The U.S. government certain has a right to outlaw internet gambling. They really shouldn't, due to the evident unenforcability of such a law, and the obvious demand for the services the casinos offer. But regulating gambling is certainly a valid role of government, just like regulating alcohol, tobacco, firearms, or anything else with potentially negative social costs. But the negative social cost of placing a bet on a horse with a intermediary based in Del Mar and one based in Antigua is the same. The only difference is the U.S. bears the social cost, while receiving no tax revenue or other positive effect. The choices are clear: Really outlaw internet gambling, domestic or foreign, or bring internet gambling on-shore. The present plan, showing contempt for international law while gambling on the web continues unabated, accomplishes nothing, neither for those pro or con. But the current plan in the Congress seems to be to ignore the WTO decision, and simply pass more draconian legeslation, that ignores the sole matter that makes the entire effort illegal. "I've said it before and I'll say it again: Democracy just doesn't work."
In a related story, well-to-do, well-educated young online gamblers entice U.S. casino operators. Among the claims of a new study,
Online gamblers are not the desperate or vulnerable loners they're often perceived to be. They tend to be younger, more affluent and better-educated than gamblers who frequent land-based casinos.I'm offended. I'll have you know I am very much a desperate and vulnerable loner.
No comments:
Post a Comment