- This topic has 15 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Following on from the lead provided by those paragons of moral virtue currently resident in Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, it appears that Scottish Nationalists, a party who hold significant sway in the devolved Scottish Parliament, are keen to follow the recent US example, at least according to an article in Saturday’s Times.
It appears that gaming legislation, while enforced at a local level, is still an issue which is governed by Westminster and the Nats, well some of them at any rate, want control over this area, citing the problems associated with gambling and the recent apparent increases in such difficulties.
The same paper, in a separate story, also highlights the unfavourable terms being applied by credit card companies to those accounts where the customer uses their card to finance betting.
Is gambling the social pariah it is made out to be (virtually the only thing the US and their Middle Eastern foes agree on) and do we indeed need tighter controls?
And are we headed down a road which will eventually take us to a situation where gambling is outlawed in all but the most tightly controlled (and monopolised) environments?<br>
c15,
Gambling is only outlawed in 2 USA states.<br>UK Treasury want gambling onshore where they can "regulate" it ie code for get at least some tax revenue from it. It is one of our very few growth industries and if we don’t do it (for the tax) there are many other countries that will. Politicians love to climb on the bandwagon of the issue of the moment eg "muslims ate my hamster", but do not have the know how to ever think things through or actually implement anything. By the time their civil servants have gone round the houses finding ways the politicians will be out of power in any case.
I would agree that gambling with a credit card payment (even at normal extortionate rates) is not a good thing for some, and deposits are better to restrain the impulse or compulsive gamblers. However there’s not much else to do in a Scottish winter.
Quote: from robert99 on 11:18 pm on Oct. 15, 2006[br]c15,
I would agree that gambling with a credit card payment (even at normal extortionate rates) is not a good thing for some,
I think I’d be inclined to put it at bit stronger than that.
The business ethic of the high street usurers today is not an edifying one but I have a degree of sympathy with them charging credit card betting transactions as cash withdrawals.
As Robert and Colin point out betting on the ‘never never’ cannot be condoned and personally I’d have no problem at all with a ban on credit card betting.
Only ever used debit cards over the internet with phone betting restricted to those ‘debts of honour’ that are credit accounts, most of which are dormant now.
With ‘punters pal’ Alex Salmond top dog in the SNP is there really that much to worry about anyway?
Quote from Robert99 – "However there’s not much else to do in a Scottish winter."
Either that or you end up with a load of kids.
Doh!
robert,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Gambling is only outlawed in 2 USA states.<br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
There’s one (former Kirkland & Ellis) "grey hair" who would dissuade you from that perspective. ÂÂÂ
He’s set up a very interesting Federal and State law resource at:
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/Federal- … ng-ban.htm
where he makes the following points on the Act signed in on Friday:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Section 5363 does not make it illegal for a mere player to make bets or wagers.  Rather, the Act applies only to those involved in the business of betting or wagering….
….The new law….only applies to online gambling operators who violate other existing state or federal anti-gambling laws. ÂÂÂ
Some commentators on this aspect of the Act conclude that since there are only a handful of states that expressly ban Internet gambling, this law has not accomplished very much. ÂÂÂ
The better view is that all of the online gambling sportsbooks, casinos and cardrooms violate existing anti-gambling laws of every one of the fifty states. ÂÂÂ
This is because:
– The gambling is legally deemed to take place simultaneously at both ends of the Internet connection. ÂÂÂ
– Under applicable state laws these interactive online gambling Websites are deemed to be doing business in the states in which the players are located when they make a bet.
– The general anti-gambling laws of every state criminalize the operation of unlicensed gambling like the sportsbooks, casinos and cardrooms that are covered by the new law. ÂÂÂ
Thus, this professional form of unlicensed gambling appears to be illegal whether or not the state has adopted a specific Internet anti-gambling law.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
He’s clearly done a lot of research on it and i can see where he’s coming from.
I agree its all to do with taxation, protectionism, and personal political ambitions rather than saving folk from themselves.
In terms of credit cards, there is of course a significant "credit default industry" in the UK that feeds ultimately off the prudent paying for the imprudent (as too with the PFI black hole created by the Enron Chancellor).
Reforms in the bankruptcy laws mean you can now go bust and get discharged within 12 months. ÂÂÂ
IMO the real problem is the ethic which teaches each individual:
–  the only acceptable time is now
–  the only acceptable answer is yes
–  the only acceptable agenda is mine
regardless in each case of the consequences for them and others.
best regards
wit<br>
(Edited by wit at 11:50 am on Oct. 16, 2006)
Personally I would like to see an end to "cartoon"racing and tv channels with virtual gaming.I cannot understand why people get involved with that stuff.<br>As for FOBT’s -the crack cocaine of the gambling industry -don’t get me started.
Wit,
"Gambling is only outlawed in 2 USA states."
