Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Dominique's Avatar
    Dominique is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2002
    Location
    The Boonies
    Posts
    4,777
    Thanks
    452
    Thanked 724 Times in 299 Posts

    Default LA Times - Get rid of gambling restrictions!

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...ent-editorials


    EDITORIAL
    Get rid of gambling restrictions
    The U.S. doesn't mind the lottery, but when it comes to sports betting across interstate or international boundaries, all bets are off. They shouldn't be.
    April 8, 2007


    ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, former British colonies on the eastern edge of the Caribbean Sea, are smaller than Los Angeles and less populous than Burbank. Yet they may be able to force the world's most powerful government to change its gambling laws.

    Not since 1960 has it been legal under federal law to place or take bets on sports using interstate or international phone lines. The Federal Wire Act of 1961 and subsequent measures also have been interpreted to ban online gambling as well, or at least gambling on sports. At issue is whether those laws constitute "arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination" against foreign firms.

    Do they? Antigua and Barbuda argue that they do and the World Trade Organization agrees. So do we.

    Realistically, the ban has had little effect. It hasn't stopped Americans from betting (and losing) millions of dollars at online casinos and bookmaking operations based in other countries. Nevertheless, U.S. policy has irritated many of its trading partners, including Antigua and Barbuda, which asked the WTO in 2003 to rule that U.S. gambling restrictions violated an international treaty governing trade in services.

    Eventually, in 2005, a WTO appeals panel accepted the U.S. argument that its gambling restrictions were needed to protect public order and morals. But by permitting off-track betting parlors in the U.S., the WTO ruled, Congress created an exception to the ban on remote gambling that discriminated against foreign bookmakers. After two more years of wrangling over what the panel's order meant, a WTO tribunal ruled late last month that the U.S. remained out of compliance.

    So the U.S. faces trade sanctions from the WTO unless Congress does one of two things: Either acknowledge that betting on horses from overseas is no greater threat to the nation's moral fiber than it is at an OTB parlor, or make OTB parlors illegal.

    Maybe it doesn't have the stomach for either. If so, then Antigua and Barbuda may want to ask the WTO to ponder why allowing the interstate sale of lottery tickets a form of state-sponsored gambling is any less hypocritical than the U.S. stance on thoroughbreds and trotters.

  2. #2
    pgaming's Avatar
    pgaming is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2005
    Posts
    2,854
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 215 Times in 164 Posts

    Thumbs up

    A very valid argument Dominique. They really get me wound up pretty good.

    Sometimes I think the WTO should be renamed to the USWTO (United States World Trade Organization). I can’t speak for all Canadians but I sense the general consensus here is one of distaste. Our politicians have scored major points for denying the U.S persistent bullying tactics. Canadian’s will be quick to give the middle finger if the BS flies north.

    Canada has not forgotten the rude and often arrogant attitude of this current administration. First there was the softwood lumber dispute. The WTO ruled in our favour but almost crippled our industry. Second America accused Canada of letting in World Trade Centre bombers into the United States and then refused to apologize to the country when it was proven to be false, and in fact they continued to perpetuate this lie.

    Third, the big mad cow scare the U.S refused to open it borders even when proved over and over again our beef was good. Fourth, Canadians do not appreciate U.S nuclear subs in our sovereign waters. The U.S claims they are international waters, untrue says our Government. Does the U.S respect our sovereignty? I think not.

    Canada allows the small town of Kahnawake to exist out of respect, and fear. Has any operator been arrested? I don’t think so and yet the U.S moves forward in arresting others. What a sick double standard the U.S has created. Maybe they worry over tribal warfare breaking out. This would be exactly what they would get.

    Would the Canadian Government continue to be bullied whipped by the U.S? I don’t think so. The distaste has been lingering around since W took office. Canada said no way to the U.S when it came to Iraq. This war was not sanctioned by the U.N, meaning the United Nations. Funny though I don't know one Canadian who doesn't support the U.S troops serving in Iraq. Today six Canadians soldiers were killed fighting the Taliban.

    Canada believes in the WTO and I can only hope we join the fight. The WTO stands for the WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION. Not an organization tailored made for super economies or powers. The U.S policy makers should take it into consideration. Build the track for online gambling and play by the rules.

    BTW: In regards to the article a good find and straight to the point! After reading I felt a little despaired. History has shown Canada and the world the WTO ruling against the U.S has little impact on trade issues. I feel it will take more countries to support the WTO ruling to knock down this “elephant”. On the upside good to see an American News Paper publishing the story

    Greek39
    Last edited by pgaming; 8 April 2007 at 11:57 pm. Reason: adding to post

  3. #3
    Webzcas's Avatar
    Webzcas is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    1,394
    Thanks
    582
    Thanked 1,016 Times in 409 Posts

    Default

    Exit stage left

  4. #4
    big fish is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    February 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,165
    Blog Entries
    30
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 97 Times in 72 Posts

    Default

    it really is rediculous. now the us is wanting to bring charges against china for piracy via the wto http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/...ade/index.html . i can not understand how the government can act this way. it just does not make sense. not to me anyway. of course i understand why we are brining charges against china - but how we can ignore the wto ruling for years - and then bring up charges of our own baffles me.
    Last edited by big fish; 9 April 2007 at 8:23 am.
    - Big Fish - Gambling.org Founder -
    Gambling.org: Learn about legal online gambling in the USA with trusted reviews from gambling experts since 1996.

