Online Gambling - (Cough, Cough) Excuse Reasons for Wanting to Make it Illegal
One of the reasons often cited for wanting to strip Americans of their right to gamble online is money laundering.
The problem with this logic is that money can be laundered in any industry, not just online gambling. That's discrimination
in my book.
If U.S. lawmakers are supposed to be so much higher and mightier that the rest of the world's leaders,
how come they haven't been able to stop money laundering
after all this time?
You see, attempting to make online wagering illegal hasn't dented money laundering at all.
Why should Americans lose their right to bet online just because the government can't do its
job in other arenas?
In our opinion this is one of the many "excuse reasons" to do away with online
Lawmakers whom are responsible for wanting to take your right to gamble online away probably
know their true reasons for not wanting you to gamble online wouldn't stand up in court.
So they turn to such deflectionary arguments to cover their true reasons.
What might their true reasons be?
Reasons of morality.
However, morality is a personal choice, just like anything else in this world.
You can choose not to gamble online if you don't feel right about doing it.
But pushing your personal morals on others causes all sorts of problems in this world.
That's how wars get started where innocent people
get killed... Knowing this is often the end result of "pushing morals"
you would think people who claim to be so wonderfully moral would have learned
not to push their morals on others!
As long as these holier than thou Lawmakers aren't being personally harmed by your gambling,
they shouldn't have any right to try to stop you.
What's even more ridiculous is that someone who thinks that gambling online is immoral, can gamble legally in an Atlantic City casino, a Las Vegas sportsbook, and many
other places in the U.S.
Does that sound constitutional to you?
It's a joke.
Why is it legal to gamble in a Las Vegas sportsbook or casino but not online?
A great question, and one that U.S laws don't seem to handle in a constitutional fashion...
How come you can legally bet in some parts of the country but not all of the country?
Talk about unequal protection under the law! It's okay for some people to bet on sports and play poker and blackjack, but it's not okay for others to do so simply based upon one's
the SAME COUNTRY?
It reeks of protectionism. Why should someone who is in Las Vegas which is located in the Unites States of America be able to gamble on sports-- but for someone who is located in New York
it would be considered a crime if they bet sports or played poker or blackjack?
Does that sound constitutional to you?
Does that sound like equal rights under the laws of the United States of America, the land of the free and the brave?
What if you're unable to travel from New York to Las Vegas because of a physical disability? Shouldn't you be able to gamble online if you want to?
What if you can't afford the expensive trip and hotel rates in Las Vegas?
Perhaps you would rather risk the money you would blow on just getting there
gambling online instead of on airfare and the room.
Your odds of winning would be improved because you wouldn't have to shell out thousands of dollars just to get to Las Vegas
before you could even place a bet.
Gambling online is fundamentally no different than gambling "offline" in a Las Vegas sports book & casino.
The only real difference is the location. Your in the same country as someone located in Las Vegas-- they're allowed to gamble
on sports, and play poker and blackjack, but you're not?
Ownership of Gambling Establishments
By the same token, why should some people in the United States be able to own gambling establishments and profit from such ownership while others cannot?
Why should some big corporation in Las Vegas be able to offer sports betting to U.S citizens, but if you want to open a sportsbook
in cyberspace you could end up in jail?
It seems unconstitutional and it reeks of protectionism.
What if you cannot afford to build a hotel /casino/ sportsbook in Las Vegas?
The costs of entering this industry are just too prohibitive to provide for
You're only choice might be to offer such gambling & betting services online where you could forgo the heavy costs of building construction and liability insurance
for guests, etc...
This is supposed to be the United State of America, a free country. But you're not allowed to open such an establishment online because according to lawmakers
it could be used for money laundering. Well guess what, a Las Vegas casino could also be used to launder money.
And a car could also be used to commit homicide. But that doesn't mean selling cars can be made illegal on such grounds!
More Bogus Arguments Against Online Gambling - The Compulsive Gambler Angle
First of all, compulsive gamblers also exist in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, and thousands of other places.
