mr. Jacoby reviews a half dozen fights across the country over gambling (unfortunately online gaming is not included).

Conclusion of his article:

"Why do state governments treat casinos and their would-be owners this way? It can't be from any inherent objections to gambling -- 42 states have government-run lotteries, with annual revenues of more than $50 billion. It can't be because gambling is intrinsically immoral. Countless churches and religious organizations raise funds through bingo, lotteries, and Las Vegas nights. And it certainly can't be said that gambling flouts our national tradition. The Continental Congress established a national lottery to help finance the Revolutionary War. Riverboat gambling thrived on Mark Twain's Mississippi. Saloon gambling was a mainstay of the California Gold Rush. Gambling is as American as bourbon and Betsy Ross.

There is no good reason why entry into the casino business should be so severely restricted. It is true, as Kentucky's governor and many others point out, that gambling has social costs. Though it's harmless fun for most people, some gamblers become addicted. Compulsive gambling can ruin lives and wreck families.

But alcohol addiction devastates even more lives than gambling, yet who thinks we should return to Prohibition or make it all but impossible to open a bar or a liquor store? Automobile accidents kill 40,000 Americans every year, and severely injure tens of thousands more. The social costs of cars are steep, but no one wants lawmakers to criminalize auto dealerships or decide which cities can have one. The harm caused by graphic, violent, or propagandistic films may be great, but that isn't an argument for state-controlled studios.

The struggles of compulsive gamblers should not be minimized, but neither should they be used to justify authoritarianism. Gambling and casinos are not for everyone. But the American way is to err on the side of freedom."

[Uglyowl]

Dear Mr. Jacoby,

Thank you for writing about the hypocracy of our government when it comes to gambling. To further your point I would like to add the The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) that was passed as a last second attachment to the Safe Ports Act last year. This law’s purpose is to try to restrict American’s rights to play online poker and other casino games from the comfort of their own homes. Unfortunately some in the current administration have taken steps to legislate behaviors.

The same game that is legal at casinos, dog tracks, and card rooms across the country has been under attack if it takes place in your living room. Also when this law was passed, special carve-outs were made for online horse betting, lotteries, and fantasy sports. The hypocracy that betting on the #5 horse to win, 1-7-21-24-35, or betting $1,000 on football players is ok, but playing cards is not is absurd.

Maybe more importantly year after year, appeal after appeal, the World Trade Organization ruled that United States is out of compliance with it’s trade agreements and on the hook for billions of dollars in retribution over it’s gambling stance of not allowing foreign companies to participate . The following article describes where we are at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/busine...amp;oref=slogin

Instead of gaining billions in tax revenues, the government’s stance that online gaming is illegal will not only cause lost tax revenue, but cost billions in sanctions! I see this issue as another example of a government trying to get too big and too far reaching. As a former Republican die hard, I really hope that they go back to the days of the true conservatism. Ronald Reagan’s line of “I did not leave the Democratic Party. It left me” holds very true except the shoe is on the Republican Parties foot for many Americans today.

Thanks again,


XXXXXX XXXX

[LegallyBlind]

[ QUOTE ]
The struggles of compulsive gamblers should not be minimized, but neither should they be used to justify authoritarianism. Gambling and casinos are not for everyone. But the American way is to err on the side of freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh man, such a sick final graph. i'm going to change it around and use it in my next letter to my representatives

[Ace0fSpades]

Very well written letter, you raise some good points and hopefully we will see something come out of this.

[oldbookguy]

letter to Jacoby and letter Editor (edited version to them)

Dear Mr. Jacoby,

I enjoyed you article concerning casinos and the hypocrisy surrounding them.

However, what I find even more incredulous is the position and lack of understanding concerning Internet Wagering.

Take for instance, the Massachusetts Lottery. In reading the FAQ’s, I read:
Can non-residents play the game? If so, how do they collect?
Yes, anyone 18 and over can purchase any Lottery product at any agent location. All players can collect their prizes at the same locations listed in question four. Additionally, Season Tickets can be purchased directly from any sales agent while in the state or from out of state, by calling l-800-222-TKTS. The ticket can be registered in the owner's name by completing and returning the registration form to the Lottery. Season Tickets are available for Megabucks, Mass Cash, Mega Millions and Cash Winfall.
Mega Millions Season Tickets CANNOT be purchased via phone from out of state.

Later it states:
Can I play the Massachusetts Lottery on the internet?

The Massachusetts State Lottery adheres to the federal law, the Wire Communications Act of 1961, which prohibits the use of wire communication facilities (telephone lines)<emphasis added> for interstate or foreign gambling purposes. The use of telephone wires in internet transmission is defined under that law and therefore it is unlawful for the Lottery to offer its games for sale on-line.
Excuse me, purchasing on the telephone is a ‘wire transmission faculity’ is it not, so is there a difference or just a prejudice against the Internet?

Now to the REAL look. Located in Newton Ma. Is a company, Worldwinner.com that offers on the INTERNET legal wagering in the United states and World Wide and yes, to residents of Ma. And the U. S.
They offer games marketed as ‘skill’ games such as hearts, solitaire, spades, free cell, Children’s video games and more.
So, why the prejudice my Ma. And other states concerning your local lottery and other games such as poker on the internet.
The state is able to effectivly regulate and collect taxes from these games.

obg

[oldbookguy]

Added to GOP.com today as well. I know, they will not take kindly to it, but, what the heck they can ban me from there if they want.

obg

[grapabo]

[ QUOTE ]
"Why do state governments treat casinos and their would-be owners this way? It can't be from any inherent objections to gambling -- 42 states have government-run lotteries, with annual revenues of more than $50 billion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's entirely consistent for a state to allow lotteries and disallow other kinds of gambling, if the public policy is against people trying to make their livelihood from gambling, rather than against all types of gambling. The purpose of a state or charitable lottery isn't to reward the winner, but to entice people to contribute to raise funds.

[Legislurker]

I wrote him asking him to please examine the WTO issue and whats being given away tradewise to protect gambling rackets run by politicians and their in-laws. We really need to score a coup with a big op-ed in a major paper by the editorial board. If we cant get 1st tier papers, a second tier one like Boston will do.

[Uglyowl]

[ QUOTE ]
a second tier one like Boston will do.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is weird to hear the Globe referred to as a second tier paper for me [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Any given Sunday, it is the 15th or 16th highest circulated newspaper in the country, so that term is fair I guess!

562,000+ readers isn't too shabby though.

[Legislurker]

Its just never been considered a national paper.
Times, Post, tribune, WSJ, USA, thats about it. LA almost makes it, but I think a lot of Californians prefer SF Chron, so if you cant carry your own state........