This article is the third in an ongoing series of articles on the possibility of legislation against 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 Togel Singapore the actual world such as the Jack Abramoff link and the addiction of online gambling.
The lawmakers try to shield the public from harm, but is it? The whole situation is a bit confusing to be honest.
In previous article In previous articles, as mentioned in previous articles, the House and the Senate have been looking into the issue of “Online Gambling”. The bills have been proposed through Congressmen Goodlatte as well as Leach and Senator Kyl.
The bill that is 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 transfer transactions, and to oblige ISPs or Common Carriers to block access to gambling sites upon the demand by law enforcement.
The same way Rep. Goodlatte and Sen. Kyl, in his bill, Prohibition on Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling will make unlawful for gaming establishments to accept electronic transfers, credit cards check and other payment methods to place illegal bets. However, his bill does not deal with those who make bets.
The bill introduced by Rep. Leach, The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is essentially an unofficial duplicate of the bill introduced by Senator. Kyl. It is aimed at preventing gambling companies from accepting electronic transfers, credit cards as well as checks and other 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 a number of interesting points there.
First there is a bit of confusion about Jack Abramoff and his apathy to legislating. This statement, along with other which have been made adhere to the logic that 1.) Jack Abramoff was against these bills, two) The man was corrupt, and 3) to be protected from being associated with corruption it is best to vote against 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 subject or content of the legislation. Legislation should be enacted or not based on what is good about the legislation proposed and not on the reputations of one person.
Also 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 via the internet out of the law. The safeguards he wanted are now included in the new bill, as state-run lotteries will be excluded. Jack Abramoff therefore would probably favor this bill as it provides him with the protections he wanted. However, that doesn’t hinder Goodlatte or others from using Abramoff’s recent scandal as a way for making their legislation appear more appealing, making it more than just an anti-gambling bill and possibly an anti-corruption one in addition, while simultaneously providing a reward to Abramoff as well as his clients.
Then comes his assertion that gambling online “hurts individuals and their families”. I’m assuming that what he’s refers to as problem gambling. Let’s get it straight. A small proportion of gamblers turn into problematic gamblers. Not just a tiny portion or a small percentage of people, tiny percentage of gamblers.
Additionally Goodlatte will have you be convinced it is true that Internet betting is more addictive that casinos gambling. Senator. Kyl has gone so that she has called the internet gambling “the crack cocaine of gambling” and attributed the quote to an unnamed researcher. On the contrary, studies have proved online gambling Internet is not more addictive than playing in the casino. In actual the electronic gambling machines that are found in race tracks throughout the nation, have a higher level of addiction than gambling on the internet.
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 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 1990s the situation was different. In the past, a worrying new trend was not on the radar until somebody was able to call the phenomenon “the modern crack drug.” and “On the Vice Squad weblog, University of Chicago Professor Jim Leitzel notes that a Google search reveals experts who call slots (The The New York Times Magazine) and video slots (the Canadian Press) and casinos (Madison Capital Times) as the “crack crack cocaine that is gambling” and vice versa. Leitzel’s search also revealed that spam emails are “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 unmeaning metaphor, which shows just that the person making the comment believes that it’s crucial. We knew, however, the fact that Rep. Goodlatte, Rep. Leach and Sen. Kyl believed that the subject was vital or else they would not have put their legislation to the table.