My comments were in response to the original thread topic which mentioned gambling becoming a social pariah in USA. Explicit outlawing of gambling applies to only 2 States. The Federal law interpretations are just that, interpretations. One company, for example, is arguing that poker being a game of skill is exempt from new Act conveniently forgetting that chance comes into it as well.<br>However, horseracing, lotteries and betting by card from American Indian reservations are somehow explicitly exempt.
As you pointed out earlier the UK government will extradite anyone that USA wants to put on trial so legitimate business is not largely taking the risk on interpretations.<br>The Federal Act not being very practical in itself achieves its aim by merely sending out the message.
regards,<br>Little Big Foot
hi robert
Ol’ Chuck has produced a table summarising State law positions on gambling:
http://www.gambling-law-us.com/State-Law-Summary/
<br>As to Indian reservations in the US (as opposed to the Kahnawake in Quebec) he says:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>…excluded from the coverage of "unlawful Internet gambling" are….
– online bets made solely within a single state under an enabling statute passed by that state. [Note: there are no such enabling laws at this time.]
– online bets made solely on or among Indian tribal lands under enabling laws adopted by the affected tribes and approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission. [Note: no such laws have been adopted or approved at this time.]
– online bets made under the Interstate Horseracing Act. [Note: online interstate bets on horse races where such bets are legal at both ends of the online connection have been permitted under that law since 2000.]
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
<br>best regards
wit ÂÂÂ
(Edited by wit at 12:14 pm on Oct. 16, 2006)
<br>As Robert and Colin point out betting on the ‘never never’ cannot be condoned and personally I’d have no problem at all with a ban on credit card betting.
I’d have a problem with it!!! It would cut down on opportunities of obtaining fresh cards!!
I can see where you’re coming from though as it all depends on how you handle things. Personally the credit cards serve a purpose and the balance gets paid in full at the end of each month – for those that are not very disciplined this can lead to problems though I know.
Quote: from robert99 on 11:53 am on Oct. 16, 2006[br]Wit,
"Gambling is only outlawed in 2 USA states."
My comments were in response to the original thread topic which mentioned gambling becoming a social pariah in USA. Explicit outlawing of gambling applies to only 2 States. The Federal law interpretations are just that, interpretations. One company, for example, is arguing that poker being a game of skill is exempt from new Act conveniently forgetting that chance comes into it as well.<br>However, horseracing, lotteries and betting by card from American Indian reservations are somehow explicitly exempt.
As you pointed out earlier the UK government will extradite anyone that USA wants to put on trial so legitimate business is not largely taking the risk on interpretations.<br>The Federal Act not being very practical in itself achieves its aim by merely sending out the message.
regards,<br>Little Big Foot<br>
Gambling in a manner that doesn’t allow the gov to take a chunk of the profits is what is frowned upon in the US. Just like Australia.<br>That was the whole basis of the prohibition and it is the whole basis of the internet gambling ban. The gov wants it’s slice of everything.
As a resident of a Scottish Borders town I would see an independent government looking for control of gambling solely to have a new revenue stream. Despite what the SNP say about their motives I would not trust them.
The growth of easily accessible gambling products in recent years is sickening and causes real problems for lots of families. Lotteries, scratch cards, fruit machines, FOBT’s virtual racing are all in effect taxes on people who can least afford to pay. Government at all levels have revenue from these and will seek to increase this where possible.
Combine the addictive nature of these rip off gambling vehicles with easily available credit for virtually anyone and you have a recipe for disaster.<br>
Wallace
I would not agree with the ‘tax on the poor’ angle taken up by yourself. I’ve heard this touted before, and it really implies that those short of a bob or two are also short of any self-restraint and/or control over their lives.
It’s not a ‘tax’ I’ve ever contributed to – if only all other taxes were as voluntary!
But I share your loathing of the rapid-fire addiction machines bookmakers (and others) now rely so heavily on. They certainly have none of the cerebral benefits of working out a late-season sprint at Ayr.
However, the worst aspect of this state-sponsored puntfest is standing in my newsagent on a Saturday morning waiting for everyone in the queue to buy their lottery tickets, scratch-cards, prize bingo etc etc before I can get my papers.
When did my corner shop turn into a bookies?
Mike
So the poor cannot gamble, yet the government places its’ whole economic future on unwise credit spending by the public. I see stop them gambling so have enough left for unessential store purchases. ;)
<br>i agree that those short of a bob or two are mainly NOT short of self-restraint and/or control over their lives……
but those who are short of self-restraint and/or control over their lives, are likely to end up short of a bob or two.
best regards
wit
In the local corner shop here, it is indeed the poorer (invariably unemployed) members of the community that make up the majority of the addicts. This is in a town regarded as affluent with a small number of poor households. In virtually every visit to the shop I see people getting their daily fix of cigarettes, a few cans of super lager, a lottery ticket, a few scratch cards and a can beans to feed the kids! A nice rake of tax for the Revenue!
The real change over recent years is the addition of the gambling products championed by the government.. <br>
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.