Five Reasons Congress Can Bite Me & the Online Poker Ban

Rae Hoffman

by Rae Hoffman on October 10, 2006 | Rants in Bitchland

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my feed or subscribe to me on Twitter, which is updated on a more frequent - and more meaningless - basis.

I’ve been reading all about the Internet Gambling ban and its effects on affiliates. Well, what about those of us who are avid players? I moved back to the states about six weeks ago (yeah, I know, great timing) and am seriously pissed that one of my favorite hobbies is being stripped from me (the second I go to change my registered address I’ll quickly find myself without an account).

All because someone, somewhere decided that I shouldn’t be able to decide how to spend my own damn green that *I* earned. I don’t get it. And thus, I thought I’d do something unlike me and share how I really feel. ;-)

Why the whole thing is incredibly stupid:

1. It is *my money* – who is Congress to decide whether or not I can do something that isn’t hurting anyone, including myself? Who the hell checked off the “Yes, I’d like my Senator to choose my hobbies” box in the voter booth?

2. Yes, some people have a gambling problem. Some people are also shopaholics and one in 53 households end up shopping themselves bad enough into debt that they end up claiming bankruptcy. Should we ban online shopping too? Where the hell did “accountability for one’s own actions” go?

3. Why not simply regulate it? Charge the millions of online players a 25 cent or 1 dollar tax per game. Use that money to fund gambler’s anonymous programs or fund schools? Isn’t that what the state lotteries are all about? Yes, it makes much more sense to simply ban it all together and force poker players to take their games offline or to offshore casinos.

4. Earth to Congress – people who are gambling addicts will simply pick up and go to the casinos. Or to underground poker clubs. People with an addiction will do whatever it takes to feed it. The main people being hurt by this ban are normal, fun loving citizens who have a hobby they like and set reasonable limits to play.

5. [sarcasm]Yeah, cause prohibition worked real well.[/sarcasm]

For more information see the Poker Players Alliance website.


--   Subscribe to the Sugarrae feed


{ 3 trackbacks }

Why Google Shouldn’t Penalize Me for Their Incompetence - Sugarrae
04.15.07 at 1:16 pm
Bloggers R Us » Blog Archive » SugarRae
12.10.07 at 10:34 am
SugarRae ~ a Blog We Luv
08.04.08 at 4:08 pm

{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }

1
Rae Hoffman
Greg 10.10.06 at 8:40 pm

It is very fair to ban poker and keep online lotteries and horse racing legal. If the lobbyists for the poker companies do not care enough to outbribe the other lobbyists they deserve to lose.

2
Rae Hoffman
marc 10.11.06 at 10:37 am

“follow the money”…. As soon as the big casinos ‘find religion’ and realize an online version of the Bellagio poker game can make more money for them in a day than they can all year in their 16-table brick & mortar casino, they’ll make a call to their DC lobbyists and tell them to switch sides on the issue.

In fact… the MGM CEO was on 60 minutes a couple of weeks ago and he sounded as though he had changed his mind on the issue… looks like the other casinos hadn’t agreed on that point yet.

Rejoice….we still have Aruba, *Vegas* and the home-game. ;)

3
Rae Hoffman
Alex 10.11.06 at 12:34 pm

Ah, the land of the ‘free’.

It’s all about protectionism - if there’s money to be made then the US wants to make it NOT let the profits slip outside their borders, it really is as simple as that.

Wait a few years because it will soon be legalised and guess where the profits will stay!

Also repeat after me ‘a Police state is a safe state’ and again ‘a Police state is a safe state’.

There’s terrorists around every corner don’t you know all wanting to take your FREEDOM away.

‘A Police state is a safe state’

bwawawawawawawawawa!

PS. I like your posts Sugar and use your RSS feed to follow your blog, works well for me.

4
Rae Hoffman
Rae 10.12.06 at 12:43 pm

>>>we still have Aruba, *Vegas* and the home-game

Don’t forget AC (it is a shithole, but it will work) and the “away game” as well. ;-)

5
Rae Hoffman
jenn 10.16.06 at 5:43 pm

Arghh… I couldn’t agree more - great points… when you treat people like responsible adults, they will act more like responsible adults… whereas if you treat them like children and victims…

Good point on the shopping… same could be said about fast food and all sorts of things. It’s really annoying that government employees think they’re so much smarter than the rest of us that they have to decide what we are allowed to do.

I suppose it is all about money going into the U.S. …grr. I’m mad too, though, I like to play those online Tetris tournaments for cash and it would be a sad day if they banned those :’(

6
Rae Hoffman
Nick Wilsdon 10.24.06 at 3:23 am

Yep the US ban is rediculous - like you Rae, the first thing I thought about was prohibition.

We’re still gaming in Russia so I’m OK for now…If you guys ever want to organise an away game in Moscow let me know ;)

7
Rae Hoffman
reese 10.26.06 at 8:07 pm

hmmm why not refrain from changing your address? :)

8
Rebecca 11.17.06 at 6:43 am

Great points. I agree with each 100%. The way this got snuck into a port security bill is outrageous. I’m glad to see that Congress actually reads and considers the crap they pass into law…

9
loretta 11.28.06 at 3:40 pm

I work in the internet gambling industry and when the tacked this crap onto port security I nearly had heart failure, I was afraid I’d lose my job, my income, and the food off my table…PooF it was all going to fly away. What’s changed so far? Nothing! Take that government! Things faltered for a week or two, a few places panicked prematurely and closed all US holding accounts, some of us changed nothing, although Firepay has decided to prohibit it’s use so phooey on them Neteller is better anyhow. Deposit method is what it’s all coming down to right now, and Neteller seems the way to go. There were rumors that come January when they can “officially enforce” things we will have problems, but thus far it looks like the legislation had too many holes in it, it’s not specific enough. They slapped it on the table but forgot to write it all out.