  5. #5
    mojo's Avatar
    mojo is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2005
    Posts
    4,985
    Thanks
    1,933
    Thanked 1,883 Times in 1,222 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by big fish View Post
    it really is rediculous. now the us is wanting to bring charges against china for piracy via the wto http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/...ade/index.html . i can not understand how the government can act this way. it just does not make sense. not to me anyway. of course i understand why we are brining charges against china - but how we can ignore the wto ruling for years - and then bring up charges of our own baffles me.
    You would think that the US would need to comply with it's own recent ruling before using the WTO as a venue against China. That would certainly come up as hypocritical.

    Mojo

  6. #6
    pgaming's Avatar
    pgaming is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    July 2005
    Posts
    2,854
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 215 Times in 164 Posts

    Thumbs up

    While the U.S protects its interest around the globe they should start respecting the interests of other countries first. The U.S using the WTO to crack down on China is obscene and hypocritical. This sort of thing really baffles me. The sooner W is out the better.

    I miss the U.S that was ten years ago.

    Greek39

  7. #7
    The Buzz's Avatar
    The Buzz is offline GPWA Gossip Hound
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    3,579
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked 1,490 Times in 901 Posts

    Default

    It's interesting. Churches will run bingo games, but preach against gambling. Governments will legislate against gambling, but run lotteries. And moralists will rail against gambling, but still play the slots while they're in Vegas. It all reeks of hypocrisy.

    Also, with land-based casinos popping up everywhere in the U.S., it looks like the moral majority has given up its fight against land-based gaming and shifted arenas into the online space.

  8. #8
    Dominique's Avatar
    Dominique is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2002
    Location
    The Boonies
    Posts
    4,777
    Thanks
    452
    Thanked 724 Times in 299 Posts

    Default

    The positive in this is that the LA Times, a mainstream paper, it taking a clear stance here.


    The U.S. doesn't mind the lottery, but when it comes to sports betting across interstate or international boundaries, all bets are off. They shouldn't be.
    and

    Antigua and Barbuda argue that they do and the World Trade Organization agrees. So do we.
    I do see more and more mainstream news veering off the path of just condemning online gambling, actually doing some research and portraying a more realistic picture.

    That's encouraging!

  9. #9
    The Buzz's Avatar
    The Buzz is offline GPWA Gossip Hound
    Join Date
    February 2007
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    3,579
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked 1,490 Times in 901 Posts

    Default

    Dominque is right. Any time a mainstream paper like the LA Times takes a clear, well-reasoned stance like this on online gambling, it's very encouraging.

  10. #10
    TheGooner's Avatar
    TheGooner is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,240
    Thanks
    1,937
    Thanked 4,187 Times in 1,993 Posts

    Talking

    I sounds very good - and is a well written editorial.

    But LA is a strange town - so how influential is the local newspaper?
    And does anyone actually read it?

    I mean - would be be better off getting influence by being an item on a TV show like E! Tonight or having Paris Hilton speak out ... in order to get LA residents to actually notice it?

  11. #11
    Dominique's Avatar
    Dominique is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    March 2002
    Location
    The Boonies
    Posts
    4,777
    Thanks
    452
    Thanked 724 Times in 299 Posts

    Default

    The LA Times has one of the larger circulations.

    Can you recruit Paris Hilton for us? That would work like a charm! Paris playing poker....

  12. #12
    MichaelCorfman's Avatar
    MichaelCorfman is offline GPWA Executive Director
    Join Date
    June 2004
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,149
    Thanks
    845
    Thanked 5,288 Times in 1,708 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominique View Post
    That would work like a charm! Paris playing poker....
    Good idea. Vin, can we get the reporters to call up Paris? I know it's dirty work, but someone has got to do it. There will be a bonus in your paycheck if you can get her to play in the GPWA vs PAW freeroll on the 15th.

    Michael
    GPWA Executive Director, Casino City CEO, Friend to the Village Idiot

    Resources for Affiliates: iGamingDirectory.com, iGamingAffiliatePrograms.com, GamingMeets.com

  13. #13
    vinism's Avatar
    vinism is offline Editor Emeritus
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Location
    Imported from Detroit
    Posts
    1,209
    Blog Entries
    5
    Thanks
    428
    Thanked 336 Times in 172 Posts

    Default

    Hmmm....I wonder if she's still frequents the Palms....

    Vin

  14. #14
    onestopgamblingguide is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    April 2005
    Posts
    108
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Thumbs up hi

    Thanks for posting the article Dominique!

    GL recruiting Paris Vin rofl.....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •