This is part 3 of a multipart series of articles regarding offered anti-gambling legislation. In this article, I continue the discussion of the reasons claimed to make this legislation necessary, superslot and the facts that you can get in actuality, including the Jack Abramoff connection and the obsessive nature of online gaming.
The legislators are attempting 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 Representative. Goodlatte, The internet Gaming Prohibition Act, has the stated objective of updating the Line Act to outlaw all forms of online gaming, to make it illegal for a gaming business to just accept credit and electronic transactions, and to force ISPs and Common Carriers to block access to gaming related sites at the request of law enforcement.
Just as does Representative. Goodlatte, Sen. Kyl, in his bill, Prohibition on Funding of Against the law Internet Gaming, makes it illegal for gaming businesses to just accept credit cards, electronic transactions, checks and other forms of payment for the purpose on placing illegal proposition wagers, but his bill does not address those that place proposition wagers.
The bill submitted by Representative. Leach, The Against the law Internet Gaming Enforcement Act, is simply a copy of the bill submitted by Sen. Kyl. It focuses on preventing gaming businesses from accepting credit cards, electronic transactions, checks, and other payments, and like the Kyl bill makes no changes from what is currently legal, or illegal.
In a quote from Goodlatte we have “Jack Abramoff’s total neglect for the legislative process has allowed Internet gaming to continue successful into what is now a twelve billion-dollar business which not only damages individuals and their loved ones but makes the economy suffer by draining billions of dollars from the united states and serves as a vehicle for cash laundering. inches
There are several interesting points here.
First of all, we have a little misdirection about Jack Abramoff and his neglect for the legislative process. This comment, among others which were made, follow the intuition that; 1) Jack Abramoff was against these bills, 2) Jack Abramoff was infect, 3) to avoid being associated with file corruption error you should political election for these bills. This is of course absurd. If we followed this intuition to the extreme, we should return back and void any bills that Abramoff supported, and enact any bills which he in contrast, regardless of the content of the bill. Legislation should be passed, or not, based on the merits of the offered legislation, not based on the standing of one individual.
As well, when Jack Abramoff in contrast previous bills, he did so on behalf of his client eLottery, attempting to get the sale of lottery tickets over the internet ruled out from the legislation. Ironically, the protections he was seeking are most notable new bill, since state run lotteries would be ruled out. Jack Abramoff therefore may possibly support this legislation since it gives him what he was looking for. That will not stop Goodlatte among others from using Abramoff’s recent disgrace as a method 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 gaming “hurts individuals and their families”. I presume that what he is referring to here is problem gaming. Let’s set the record straight. Only a small percentage of players become problem players, not a small percentage of the population, but only a small percentage of players.
In addition, Goodlatte would have you imagine that Internet gaming is more obsessive than casino gaming. Sen. Kyl moved in terms of to call online gaming “the crack cocaine of gambling”, attributing the quote to some un-named science tecnistions. To the contrary, researchers have shown that gaming on the internet is no more obsessive than gaming in a casino. As a matter of fact, electronic gaming machines, found in casinos and race tracks whole are more obsessive than online gaming.
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 gaming, in that it contributes more to causing problem gaming than any other gaming activity. Therefore, 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 had not been technically on the public radar until someone called it “the new crack cocaine. inches And “On his Vice Group weblog, University of Chicago, il Professor Jim Leitzel notes that a Google search finds experts declaring slot machines (The New york Times Magazine), video pai gow poker (the Canadian Press) and casinos (Madison Capital Times) the “crack cocaine of gaming, inches 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 Representative. Goodlatte, Representative. Leach and Sen. Kyl felt that the issue was important or they wouldn’t have brought the offered legislation forward.
Next article, I will continue coverage of the issues raised by people in politics who are against online gaming, and provide a different perspective to their rhetoric, covering the “drain on the economy” caused by online gaming, and the notion of money laundering.