On March 6th The Wall Street Journal online version made a simple readers poll which connected to a story they had published about internet gambling. I don't have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal (hint to the boss) but everyone is able to read the poll at: http://discussions.wsj.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=wsjvoices&tid=3828&vote=2&submit=Vote
The interesting thing about this poll wasn't the results, which were against the ban of internet gambling. The Wall Street Journal is a paper focused on money and markets and the stock market is essentially a gamble. So it’s no major surprise that readers of WJS would be against making any sort of gambling illegal. What was fascinating (and often quite funny) about this were the comments and discussion following the poll.

Most comments were regarding prohibition in general. Nikki Pope asked some logical questions regarding where it all will end. "If Congress is going to ban Internet gambling, is it also going to ban real world casino gambling? What about other activities that are not in our best interest? Smoking? Drinking to excess? Taking too many prescription drugs? Eating too much fast food? Watching too much television? Playing too many hours of video games? Eating too many high cholesterol foods?" By having the government decide what is good and bad for us they are saying that their own people aren't bright enough to make that decision for themselves.

Other comments were suggestions on how to handle internet gambling. A Guest stated "How much gambling is enough? People who gamble on the web should have to post a bond sufficient to pay their bankruptcy filing fees." Which didn't make much sense to me or Carol May who asked the Guest "It's not a matter of "should," but rather How on earth could you? So much of the spam, the gambling, the xxx sites are off shore. We can't regulate that, and we probably don't want to." Carol followed up with an excellent observation "I can't imagine why a credit card company would allow gambling on their credit card, because there's probably a really good chance they'll never see payment." In fact, most credit card companies in the United States do not allow for deposits into online gambling establishments. This is why companies like Neteller, which is based in the United Kingdom where internet gambling is legal and regulated, and other alternative deposit methods are so popular with punters.

Michael Arnold pointed out the weight problem of Americans in his question " Why not get congress to ban deficit spending and pork barrel projects?" But it was the reply from James Davidson which got me giggling " Sure - and while we're at it, let's legislate (again) that Pi=3 and that the universe is 5000 years old. No amount of legislation can prevent ignorance or stupidity (and the law of averages :-)". How true is that? David Bowman started with a serious enough statement "As long as Congress bans gambling everywhere in order to be consistent, why not? But then of course there will have to be some kind of enforcement mechanism, which is where the whole thing will degenerate into farce." And then got me laughing with his comment, "Congress is better off steering clear of farce. It's too close to home."

It's refreshing to know that Americans think the same way that I do about internet gambling. The media would have one thinking that most people think internet gambling is the spawn of Satan and anyone who works in it or believes in legalizing it are simply idiot pawns. The reality is that gambling is rampant in the US and legalizing internet gambling would seriously cut into the profits of land-based gambling establishments, thus cutting into the money raised from such places in terms of taxes and jobs. As long as there's no way for the US government to immediately profit from internet gambling (and there isn't since it's all off-shore) they will continue to argue about it and do nothing. Sander Abernathy pointed out " Odd isn't it. Gambling is perfectly acceptable to government so long as government gets a cut either directly as in the case of lotteries or indirectly as in the case of Las Vegas's economic growth. Once government doesn't stand to benefit, it is suddenly a moral issue that is destroying the fabric of our society." He adds "So long as any gambling is allowed, Congress can't outlaw some of it because it is harmful without rampant hypocrisy. Of course all Congress has going for it is rampant hypocrisy."

One comment stuck out from the others in its emotional appeal to ban internet gambling. Grace Renshaw admitted ” I voted yes, despite the fact that I don't think it's entirely possible." Her views are against gambling and her reasons are that those who get addicted can't control it "Gambling is a predatory, unproductive industry. Gambling addiction is a serious problem -- one of the worst forms of addiction -- and there's a neurological predisposition to it." As such she's against all forms of gambling (which is fair enough, at least she isn't for one and against another) "I voted against the lottery in my state because I think the promise to low-income people of easy money you didn't earn just by buying a $10 ticket is cruel and ironic, and that lotteries are a sick and regressive way to garner funds for higher education. Sadly, they seem to be the only method many states can pass to provide scholarship funding." Her reasons, however, seem to be emotionally based. "Indeed, gambling is about personal responsibility, but like prescription or illegal drugs, smoking, drinking, etc., a few people start and can't stop. We all pay the costs in terms of bankruptcies, family disruptions, treatment, and in the case of a friend who developed a casino gambling addiction in the late 1990s, incarceration for stealing from his clients."

Generally the attitude of WJS readers is that of a Libertarian. Libertarians are generally against anything which constrains a person's right to freedom of choice. It's at the very essence or definition of their core belief. The less the government has control over what we do with our wallets the better. People don't take enough responsibility these days for their own actions, and taking even more control away from them in terms of banning internet gambling isn't going to make the situation any better. Instead it will foster a dependency on the government to make decisions for the people. Personally I would rather make decisions for myself. So would Bill Mylchreest "A band on Internet Gambling would just be another prohibition, and a limit on personal freedom, all for the sake of protecting our children. Why not let parents be parents and the citizens be free, is this not “the land of the free “Prohibition does not work for illegal drugs or anything else, where economic market forces are at work. When will Congress learn this simple lesson? I for one prefer more freedom, less government!" Here, here!

Posted on: March 13, 2006

Add This Gambling Article To:
Del.icio.us	Digg	Google	Spurl
Furl	Simpy	Y! MyWeb

Back to March 2006's archive
Back to latest Articles