What a Joke, Say Some
It seems that every American affected by the online casino gambling restrictions
has some opinion on how the government should fix the unclear and imprecise
restrictions currently found in the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.
A recent article in the LA Times stresses that the current bill deals in
hypocrisy rather than what is actually in the best interest on the U.S.
citizens. Though online casinos and internet gambling are now illegal in the
U.S., the government has made no attempt to address internet betting on horse
and dog racing.
The LA Times article goes on to criticize how the new restrictions are actually
making online casino gambling more risky for Americans. Currently, though many
online casinos have left the country, a handful of trustworthy casinos remain
servicing U.S. citizens. But because there are so few, the online casino
gambling industry is now the prime target of “fly-by-night” operations stealing
player’s identities and disappearing with all of any funds they can get a hold
of.
Below is an excerpt from the LA Times article:
"As the off-track-betting issue illustrates, Congress loses interest in
protecting people from the lure of online gambling when thoroughbreds and
trotters are involved. Similarly, interstate restrictions on games of chance
evaporate for state lotteries - a form of gambling that the government
enthusiastically promotes.
"Meanwhile, restrictions on other forms of wagering have led to perverse
results. The most closely scrutinized and stable gambling businesses - casinos
in Las Vegas and Atlantic City - stayed out of online wagering, conceding the
field to unregulated and, occasionally, fly-by-night operators. A federal law
passed last year to prohibit credit card companies from processing bets has
spawned a host of workarounds, including online wallets and repurposed prepaid
phone cards.
"A saner approach would be to allow online betting through licensed and
regulated operators, as proposed by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the
House Financial Services Committee," the editorial concludes. "Such operators
could be required to meet age-verification standards, analyze betting patterns
to detect and block compulsive gamblers and pay additional taxes, with a portion
going to treat gambling addiction.
"This approach would do far more to protect the public than ineffective
prohibitions that criminalize only the high-tech version of an otherwise legal
act."
|