Thursday, May 25, 2006
Online Gambling: A solution in search of a problem
This is just so much silliness: Bill to Ban Gambling Online Gets 4th Chance
“Today, the House Judiciary Committee will mark up a bill introduced by Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R) that would ban much online gambling, including bets on sporting events and games of chance -- namely poker, which has enjoyed a boom in recent years.”
Now, I don’t gamble online (yet) but I enjoy a day at the races and a night of poker. Gambling can be entertainment…and as such, should be afforded the rights and privileges of most other forms of entertainment. That some might go overboard in their enjoyment of online (or any kind of) gambling shouldn’t make it a federal issue.
The Congressman’s agenda is clear when he states:
“Goodlatte said he opposes gambling because it leads to "a whole host of ills in society."
Since gambling traditionally falls under the purview of the states, Rep. Goodlatte apparently sees online gambling as his one chance to impose this value judgment of his on us all. And the good Congressman then displays his ignorance of such matters:
“Goodlatte, who said he played poker as a young man but never for money, disagreed. Poker is "absolutely a game of chance," he said.”
If he didn’t play for money, then, frankly, he didn’t play. If Poker is “absolutely a game of chance”, why do we see the same faces at the final table in so many tournaments? Can’t Rep. Goodlatte find an issue that doesn’t involve the federal government asserting yet more control over yet another facet of our lives?
“Today, the House Judiciary Committee will mark up a bill introduced by Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R) that would ban much online gambling, including bets on sporting events and games of chance -- namely poker, which has enjoyed a boom in recent years.”
Now, I don’t gamble online (yet) but I enjoy a day at the races and a night of poker. Gambling can be entertainment…and as such, should be afforded the rights and privileges of most other forms of entertainment. That some might go overboard in their enjoyment of online (or any kind of) gambling shouldn’t make it a federal issue.
The Congressman’s agenda is clear when he states:
“Goodlatte said he opposes gambling because it leads to "a whole host of ills in society."
Since gambling traditionally falls under the purview of the states, Rep. Goodlatte apparently sees online gambling as his one chance to impose this value judgment of his on us all. And the good Congressman then displays his ignorance of such matters:
“Goodlatte, who said he played poker as a young man but never for money, disagreed. Poker is "absolutely a game of chance," he said.”
If he didn’t play for money, then, frankly, he didn’t play. If Poker is “absolutely a game of chance”, why do we see the same faces at the final table in so many tournaments? Can’t Rep. Goodlatte find an issue that doesn’t involve the federal government asserting yet more control over yet another facet of our lives?
