This is part 3 of a series of multi-part articles on proposed anti-gambling legislation. In this article, I continue to discuss the reasons alleged for necessitating this legislation and the facts that exist in the real world, including the connection to Jack Abramoff and the addictive nature of online gambling.
Legislators are trying to protect us from something, right? It all seems a bit confusing to say the least.
As mentioned in previous articles, the House and Senate are once again considering the issue of “Online Gambling.” Congressmen UFABET Goodlatte and Leach have introduced bills, and so has Senator Kyl.
The bill introduced by Representative Goodlatte, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, has the stated intention of updating the Wire Transfer Act to prohibit all forms of online gambling, making it illegal for a gambling company to accept electronic and credit transfers, and to force ISPs and Common Carriers to block access to gambling-related sites at the request of the authorities.
Like Rep. Goodlatte, Senator Kyl, in his bill, Ban the Financing of Illicit Internet Gambling, makes it illegal for gambling companies to accept credit cards, wire transfers, checks, and other forms. payment for the purpose of placing illegal bets. But his bill doesn’t cater to gamblers.
The bill introduced by Representative Leach, the Illegal Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, is basically a copy of the bill introduced by Senator Kyl. It focuses on preventing gambling companies from accepting credit cards, wire transfers, checks and other payments and, like the Kyl bill, does not change what is currently legal or illegal.
In a quote from Goodlatte we have “Jack Abramoff’s utter disregard for the legislative process has allowed internet gambling to continue to thrive in what is now a twelve billion dollar business that not only hurts people and their families, but it hurts the economy by depleting billions of US dollars and serves as a vehicle for money laundering. ”
Here are several interesting points.
First of all, we have a small misdirection about Jack Abramoff and his disregard for the legislative process. This comment, and others that have been made, follow the logic that; 1) Jack Abramoff opposed these bills, 2) Jack Abramoff was corrupt, 3) to avoid being associated with corruption, he must vote for these bills. Of course, this is absurd. If we follow this logic to the extreme, we should go back and nullify any bill Abramoff supported, and enact any bill that he opposed, regardless of the content of the bill. Legislation must or may not be passed on the merits of the proposed legislation, not on the basis of an individual’s reputation.
In addition, when Jack Abramoff opposed previous bills, he did so on behalf of his client eLottery, trying to exclude the sale of lottery tickets over the Internet from the legislation. Ironically, the protections he sought are included in this new bill, as state lotteries would be excluded. Therefore, Jack Abramoff would likely support this legislation, as it gives him what he was looking for. That doesn’t stop Goodlatte and others from using Abramoff’s recent disgrace as a means to make their bill look better, making it not just an anti-gambling bill, but somehow an anti-corruption bill as well, while which at the same time rewards Abramoff. and his client.
Here is his statement that online gambling “hurts individuals and their families.” I guess what you mean here is gambling problems. Let’s make things clear. Only a small percentage of players become problem players, not a small percentage of the population, but only a small percentage of players.
Also, Goodlatte wants you to believe that online gambling is more addictive than casino games. Senator Kyl has even called the online game “the crack cocaine of the game,” attributing the quote to an anonymous investigator. On the contrary, researchers have shown that online gambling is no more addictive than casino gambling. In fact, electronic gaming machines, found in casinos and racetracks across the country, are more addictive than online gambling.
In an investigation