A syndicated columnist in the Washington Times (ok, you can stop laughing now) makes the point that problem gambling is not a good reason to prevent Internet gambling.
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs...plate=nextpage
A syndicated columnist in the Washington Times (ok, you can stop laughing now) makes the point that problem gambling is not a good reason to prevent Internet gambling.
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs...plate=nextpage
Hats off to Annie Duke, she really has done her homework and seems to know how to handle the radicals....
"In any case, it's plain that one cannot safely draw any conclusions about the usual experience of online gamblers from the story of the minister's son who robbed a bank to support his poker habit. According to Miss Duke, the average online poker player spends about $10 a week, in exchange for which he has some fun and sharpens his skills.
"For the majority of Americans, playing poker is a hobby," Miss Duke told the House Judiciary Committee. "They should have a right to choose how to spend their discretionary income, whether it be on poker or anything else." They do not expect to become poker champions, and they should not be treated like bank robbers."
Terry - The Pokerkeep
President / CEO - Gambling Affiliates Union
Casino Affiliate Programs
Affiliate Resources
Gambling Affiliate Program Blacklist
Email: admin @ thepokerkeep.com
I agree...Having had a problem myself, it's not fair or just to expect others to be classed at risk, just because others may have a gambling issue.
I can take or leave a beer, while for others, 1 is too many and 1000 is not enough. But do you see anyone passing laws to ban alcohol? They did try though and look where that ended up...
People have choices, taking these choices away, invading people's rights or forcing bible belt doctrines on others is just plain stupid.
Cheers
Dave