This article is the third in an ongoing series of articles on the proposed legislation to ban gambling. This article will expand the discussion on the motives for making this legislation essential, as well as the evidence that exists within the actual world such as the Jack Abramoff connection as well as the addiction of online gambling.
The lawmakers try to shield our citizens from certain dangers, or is it? The whole situation is a bit confusing Togel Singapore to at best.
In previous posts In previous articles, as mentioned in previous articles, the House as well as the Senate have been taking a look at “Online Gambling”. The bills have been proposed from Congressmen Goodlatte as well as Leach and Senator Kyl.
The legislation being proposed by Rep. Goodlatte, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, is a clear plan for changing the Wire Act to outlaw all types of gambling online, making it illegal for gambling business to accept credit cards and electronic transfers, and also to oblige ISPs or Common Carriers to block access to gambling-related websites at the demand from law enforcement.
Similar to Rep. Goodlatte and Sen. Kyl, in his bill, Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling will make unlawful for gaming companies to accept electronic transfers, credit cards check and other payment methods to be used for placing illegal bets. However, his bill doesn’t address the businesses who place bets.
The bill proposed by Rep. Leach, The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is essentially an exact version of the bill that was introduced by Senator. Kyl. It is aimed at preventing gambling establishments from accepting electronic transfers, credit cards as well as checks and other transactions. It’s similar to the Kyl bill, does not make any modifications to the current lawful or prohibited.
In a quote by Goodlatte we can read “Jack Abramoff’s total disregard for the legislative process has allowed Internet gambling to continue thriving into what is now a twelve billion-dollar business which not only hurts individuals and their families but makes the economy suffer by draining billions of dollars from the United States and serves as a vehicle for money laundering.”
There are many interesting aspects in this article.
First there is a bit of confusion about Jack Abramoff and his disdain for legislation. This statement, along with other which have been made are based on the notion that: 1.) Jack Abramoff opposed these bills, 2)) the man who voted for him was corrupt, and 3) to avoid being associated with corruption, it is best to vote against these bills. This is, of course, absurd. If we took this argument to the fullest extent, we must reverse and nullify any legislation that Abramoff approved, and then pass any bill Abramoff was against regardless of the substance or content of the legislation. Legislation should be enacted or not based on its merits legislation proposed and not on the reputation of a single person.
In addition as when Jack Abramoff voted against his previous legislation, he did so for his client eLottery. He tried to have the selling of lottery tickets on the internet out of the law. However, the protections he sought are in this latest bill, as state-run lotteries are not included. Jack Abramoff therefore would probably be a supporter of this bill since it provides him with the protections was he looking for. However, that doesn’t hinder Goodlatte or others from using Abramoff’s scandal as a reason in order to help make the bill appear better, making it more than just an anti-gambling bill and possibly an anti-corruption one in addition, while simultaneously giving a boost to Abramoff along with his patron.
Then comes his assertion that gambling online “hurts individuals and their families”. I’m assuming that what he’s talking about concerns problem gambling. Let’s clarify the situation. Only a tiny percentage of gamblers turn into problematic gamblers. Not just a tiny portion or a small percentage of people, tiny percentage of gamblers.
Additionally Goodlatte wants you to be convinced the notion that Internet gaming is more addicting than casinos gambling. The senator. Kyl has gone so as to refer to the internet gambling “the crack cocaine of gambling” in a quote that he attributes to an unnamed researcher. On the contrary, studies have proven betting on Internet is not more addictive than betting in casinos. In actual electronic gambling machines that are found in race tracks across the United States, can be more addicting than online gaming.
In their research, 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 gambling, in that it contributes more to causing problem gambling than any other gambling activity. As such, 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 in the 80s and 90s the situation was different. In the past, a worrying new trend was not on the radar of the general public until someone was able to call the phenomenon “the modern crack drug.” Also “On the Vice Squad weblog, University of Chicago Professor Jim Leitzel notes that a Google search will reveal experts calling slots (The New York Times magazine) as well as video slot machines (the Canadian Press) and casinos (Madison Capital Times) as the “crack crack cocaine that is gambling” and vice versa. Leitzel’s research also discovered that spam emails are “the crack cocaine of advertising” (Sarasota, Fla. Herald Tribune), and that cybersex is a type or sexual “spirtual crack cocaine” (Focus on the Family)”.
As we can discern, calling something “crack cocaine” has become an unmeaning metaphor, which shows just that the person making the comment believes that it’s crucial. However, we also knew the fact that Rep. Goodlatte, Rep. Leach and Sen. Kyl considered the issue was vital or else they would not have put the legislation to the table.