It's just more unconstitutionality being thrown in your faces by lawmakers.
Yes compulsive gamblers do exist. And they make up a small percentage of overall gamblers.
So then why is it okay for gambling to exist in Las Vegas, Atlantic City, and many other places in the U.S, but if you want to host it
on a server located in the United States, then you would be breaking the law?
Lawmakers try to argue that gambling online makes it "easier" for compulsive gamblers.
But before online gambling existed the easiest way to gamble compulsively was in a Las Vegas or Atlantic City casino.
And those are still okay under the law.
So the legal question is, why are those legal-- and still legal today-- but for the same reason online gambling & betting isn't?
You see, it's just another "excuse reason"... Totally unconstitutional. We may not be lawyers, but we can smell unfairness from a miles away.
And it's coming from D.C.
Furthermore, by the same token we could argue that "over-eating" can lead to a heart attack. So to protect people from over eating could we make a law
that states you are no longer allowed to eat, because there is a risk you might over-eat?
So to protect you from yourself, you can't eat at all!
If you eat, you will be prosecuted. And if found guilty you will be locked up in jail for the betterment of society.
What a bunch of hogwash!
Just because compulsive gambling exists, doesn't mean you can constitutionally make a law against online gambling... Especially when gambling is allowed
to persist in the same country in other venues!
We're sick and tired of lawmakers telling people how to spend their own money for leisure
Lawmakers tell you to pay xx% of your income to them for taxes. But that is where it ends!
The rest of that money should be yours to decide how to spend. And if it's legal for someone to take their money to a Las Vegas sportsbook,
an Atlantic City casino, a Connecticut casino, or a Mississippi casino and gamble to their hearts content, then why shouldn't you be able to
engage in the same activity over the internet?
Unequal protection under the law!
Unequal opportunity under the law.
This is the United States of America, the land of the free. If I want to over-eat I will over-eat. If I want to over-gamble, I will over-gamble.
If I want to eat in moderation, I will eat in moderation. If I want to gamble in moderation, I will gamble in moderation. And it should make no difference
what part of the United States you do it from-- whether it's Las Vegas, New York, or online from any location.
Why are other forms of online gambling legal such as horse racing?
Why is it legal to bet on horse racing online in many places in the U.S, but it's not legal to bet on other sports online such as football or basketball?
Furthermore, why is it legal for people to bet on movements in the stock market online but not the movements of a football up and down the field?
Talk about money laundering. The amount of money laundering that takes place in financial markets is probably thousands of times the amount
that might take place in an online gambling establishment. So why aren't financial markets illegal on the premise of money laundering?
It's just another "excuse argument" shown for the folly and unconstitutionality that it promotes.
Freedome to express these opinions... How long before U.S. lawmakers take that away from you too?
The United States of America, the land of the free, the land of the brave. If you want to write about laws which you think are unconstitutional
then you should be able to do it with no fear of repercussion from your government...
As we once heard in a very interesting movie, "people should not be afraid of their governments... Governments should be afraid of their people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
If you are responsible for trying to make laws against online gambling, might you be in violation of acts designed to prevent protectionism, prevent unfair
trade opportunities, and the like?
American entrepreneurs have a right to compete in the economy. If some Americans can own
betting establishments, why can't others do so from a different location within the same country?
Until online gambling is made to be legal in the U.S, the brick and mortar gambling industry may be operating in the waters of unconstitutionality.
It's legal to gamble online in Great Britain
Isn't America supposed to be the land of the free. Didn't America break away from Great Britain in order to
become a freer nation????
Then how the heck is a personal freedom like online gambling legal in England in what's supposed to be the repressive
country that the U.S. broke away from, but it's illegal in America in the land of free?
U.S. lawmakers are clearly to blame!!! Even the World Trade Organization (WTO) of which the U.S. is a member, ruled against the United
States' position on online gambling-- but the U.S. violated the ruling.
Who's breaking the law now?
American lawmakers have taken the U.S. backwards in time,
robbing Americans of their personal freedoms that took years to fight for, often through the spilling of blood of many of your ancestors in the process.
