|
The Anti-Online Gaming Law I remember as a child seeing a town debate over the issue of allowing a casino to be built near where I lived, and I can still remember all the arguments against it. It’ll increase the crime rate, it’ll lead to prostitution, it’ll support organized crime, it’ll cause huge traffic jams and it’ll lead to a slew of other immoral behavior. We were told to expect the general destruction of the family unit because all gambling automatically becomes problem gambling. Sound familiar? It probably should.
The U.S. House of Representatives has just passed Bill H.R. 4411, which seeks to ban online gaming sites, as well as stopping credit card and other payment methods related to online gaming. If given Senate approval, this law will come into effect and will affect the lives of all poker players and other gamblers living in the U.S. Although the bill does not target the individual player, it does seek to make it impossible for players to control their own decisions about online gambling, simply by removing online casinos and poker rooms from the American market by force. The bill excludes online lottery and horseracing industries that are valued by states like Kentucky, which leads some to question the logic of banning some forms of online gaming but not others. One wonders why the government feels these latter forms are harmful, but the former are not.
The reasons cited to ban online gaming (as opposed to, say, regulating it) are the fact that gambling can lead to problem gambling (therefore causing financial hardship) and that online poker is used to fund terrorism and organized crime. Leaving aside the pure politics of Capital Hill, let’s look at the two major arguments, being that online gaming is extremely addictive and destroys the lives of those who use it (“click the mouse and lose your house” as John Kindt says) and that online gaming funds terrorism and organized crime.
First, the addiction issue. Gambling addiction is a horrible thing and is nothing to trifle at. Of course, gamblers could become addicted to online gambling just as easily, and some would argue much more easily than other forms of gambling. Unlike many who oppose this bill, I don’t want to make the argument that online poker isn’t potentially addictive. Of course it is. It is like any other form of gambling; it can definitely become problem gambling. The laws of the land don’t ban all other potentially addictive activities like drinking and smoking, or other activities in which one can lose money on uncertainty, like the stock market, so why the US government chooses only to go after certain forms of gaming (such as poker) defies logic. As anyone with any reasonable background in this industry will tell you, the most addictive forms of gambling are those that take no skill or time commitment to learn, and those that are the most easily available. I agree that online gaming (and therefore, online poker) is the most available form for most people, but what about the issue of skill and experience?
The most addictive kinds of gaming are those that require nothing but passive participation, and do not require any special knowledge in order to play. These games appeal to the less-savvy gamblers, and are particularly appealing to the most at-risk for problem gaming – the very young and the very old. This is why things like slot machines, pull-tab tickets and lotteries are the most addictive forms of gambling. Add the fact that these forms advertise millions of dollars in payouts and prey on those who do not realize their odds of winning approach zero, and you have justification for action.
If the US government were listening to experts and targeting games which are the most likely to lead to problem gaming, they would obviously have to ban things like online lotteries. Horse racing, while certainly not one of the forms of gambling which leads to the most problems, comes nowhere near poker in terms of the involvement required to gamble. There are many experienced bettors who enjoy off-track betting, but when you consider the slew of information, textbooks and game theory behind a solid poker education, one cannot deny the following is true: poker is a skill game with a chance component. Poker, and other games of both skill and chance (like blackjack, gin rummy, backgammon etc.) are in fact the least likely source of a gambling addiction, because these games do not offer the quick win, or the ability to sit back and watch reels spin in front of you. I’m not suggesting for a minute one can’t become addicted to a game like poker, but what I mean to say is this: if the US government won’t ban online bets placed in horseracing and lotteries, how can they ban poker? Is not the reason they’re trying to ban poker to protect people from gambling addictions? If so, then horse racing and lotteries should be ranked higher on the list of potential threats of problem gaming than poker. Much higher.
The real reason that they do not ban online horse betting and lotteries is that the sponsors of the bill risk losing the support of interested parties, such as politicians from horseracing states, like Kentucky. They have no interested politicians defending online poker. In fact, I think that because the U.S has yet to consider proper regulation, they would prefer an outright ban to allowing it to grow unheeded. In addition, the winnings of players online are harder to track (and to tax) than those of their offline counterparts. The U.S. government sees online poker as a huge loss of potential revenue. This is a reasonable stance, except that it would imply that regulation, not a ban, would be the best option. Otherwise, people will continue to avoid obeying U.S. tax laws (as the government worries they now do), only with the added incentive to avoid taxation because their activities are illegal. Moreover, let us not forget that online poker and b&m poker are not perfect substitutes: if you do not live near a casino, you can’t really play live, and the internet is your only choice.
Overall, I feel the sponsors of the bills are hiding the real reasons they want to ban online gaming – their personal moral stance and the revenue issue. The issue of problem gaming is a red herring and not even one with consistent internal logic, and the issue of online gaming funding terrorism is even less reasonable. Terrorism is a catchall reason shamelessly thrown around these days when politicians need a reason to pass legislation. I’ve read the opinions of many U.S. poker players who also serve or have served recently in the military, and find the suggestion by their leaders that their online poker playing funds the terrorists they are supposed to be fighting, to be one of the most offensive lies they have ever heard. I’m quite confident that these people know better than any of us (including the U.S. House of Representatives) what the real methods used to fight the “war on terror” are, and the online gaming ban is not one of them.
For my part, I look upon this whole process as I did when I was a child listening to arguments about building a casino in my home town. The gambling addiction argument is still there. So is the destruction of the family argument. The ‘organized crime’ this time around is the terrorists who supposed benefit from online gaming, as asinine a suggestion as that is.
The people of my home town voted down the casino motion, but eventually a casino was opened fairly close-by. Were they right about their predictions? Yes and no. The crime rate went up, but not because of organized crime, but because of offenses like speeding and drunk driving. These kinds of offenses aren’t especially casino-driven violations, expect that the casino served liquor. But my town had no shortage of bars. All the casino did was raise the crime rate by localizing the liquor and driving related offenses. There was no prostitution to speak of, and nothing having to do with organized crime ever became an issue.
Did the casino lead to problem gaming? Sure, gamblers went to the casino and some who already had a gambling problem played there. And I wouldn’t be surprised if some people who went there developed a gambling problem. Nonetheless, I admire that the casino has put in measures to combat such things, and provided resources for those who have problems, as opposed to having to ban gambling outright because people can become addicted. Had they not gone to the casino, they could have played the lottery, pull-tab tickets, or played at underground clubs. Nothing stops problem gambling but professional help and adequate resources, because no matter what we can do to prohibit gambling, it still happens. It’s best to encourage regulating gambling as opposed to banning it, specifically for this reason. Many politicians and lobbyists in the U.S. support regulation, but I doubt they’ll have the necessary sway.
Just like the people of my home town, the U.S. government is making it’s decision on specious grounds, prepared to engage in fear-mongering before rational debate. And that is a recipe for disaster.
 
|
