Tweet
The editor must by on the Casino lobby because
although he sees it as wrong (online gambling),
he just doesn't know how to enforce the law.
Of course, he's trying to protect underage gambling and the mug punters who are complusive!
If you think his opinion is way off, write to him
@ letters@pressplus.com
--------------------------------------------------
INTERNET GAMBLING
Still a bad idea
Assemblyman Joe Azzolina, R-Monmouth, is right about this much: It is very likely impossible to eliminate online gambling.
But that doesn't mean Congress shouldn't try.
Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-2nd, has been trying to get the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act through Congress for several years now. The bill would ban gambling sites on the Web and would impose stiff fines on those convicted of running an online gambling site.
True, on the uncontrolled and uncontrollable Internet, there really is no way to stop a Web site run by a server in, say, Europe from taking bets from a teenager sitting in his bedroom in Absecon. Nor, it should be noted, is there much that anyone can do to make sure that rogue Web site pays off its winners.
But Azzolina, citing the impossibility of stopping online gambling, has another idea. Instead of a ban, why not let Atlantic City's reputable, licensed casino companies offer online gambling? Let the reputable gambling companies have a shot at the estimated $200 million-a-year online gambling industry, and they will drive out the rogue operators or at least be able to compete with them, Azzolina reasons.
Interesting approach. But still wrong.
The fact that the odds are against an effective ban on online gambling does not make Web gambling sites a good idea. They will prey on the young and on compulsive gamblers. And if the operators of these sites don't pay off on a bet, who are you going to call?
Online gambling may not be something society can effectively prohibit, but that doesn't mean society has to embrace it.
Atlantic City's casinos have wisely refrained from pushing for online gambling. They know age-verification would be difficult, if not impossible. And they know neither the federal government nor state regulators are likely to embrace the concept.
The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act may not be perfect. This is a difficult, complicated issue. (Critics, for example, contend that someone e-mailing their picks to the office football pool would face jail time.)
And generally we are opposed to legislation designed more to "send a message" than to be enforced. But in the end Congress does need to step in here and ban, to the extent it can, Internet gambling. A few well-publicized prosecutions under a new law just might make the operators of rogue gambling sites decide that the odds are against them. A federal ban would also eliminate the possibility that the nation's reputable casino companies will someday be more tempted by this uncontrollable form of gambling.
[This message has been edited by Fedya Fussball (edited 04-20-2000).]
although he sees it as wrong (online gambling),
he just doesn't know how to enforce the law.
Of course, he's trying to protect underage gambling and the mug punters who are complusive!
If you think his opinion is way off, write to him
@ letters@pressplus.com
--------------------------------------------------
Internet gambling/still a bad idea
INTERNET GAMBLING
Still a bad idea
Assemblyman Joe Azzolina, R-Monmouth, is right about this much: It is very likely impossible to eliminate online gambling.
But that doesn't mean Congress shouldn't try.
Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-2nd, has been trying to get the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act through Congress for several years now. The bill would ban gambling sites on the Web and would impose stiff fines on those convicted of running an online gambling site.
True, on the uncontrolled and uncontrollable Internet, there really is no way to stop a Web site run by a server in, say, Europe from taking bets from a teenager sitting in his bedroom in Absecon. Nor, it should be noted, is there much that anyone can do to make sure that rogue Web site pays off its winners.
But Azzolina, citing the impossibility of stopping online gambling, has another idea. Instead of a ban, why not let Atlantic City's reputable, licensed casino companies offer online gambling? Let the reputable gambling companies have a shot at the estimated $200 million-a-year online gambling industry, and they will drive out the rogue operators or at least be able to compete with them, Azzolina reasons.
Interesting approach. But still wrong.
The fact that the odds are against an effective ban on online gambling does not make Web gambling sites a good idea. They will prey on the young and on compulsive gamblers. And if the operators of these sites don't pay off on a bet, who are you going to call?
Online gambling may not be something society can effectively prohibit, but that doesn't mean society has to embrace it.
Atlantic City's casinos have wisely refrained from pushing for online gambling. They know age-verification would be difficult, if not impossible. And they know neither the federal government nor state regulators are likely to embrace the concept.
The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act may not be perfect. This is a difficult, complicated issue. (Critics, for example, contend that someone e-mailing their picks to the office football pool would face jail time.)
And generally we are opposed to legislation designed more to "send a message" than to be enforced. But in the end Congress does need to step in here and ban, to the extent it can, Internet gambling. A few well-publicized prosecutions under a new law just might make the operators of rogue gambling sites decide that the odds are against them. A federal ban would also eliminate the possibility that the nation's reputable casino companies will someday be more tempted by this uncontrollable form of gambling.
[This message has been edited by Fedya Fussball (edited 04-20-2000).]