All for what? So lawmakers can cover up their inability to stop something like
money laundering-- blaming it on online gambling as a hidden
way to protect the brick and mortar sportsbooks and casinos of the United States who are probably greasing
the pockets of these politicians as they operate and profit in an industry that other Americans are
unable to participate in?
Lawmakers concerned about money laundering should be concerned about money leaving the U.S.
Is it any wonder a recession is hitting the U.S. as of this writing?
In spite of the laws designed to outlaw online gambling which appear more like masks for
protecting horse racing from online sports betting, and protecting Las Vegas
from offshore sportsbooks & casinos, Americans are still gambling online in offshore venues.
Whether it's online poker, online blackjack, online
sports betting or online bingo, the fact is that money is leaving the U.S, never to return. And that's not healthy for the American economy.
That same money could be used to fund healthcare!
One thing lawmakers never seem to understand is that people are going to gamble weather it's legal or not.
Therefore, at least the profits from such gambling activities could be recirculating throughout
the U.S economy... But no! Instead U.S. lawmakers want it to be illegal-- and as a result, the profits end up in the hands
of foreign interests! It makes you wonder who these politicians are really working for!
In the end, the laws which prohibit online gambling are just another sad example
of lawmakers dropping the ball, and letting good American money leave the U.S, when instead, the profits from
online gambling could be going into the hands of U.S citizens who could be owners of U.S based online sportsbooks, casinos, and poker rooms--
who would then put that money back to work in the U.S. economy.
You can almost call it reverse money laundering as lawmakers allow American dollars to leave the country simply
because they aren't smart enough or fair enough to take something that's been legal in the brick and mortar world for decades, and also
make it legal in the online world.
Any law that makes a given activity "illegal" in an online setting, when that activity is legal in a brick and mortar setting is clearly
an unfair law, an unconstitutional law, and an unjust law. And should be repealed as such...
Furthermore, it would stand that any lawmaker whom enacts a law
that makes any given activity "illegal" in an online setting, when that activity is "legal" in a brick and mortar setting, is in
violation of the very principals of the constitution in enacting such legislation, and should be removed from office for failing to uphold the
basic principles of the constitution when it comes to lawmaking.
Under this premise, offending unconstitutional laws as of this writing would be the 1961 Wire Act as well as
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.
Just imagine if lawmakers enacted legislation making it a crime to
bank online while at the same time allowing legislation to exist that makes it perfectly legal to bank in a brick & mortar setting!
What's even more despicable is how The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act was apparently passed into law.
Apparently at the last second Bill Frist attached The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to the imperative
Safe Port Act designed to protect the U.S. against terrorism.
So, what do online gambling and terrorism have in common?
Get ready for that age old money laundering "excuse reason" again.
Enough is enough... Heck, hotels have more in common with terrorism than online gambling does. After all, didn't the 911 terrorists stay at hotels in the U.S. for quite sometime
before committing their heinous acts of murder? Then perhaps "hotel stays" should have been outlawed rather than outlawing gambling on the internet in the name
of National security.
What's even more disturbing is that Bill Frist succeeded in funneling something into law that many members of congress didn't even know was added to the Safe Port Bill.
Just imagine what kind of treasonous laws could potentially be enacted using this deviously secret method of last minute lawmaking!
What if Bill Frist had added a clause that stated every first born shall be put to death at twelve noon the next day?
He actually might have been able to sneak such an atrocity into law using the same method he used to "ghostingly" slip in the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act
to the Safe Port Bill.
Can you imagine for one moment that the founding fathers had this kind of stealth & secrecy in mind when they wrote the section of the constitution
that puts forth the process of how bills are to be passed into law?
Such methods designed to "mask" the true contents of a bill until the last few moments before a vote is scheduled to take place
appear to blatantly violate the very spirit of the constitution.
By the same token any lawmaker that uses such methods to get laws enacted might likewise be violating the basic spirit and principle of the constitution,
and therefore may not be fit to hold any legislative position whatsoever.