Richard C. Leone, who served on the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, wrote a blog entry for (new jersey) detailing the commission's findings, saying that it did not support expansion of any gambling, including on the Internet.

All nine members opposed the spread of gambling to the Internet and called for national legislation to make such activity as difficult as possible. This recommendation is particularly relevant in the wake of the legislation passed in Nevada making Internet gambling legal for qualified casinos. A majority of the commission also called for a pause in the spread of gambling, something we felt was the minimum necessary until we develop a more realistic assessment of the costs and benefits of gambling expansion.

I cannot recapitulate our report here, but the bedrock of the commission's findings was that increased gambling opportunities have negative consequences for millions of Americans.

The actual number of problem or pathological gamblers is a subject of hot debate, but one thing is for sure - none of the figures count one group that has come to depend on gambling: the governors and legislators of the 47 states that allow some form of legalized gambling. They rely on it to generate campaign contributions and to ease the pressure of dealing with difficult state financial issues.
But in Buzzy's opinion, this study is woefully out of date. Sure, the brick and mortar industry hasn't changed much in the last eight years, but the Internet industry has, as have the players who play on the Internet.

Leone explains that he believes that gambling (specifically lottery) is a tax on the poor, but eCogra recently released a study that found that Internet gamblers tended to be more affluent.

It's time for a new study ... if Internet gambling opponents truly believe that the outcome of that study will prove their theory (that it should be stopped, banned etc.), then why fight it?