Give this editorial by Jacob Sullum on a read ... he presents a great argument.

Here's a quick preview.

While Annie Duke recognizes that most Americans who play poker do it for fun, not for a living, Pastor Hogan tends to over-generalize from his son's equally extreme experience with the game, which involved losing hundreds of dollars a day while playing 12 hours at a time. Hogan demands an addict's veto over Internet gambling: Because his son robbed a bank, he thinks, no one should be allowed to play poker online.

"I oppose any effort to legalize or even give credibility to Internet gambling," Hogan said. He called last year's passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which effectively requires American financial institutions to shun transactions related to online wagers, "an answer to my prayers that other families would not have to suffer as my family has."

Hogan's argument is a fine illustration of prohibitionist logic, which says anything that can be done to excess should be illegal. But as Duke noted, "If the government is going to ban every activity that can lead to harmful compulsion, the government is going to have to ban nearly every activity. Shopping, day trading, sex, (eating) chocolate, even drinking water -- these and myriad other activities, most of which are part of everyday life, have been linked to harmful compulsions."