This article is the third in an ongoing article series on the proposed legislation to ban gambling. The article I am writing about will continue the discussion on the motives for making this legislation essential, as well as the evidence that exists within the actual world which includes the Jack Abramoff link and the addiction of Togel Singapore online gambling.
The lawmakers try to shield our citizens from certain dangers, or is it? The whole situation is a bit confusing to be honest.
As previously mentioned in earlier posts As previously reported, as mentioned in previous articles, the House and the Senate have been looking into the issue of “Online Gambling”. Bills have been introduced through Congressmen Goodlatte as well as Leach as well as Senator Kyl.
The legislation being proposed by Rep. Goodlatte, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, is a clear plan for amending the Wire Act to outlaw all types of gambling online, making it illegal for a gaming company to accept credit or electronic transfers, and also to make it mandatory for ISPs as well as Common Carriers to block access to gambling-related websites at the demands by law enforcement.
The same way Rep. Goodlatte, Senator. Kyl, in his bill, Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling will make unlawful for gaming establishments to accept electronic transfers, credit cards or checks as well as other payment methods to place illegal bets. However, the 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 duplicate of the bill introduced by Sen. Kyl. The bill focuses on stopping gambling companies from accepting electronic transfers, credit cards or checks as transactions. It’s similar to the Kyl bill, it does not make any changes 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.
In the beginning there is a bit of confusion about Jack Abramoff and his disdain for legislating. The comment, as well as other which have been made adhere to the logic that 1.) Jack Abramoff opposed these bills, 2)) the man who voted for him was corrupt, and 3) to be protected from being associated with corruption you must vote for these bills. This is, of course, absurd. If we take this reasoning to the fullest extent, we should rescind any legislation that Abramoff was a supporter of, and pass any legislation Abramoff was against regardless of the substance or content of the legislation. Legislation should be enacted or not in accordance with its merits legislation proposed and not based on the reputations of one particular person.
Also that when Jack Abramoff was opposed to the previous legislation, he did so for the company he represented, eLottery. He attempted to have the selling of lottery tickets on the internet out of law. However, the protections he sought are now included in the new bill, as state-run lotteries are not included. Jack Abramoff therefore would probably be a supporter of this bill since it offers him the protection he wanted. However, that doesn’t hinder Goodlatte or others from using Abramoff’s recent scandal as a reason in order to help make the bill appear better, making it more than just an anti-gambling bill however, it could be an anti-corruption law 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 get it straight. A small proportion of gamblers turn into problematic gamblers. It’s not just a tiny portion from the general population. But tiny percentage of gamblers.
Furthermore Goodlatte wants you to be convinced the notion that Internet betting is more addictive that casinos gambling. The senator. Kyl has gone so as to refer to the internet gambling “the crack cocaine of gambling” and attributed the quote to an unnamed researcher. However, researches have proved betting on Internet is not more addictive than betting in the casino. In fact the electronic gambling machines that are found in race tracks across the United States, can be more addicting than gambling on the internet.
In the research conducted by 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”. Also “During in the 80s and 90s there was something different. In the past, a worrying new trend didn’t make it onto the radar until somebody was able to call”crack cocaine “the the new cocaine.” and “On the Vice Squad weblog, University of Chicago Professor Jim Leitzel notes that a Google search reveals experts who call the slot machine (The The New York Times Magazine) and video slots (the Canadian Press) and casinos (Madison Capital Times) as the “crack drug of gaming” in addition to. Leitzel’s search also revealed that spam mail is “the crack cocaine of advertising” (Sarasota, Fla. Herald Tribune), and cybersex is a form that is sexual “spirtual crack cocaine” (Focus on the Family)”.
As we can discern, calling something “crack cocaine” has become an empty metaphor, indicating only that the person who made the claim believes it’s crucial. We knew, however, it was because Rep. Goodlatte, Rep. Leach and Sen. Kyl considered the issue was crucial or else they wouldn’t have put the legislation to the table.