Legalizing Net gambling? There's a chance

[arcos]

Source: CNet

Opponents of a federal ban on Internet gambling said during a congressional hearing Friday that it would be wiser to legalize and regulate betting than prohibit it.

"In the end, adults ought to be able to decide for themselves how they spend the money they earn themselves," said Rep. Barney Frank, the Democratic chairman of the House Financial Services committee and primary backer of the legalization effort.

Friday's hearing included witnesses from companies that process online payments. In general, they echoed the arguments once used in favor of ending alcohol prohibition and that are now being invoked to decriminalize marijuana: It's better to legalize, tax and carefully regulate an industry than let it flourish with far less oversight in the black market.

Some countries already do just that. In the United Kingdom, for instance, Internet gambling is legal and strictly regulated. Some of the larger online casino operators are publicly traded on the London Stock Exchange.

<snip>

Read more: http://news.com.com/Legalizing+Net+gambling+Theres+a+chance/2100-1028_3-6189857.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news

[lfairban]

1. The headline is misleading.

It seems to imply that playing poker online is illegal.

Excuse me, but the UIGEA was not a ban on Internet gambling.

The New Bill (UIGEA) Does Not Make Online Poker Illegal

The new bill attempts to make it more difficult to get money into a site by forbidding US financial Institutions from funding the type of online gambling that the law has previously made illegal. The new bill does not make online gaming illegal where it was not illegal before. Let me say that again. The new bill does not make online gaming illegal. The bill merely speaks to the mechanism by which an online account is funded. I am going to spend some time in this article explaining the accuracy of my reasoning.

<snip>

Online Poker Is Not Illegal

Even though the Attorney General’s office has publicly taken the position that the 1961 Wire Act forbids online poker, in 10 years they have not put their money where their mouth is. Why? The judiciary (that is, the interpreting body) has already held that the 1961 Wire Act doesn’t speak to poker. It only applies to sports betting.

Legal Landscape of Online Gaming Has Not Changed

[pokercat999]

2. They have suceeded in making it difficult and expensive

to play online poker. I was doing really well at the game, comfortable in my own home. Now It's a five hour drive and overnight hotel stay with the associated costs. Talk about RAKE!

[lfairban]

3. Why did you quit playing online?

nt

[pokercat999]

7. It's not the "poker rooms" it's the money transfers to

my bank. I can't find an online service I'm comfortable with since the one I used stopped doing business in the USA.

[Hawkeye-X]

4. There's 4 places online where you can play.

And I play them there sometimes and they still accept US players because they have found loopholes.

Bodog poker
Absolute Poker
Pokerstars
(I forget the 4th)

[lfairban]

6. You forgot . . .

. . . Full Tilt Poker
Microgaming Network
UltimateBet
Merge Gaming Network
World Poker Exchange
and some other minor sites not listed on PokerSiteScout

The "loophole" as you refer to it is the February 2001 ruling by United States District Court Judge Stanwood Duval where he holds that the US Federal Wire Act does not apply to online poker:

http://www.playwinningpoker.com/online/poker/legal/mastercard.html

for more information, please visit:

My Poker Page

and the The 2+2 Forums, Poker Legislation section

[Louie the XIV]

5. Well said Barney

This bill was the result of the unsavory influence of lobbyists representing the Indian casinos.