The act was passed Saturday, Sep 30. It prohibits online gambling by placing criminal sanctions on financial institutions and banks if they fund an entity involved in "illegal gambling" operations. Some things such as horseracing and fantasy sports have been carved out/excluded from the definition of illegal gambling, but common games such as poker and blackjack are hit.
I will admit my bias and say that this legislation is crap. The government should not be telling us what we can and cannot do with our own money. They say it's to protect the children and to stop gambling addictions... there are many other less restrictive yet more effective means to protect children from gambling websites such as universal age-verification accounts (which could be implemented if the government looked into regulation instead of prohibition). As for addicts.... I've never heard an addict complain that he couldn't find a place to gamble his money away. Taking this away doesn't help the addiction
2006-10-03 06:58:39 · 5 answers · asked by lingt69 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I agree with you that this is an unnecessary and unhelpful bill. If legally prohibiting addictive behaviors was effective, then alcohol would be the least abused drug in America. Instead, it's the most abused.
But the most disturbing aspect of this act, in my opinion, is that I was not aware of it until you posted your question. I did not hear this or read this on any news outlet where I get my news on a daily basis. All I've heard about is senators' emails, election stuff, and school shootings. It makes me wonder what other crucially important bills have been passed without me being informed of them at all.
I know it's my responsibility as a citizen to know the laws, but it seems so difficult to get that information. If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then where do we go to get "un-ignorant?" Is there some kind of database or master list of the laws I'm expected to know and follow, not to mention which of my Congresspersons voted for/against it, so I can use that knowledge next time I vote?
Quietly tacking onto a bill an unrelated law is an extremely deceptive and shameful practice in a supposedly free democratic society. I feel conned.
2006-10-03 07:36:20 · answer #1 · answered by LisaT 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This legislation is a load of crap. It isn't going to deter addicts and most sites limit how much and how often you can deposit anyway to deter that. If the US openly supported online gambling they could regulate and tax it. It would be a major source of tax revenue and I guarantee you that places like the Bellagio and MGM Grand would start online gaming websites because they know it could be a huge market. I voted for Bush, but I'm really disappointed in him on this one.
2006-10-03 07:34:56 · answer #2 · answered by OrianasMom 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Per NPR, the Brits who are the current leaders in internet gambling are complaining that this was just an attempt to unfairly restrict them...to the benefit of American firms.
2006-10-03 07:03:24 · answer #3 · answered by Brand X 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it's ridiculous. If you want to gamble all of your money away, you should be able to go ahead and do that. But, we'd better not see anyone try to sue an online gaming site for "allowing" them to gamble away their life savings.
2006-10-03 07:06:31 · answer #4 · answered by Chris J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is common practice with law makers, I wouldn't fret about this one. normally they attach even more ridiculous clauses to bills. Like troop funding and whatnot. If you vote against it because of what it has attached you are labeled as against the whole thing. It is quite deceptive.
2006-10-03 07:08:02 · answer #5 · answered by T-Luv 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