Monday, February 25, 2008

More PPA thoughts

They actually have "talking points" on their website. I think that's creepy. But I have some thoughts about them.
Technology has progressed to effectively combat problem gambling and ensure that players are of legal age.

What does this even mean? What technology effectively combats problem gambling? I read a recent Newsweek story about advances in drug treatments for some addictions, but they talk mostly about more direct chemical addictions. Although the brain chemistry works in a similar way for gambling problems, were still a ways away from an actual technological treatment.

So I guess they're talking about computer technology. Are they talking about some overall government tracking of gambling activity? Some big brother technology? What are they talking about here? And why is it a good thing?


Billions in potential tax revenue from online poker are being lost under the UIGEA.

Uh. This is nonsense. There was no tax revenue. UIGEA didn't cause something that never was to be lost.

Appropriate federal regulation can ensure that minors are kept out of sites, services are provided to problem gamblers and the proper taxes are collected.

Now we get to the nitty-gritty. Federalism. Historically in the US gambling regulation has been a state function, not a federal function. The Wire Act was an exception and sports betting in general has been an exception. Casino gambling, poker, horseracing, bingo, and other forms of gambling have been left completely up to the states to regulate.

Is it the position of the PPA that the US government should federalize the regulation of gambling in the United States? Do they really think that's a good idea?


Prohibitions don't work. The UIGEA effectively bans online poker in the U.S. and drives those players underground. Meanwhile, poker continues to grow in popularity nationwide. 75 percent of Americans oppose banning online poker.

The problems with UIGEA is that it interferes with personal banking transactions and tries to regulate international internet financial transactions in a very heavy-handed way. Exempting poker isn't going to do anything to solve the fundamental attack on freedom represented by UIGEA.



If Congress allows me to bet on horses and state lotteries online, why can't I play a skill game like poker with other consenting adults?

This skill game arguement is a joke, as I've pointed out many, many times. It just makes PPA look like a bunch of rubes. Three Card Monte is a skill game.


Please co-sponsor and support HR 2046 "Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act" and HR 2610 "Skill Game Protection Act".

I don't know what these are, but they just sound bad.

Federal regulation of the internet is a bad thing. Period.

We don't need Federal Protection of Skill Games. We need Federalism in the sense of allowing the individual states to regulate gambling.

I don't know who PPA actually represents. But who do they think will the most likely to benefit from having federal regulation of gambling of of the internet? How do poker players benefit from that kind of nonsense?

Update:
Here's another view on PPA. Well not another view, another expression of the same view.

Labels:

1 Comments:

Blogger Drizztdj said...

You should stop sounding so coherent and logical, people might thing you're on to something.

Well posted Gary.

Do you have a thought on how state regulation should/could go? Possible Tribal gambling issues?

10:55 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home