March 27, 2004

The news is out and it's good and it's bad -- good for the poker player (sort of) and bad for the U.S. government (sort of).

Recently, the World Trade Organization decided to look into the issue of online gambling and this very week -- Wednesday, March 24 -- the group issued a decision that is bound to cause some folks to fume and others to flame. In essence, the WTO said that the United States is violating international trade law by prohibiting online gambling.

Of course this pronouncement will sit well with the many poker players in the U.S., but it did give President Bush and some of his party's members of congress heartburn. According to the New York Times report, for example, Republican Bob Goodlatte (representative from Virginia) stated that the decision was "appalling." Goodlatte believes another nation can't impose its values on the U.S.A., which seems an odd position to take for several reasons, not the least of which is that the WTO isn't a nation. (Not to neglect Democrats who might also be opposed to online gambling but they're apparently not as vocal.)

This whole governmental outlook toward online gambling probably needs to be investigated much more thoroughly than it has been so far. However, with Victorian-type influences and the many religious objections that stand in the way this might not happen. For example, in the March 23 issue of Pipe Dream, the Binghamton (New York) University newspaper, columnist Jordan Shapiro stated, "An entire industry of online casinos is circumventing gambling and tax laws while contributing to the rapid moral decline of society. Persistent gambling can deteriorate into a compulsive disease faster and easier online than in physical casinos." Realize, of course, that Mr. Shapiro has plenty of proof for the all but the first 12 words of this news/opinion. Or does he? And if he does, where is it?

Not long ago attempts to curtail online gambling by the U.S. government included clamping down on the credit card companies and electronic payment outfits such as PayPal. But the resourceful world community found ways around that move.

The next and current effort is the attempt to strong-arm the media into refusing to accept advertising from online casinos.

Online gambling, it's believed by those who are opposed to it, is a violation of the Interstate Wire Act of 1961. And that's the basis for much of the brouhaha.

What's bothersome is the hypocrisy of this whole gambling concept and perception -- persona, if you will. Land-based gambling exists. Then it's banned. Then it becomes legal, illegal and then legal again in Nevada. That's casino gambling, of course, which isn't legal anywhere else in the United States. But gambling on the lottery, that's okay in some states and eventually in many states and finally in many combined states across invisible boundaries called state lines. (They don't use some kind of interstate wire for that, do they?) And horse racing? Like dog racing, that's okay as well in the states that decide to host the gambling sport. Then casino gambling is acceptable in Atlantic City, but not in the rest of New Jersey. Eventually casino gambling is kind of okay in some states because it's not really in the state; it's on sovereign nation grounds. But soon it's also okay in a few other places in those states as long as it's on the water ... sort of.

We will be happy if the United States and the individual states can hammer out some kind of standardized rules and regulations to protect citizenry against itself, which in our opinion is the only reason to have viable laws about online gambling. (Many people, sadly, can't control themselves and do become addicted to the chase.)

This is a weighty issue and it is not one that should be a political football because it does not affect just the people of this country. It is an international matter.

Online gambling includes poker and some might suggest that lawmakers look at the decision in California that dropped a ban on various forms of poker games and allowed players to participate in hold'em and stud, and eventually "Asian" poker games. All these games were ruled to be games of skill and therefore not gambling.

This issue won't be settled immediately, not because of its a political/religious implications but because of the far-reaching repercussion here -- lost taxes, poor regulations and unsecured software, among other things. Of course if, for example, Nebraska decides to allow Internet gambling, what's to stop a firm in that state from setting up an online casino?

It's rather weighty, isn't it, with lots of facets to scrutinize. But the future of online poker is at stake and this is going to take some hard, unbiased research that should cover all bases before a final decision comes down. That's the scenario. And when the decision finally arrives, online poker players in the states will either be criminals or legal participants.