Recently the United States government has passed a law creating it illegal for credit card organizations or other such institutions in the United States to make payments over the web to companies that are involved in on the web gambling. I for my component would like to say that I am not a gambler of any kind as the times that I have been to a casino or gambled at 1 are so couple of as to be counted on one hand so it is not with a personal interest that I am against such a law nor is it that I profit in any way, shape or form from on the internet gambling or any other kind. I merely speak out against a law that I think about to be unfair, illogical and hypocritical as it permits the identical activity when practiced in Casinos in cities like Las Vegas or Atlantic City but not on the internet. To my way of thinking this is the equivalent of passing a law that makes it illegal to consume liquor in bars but not in restaurants where the activity is left unaltered but for some reason the law strikes out against.
?
The problem to those who produced the law regarding on-line gambling in the United States was so referred to as ?morality? which of course is arbitrary and if one looks at issues from a purely logical point of view need to in no way be utilised as a basis for law. It becoming this sort of thinking which in the US lead to the failed Volstead Act. This act being the one that brought about prohibition in the United States throughout the 20s which contrary to popular misconception made it unlawful not to produce or consume alcohol but to sell or acquire it. Meaning one could not profit from it which of course some did and in a enormous way.
?
Morality regardless of what ever we could be told is a point of view which has always been as what is regarded as to be moral by one individual or society will not necessarily be regarded as as such by an additional individual or society. For instance some may possibly contemplate adultery as immoral although the law in most countries does not regard it as illegal or at least not anymore. As yet another example I can state how in some countries alcohol consumption is regarded as illegal on religious and moral grounds although in other people it is not. Nonetheless morality should be distinguished between right and wrong. Of course in no way loosing sight of how even these two to a large extent are also subjective to interpretation although for the most component it is accepted by most of society that murder and theft are wrong.
?
With regards to the morality of gambling we like several other issues such as prostitution, drinking, very same sex marriages, smoking, and drug taking can constantly argue about their moral aspects and their effect on society as a whole but can it be regarded as wrong for people who are past a specific age (18 in most countries) to willingly risk loosing their money in an attempt to win a lot more of it even if this be on the web? These folks soon after all are conscious that there is a opportunity that their money will be lost, at least to them. This is a question I would reply in the negative giving the following reason. Why need to it be much less moral for a person to win or loose money in gambling on the internet then it is on ?Wall Street?? This becoming a place were even bigger sums of cash are won and lost. If we lend some thought to the matter is ?investing? money on the stock marketplace not a form of gambling as one is never certain one will profit or not unless 1 has inside info which is even illegal. Naturally I am aware that there are those who will say that on the stock marketplace funds is neither won nor loss but simply changes hands well is it not the same case with on-line gambling and in this argument, let it not slip our minds that investing (or gambling) on the stock market could also be done on the web.
?
If we look at the issue from an even broader perceptive is not gambling on the web much less harmful on the entire then investing or gambling on the stock marketplace? Depending on how 1 wishes to label it, usually bearing in mind that gambling is an activity in which cash modifications hands a lot more by opportunity then by skill or understanding. The stock market naturally becoming a lot more harmful by virtue of becoming able to cause devastating effects on the economy of the entire world whereas net gambling may possibly realistically involve only those who directly partake in it. Furthermore losses from net gambling could in no way even approach those that were caused by the ?sub prime market? which has set the world in to recession though couple of are willing to use the term, at least for now.
?
The reason the United States congress has observed fit to declare gambling on the net as illegal is based upon ?morality?. I personally do not see how this be ?immoral? if such a word could be applied to individuals who by there own no cost will are risking their own assets as opposed to those who do likewise on the stock market. The stock marketplace being a place where on numerous occasions those who invest do not even do so with their own savings but those of others who are not necessarily amongst society?s most affluent or sometimes not even informed as to what is being done with their money. Is it not or need to it not be up to each individual to decide in what form he or she wishes to spend or risk loosing his or her financial resources or in this case not even on what but where??
?
Nonetheless I in what be this whole affair see something else that possibly some do not and that is if individuals are not allowed to gamble on the world wide web or at least those in the US then would they not be forced to do so exclusively in American casinos as they would be left with no other legal selection. This generating it abundantly clear that with a law forbidding gambling on the web on supposedly moral grounds then American casinos would no longer be loosing out to world wide web competition. This leaving the road clear for American gambling loses to stay in America as opposed to leaving the country. This in my opinion is the real issue that is becoming disguised as morality.
?
Naturally given that casinos would be creating more cash due to the fact of this law so would the United States government given that casinos would have greater revenues to be taxed which in a time of crisis would not come as unwanted income. This even goes further as when Americans gamble much less in casinos and more on the world wide web they also invest less income on traveling to those casinos, or staying in the hotels which own the casinos. This making a situation that world wide web gambling has not only taken profits from American casinos but all those businesses connected to them. So taking these factors in to consideration, I in my think (if no one else?s) claim this law was passed to assist casinos in America and their connected businesses in making higher profits although hiding behind the smoke screen that is morality. Moral grounds being that people loose their income and communities suffers as if the very same factor did not occur when the identical activity is carried out in the casinos of Los Vegas or Atlantic City.
?
Of course like with prohibition which did not stop drinking but rather increased it this law based on hypocrisy will also not stop on the internet gambling either even for Americans (let alone folks from other countries) as all they will need do is travel outside the US or just locate a foreign bank to problem them a credit card that is not bound to uphold laws that just do not make sense and serve no purpose other then the interest of a select few. ?
Source: http://www.50statesonline.org/gambling-in-casinos-is-legal-so-why-is-it-illegal-on-the-internet.htm
top chef powerball winner powerball winner narwhals narwhals gmail app gmail app
?Mail this post 
