This is part 3 of a multipart series of articles regarding planned anti-gambling legislation. In this article, I continue the discussion of the reasons claimed to make this legislation superslot necessary, and the facts which exist in real life, including the Jack Abramoff connection and the paralyzing nature of online casino.
The legislators looking to protect us from something, or are they? The whole thing seems a little confusing to say the least.
As mentioned in previous articles, the house, and the Senate, are once again considering the issue of “Online Gambling”. Bills have been submitted by Congressmen Goodlatte and Leach, and also by Senator Kyl.
The bill being put forward by Reputation. Goodlatte, The internet Casino Prohibition Act, has the stated goal of updating the Cord Act to outlaw all forms of online casino, to make it illegal for a casino business acknowledge credit and electronic coach transfers, and to force ISPs and Common Carriers to block access to casino related sites at the request of law enforcement.
Just as does Reputation. Goodlatte, Sen. Kyl, in his bill, Prohibition on Funding of Outlawed Internet Casino, makes it illegal for casino businesses acknowledge credit cards, electronic coach transfers, checks and other forms of payment for the purpose on placing illegal gambling bets, but his bill does not address those that place gambling bets.
The bill submitted by Reputation. Leach, The Outlawed Internet Casino Enforcement Act, is defined as a copy of the bill submitted by Sen. Kyl. It focuses on preventing casino businesses from accepting credit cards, electronic coach transfers, checks, and other payments, and like the Kyl bill makes no changes about the is currently legal, or illegal.
In a quote from Goodlatte we have “Jack Abramoff’s total disregard for the legislative process has allowed Internet casino to continue growing into what is now a twelve billion-dollar business which not only is painful individuals and their own families but makes the economy suffer by draining billions of dollars from the united states and serves as a vehicle for the money laundering. inch
There are several interesting points here.
First of all, we have a little misdirection about Jack Abramoff and his disregard for the legislative process. This comment, and the like which are made, follow the sense that; 1) Jack Abramoff was averse to these bills, 2) Jack Abramoff was dodgy, 3) to avoid being associated with file corruption you should election for these bills. This is of course absurd. If we followed this sense to the extreme, we should rewind and void any bills that Abramoff supported, and enact any bills that she compared with, regardless of the content of the bill. Legislation should be passed, or not, based on the merits of the planned legislation, not based on the trustworthiness of one individual.
As well, when Jack Abramoff compared with previous bills, he did so on behalf of his client eLottery, attempting to get the sale of lottery tickets over the internet omitted from the legislation. Ironically, the protections he was seeking are especially new bill, since state run lotteries would be omitted. Jack Abramoff therefore could support this legislation since it gives him what he was looking for. It does not stop Goodlatte and the like from using Abramoff’s recent disgrace as an approach to make their bill look better, thus making it not just an anti-gambling bill, but somehow an ant-corruption bill as well, while at the same time rewarding Abramoff and his client.
Next, is his statement that online casino “hurts individuals and their families”. I presume that what he is referring to here is problem casino. Let’s set the record straight. Only a small percentage of bettors become problem bettors, not a small percentage of the population, but only a small percentage of bettors.
In addition, Goodlatte would have you would imagine that Internet casino is more paralyzing than casino casino. Sen. Kyl is now as long as to call online casino “the crack cocaine of gambling”, attributing the quote to some un-named addict. To the contrary, researchers have shown that casino on the internet is no more paralyzing than casino in a casino. As a matter of fact, electronic casino machines, found in casinos and race tracks around the globe are more paralyzing than online casino.
In research by N. Dowling, D. Smith and T. Thomas at the School of Health Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Australia “There is a general view that electronic gaming is the most ‘addictive’ form of casino, in that it contributes more to causing problem casino than any other casino activity. So, electronic gaming machines have been referred to as the ‘crack-cocaine’ of gambling”.
As to Sen. Kyls claim about “crack cocaine”, quotes at http: //www. alternet. org/drugreporter/20733/ include “Cultural busybodies have long known that in post this-is-your-brain-on-drugs America, the best way to win attention for a pet cause is to compare it to some scourge that already scares the bejesus out of America”. And “During the 1980s and ’90s, it was a little different. Then, a troubling new trend weren’t legally on the public radar until someone named it “the new crack cocaine. inch And “On his Vice Team weblog, University of Chi town Professor Jim Leitzel notes that a Google search finds experts declaring slot machines (The New york Times Magazine), video slots (the Canadian Press) and casinos (Madison Capital Times) the “crack cocaine of casino, inch respectively. Leitzel’s search also found that spam email is “the crack cocaine of advertising” (Sarasota, Fla. Herald Tribune), and that cybersex is a kind of sexual “spirtual crack cocaine” (Focus on the Family)”.
As we can see, calling something the “crack cocaine” has become a meaningless metaphor, showing only that the person making the statement feels it is important. But then we knew that Reputation. Goodlatte, Reputation. Leach and Sen. Kyl felt that the issue was important or they wouldn’t have brought the planned legislation forward.
Yearly article, I will continue coverage of the issues raised by political figures who are against online casino, and provide a different perspective to their rhetoric, covering the “drain on the economy” caused by online casino, and the notion of money laundering.