Political figures Choose to Preserve individuals Within the Evils for On-Line Gambling.
That is part 3 of a multipart number of articles regarding proposed anti-gambling legislation. In this information, I continue the discussion of the causes claimed to produce this legislation necessary, and the reality that exist in the real world, such as the Jack Abramoff connection and the addictive nature of online gambling.
The legislators want to protect us from something, or are they? Everything seems only a little confusing to state the least.
As stated in previous articles, the House, and the Senate, are once more considering the issue of “Online Gambling” ;.Bills have already been submitted by Congressmen Goodlatte and Leach, and also by Senator Kyl.안전놀이터
The bill being put forward by Rep. Goodlatte, The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, gets the stated intention of updating the Wire Act to outlaw all forms of online gambling, to produce it illegal for a gambling business to just accept credit and electronic transfers, and to force ISPs and Common Carriers to block access to gambling related sites at the request of law enforcement.
Just as does Rep. Goodlatte, Sen. Kyl, in his bill, Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling, helps it be illegal for gambling businesses to just accept credit cards, electronic transfers, checks and other designs of payment with the aim on placing illegal bets, but his bill does not address those who place bets.
The bill submitted by Rep. Leach, The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, is simply a copy of the bill submitted by Sen. Kyl. It focuses on preventing gambling businesses from accepting credit cards, electronic transfers, checks, and other payments, and like the Kyl bill makes no changes as to the is legal, or illegal.
In a quote from Goodlatte we have “Jack Abramoff’s total disregard for the legislative process has allowed Internet gambling to carry on thriving into what is now a twelve billion-dollar business which not only hurts individuals and their own families but makes the economy suffer by draining billions of dollars from the United States and serves as a car for money laundering.”
There are many interesting points here.
First of all, we have only a little misdirection about Jack Abramoff and his disregard for the legislative process. This comment, and others which were made, follow the logic that; 1) Jack Abramoff was against these bills, 2) Jack Abramoff was corrupt, 3) in order to avoid being associated with corruption you ought to vote for these bills. That is of course absurd. If we followed this logic to the extreme, we ought to go back and void any bills that Abramoff supported, and enact any bills he opposed, whatever the content of the bill. Legislation should really be passed, or not, on the basis of the merits of the proposed legislation, not on the basis of the standing of one individual.
As well, when Jack Abramoff opposed previous bills, he did so for his client eLottery, attempting to have the sale of lottery tickets online excluded from the legislation. Ironically, the protections he was seeking are one of them new bill, since state run lotteries will be excluded. Jack Abramoff therefore would probably support this legislation since it gives him what he was looking for. That will not stop Goodlatte and others from using Abramoff’s recent disgrace as a way 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 frame rewarding Abramoff and his client.
Next, is his statement that online gambling “hurts individuals and their families” ;.I presume that what he is referring to listed here is problem gambling. Let’s set the record straight. Merely a small percentage of gamblers become problem gamblers, not a small percentage of the population, but just a small percentage of gamblers.
Furthermore, Goodlatte could have you believe that Internet gambling is more addictive than casino gambling. Sen. Kyl moved so far as to call online gambling “the crack cocaine of gambling”, attributing the quote to some un-named researcher. To the contrary, researchers demonstrate that gambling on the Internet is no more addictive than gambling in a casino. As a matter of fact, electronic gambling machines, found in casinos and race tracks all around the country are more addictive than online gambling.
In research by N. Dowling, D. Smith and T. Thomas at the School of Health Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, Australia “There’s an over-all view that electronic gaming is the absolute most ‘addictive’ type of gambling, in that it contributes more to causing problem gambling than every other gambling activity. As such, electronic gaming machines have already been referred to as the ‘crack-cocaine’ of gambling” ;.
Concerning Sen. Kyls claim about “crack cocaine” include “Cultural busybodies have long known that in post this-is-your-brain-on-drugs America, the simplest way to win attention for a pet cause would be to compare it to some scourge that already scares the bejesus out of America” ;.And “Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, it was only a little different. Then, a troubling new trend wasn’t officially on people radar until someone dubbed it “the brand new crack cocaine.” And “On his Vice Squad weblog, University of Chicago 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 gambling,” respectively. Leitzel’s search also unearthed 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 turned into a meaningless metaphor, showing only that the person making the statement feels it is important. But then we knew that Rep. Goodlatte, Rep. Leach and Sen. Kyl felt that the issue was important or they wouldn’t have brought the proposed legislation forward.