Internet gambling is a serious issue in America and due to the rapid technological advancements of the internet, the government is trying to catch up with laws to regulate it; hence, the current legality of online gambling is in limbo. The right to gamble on the internet is one which is protected by the American Constitution just like our right to free speech, and while it is not only a fairly harmless recreational activity enjoyed by many, it is also a multi- billion dollar business which gives work to many people around the world. Pro-online gambling legislation would have many positive financial outcomes for our society while also ensuring the freedom to which we are accustom, which easily outweighs any negative outcomes that there might be.
Is it currently legal to gamble online in the United States? According to federal law, yes it is. "In terms of legislation that has gone through either state or federal houses that has told players specifically you can't do it, there really isn't anything on the books,'' offered Sue Schneider, publisher of Interactive Gaming News. "So this industry is a lawyer's dream, because there is no clarity on the law.'' (qtd. in CNN, SI.com). The only law by the federal government which even resembles pertaining to online gambling is the Wire Act. The Wire Act was passed in 1961 as a way of stopping illegal bookmakers specifically from accepting illegal sporting bets over the phone (Rodefer). Though with some imagination some lawyers may interpret the ban on wire communications to include the internet, but this is difficult considering that the internet did not exist when the law was passed hence the law was not intended for this purpose. Nonetheless, even if the Wire Act did apply to online gambling, it would only go after the online casinos, which will be far outside of U.S. jurisdiction, and does not put actual citizens gambling online at any legal risk since it was never designed to go after gamblers themselves. In the last few years several bills which would ban or restrict online gambling have been rejected by Congress. However one which passed was the Internet Gambling Enforcement Act passed in 2002 (Manter). This act basically just makes it harder to place bets online by restricting credit cards as well as other payment methods from allowing U.S. citizens to transfer money to online gambling sites. To actually gamble online is in no way prohibited by this Act however (Manter). This means that anti-online gambling laws themselves are not popular enough to be passed so weaker laws such as this one which attempt to deter gamblers through payment methods are passed.
When one looks at state legislation, it is more defined than the policies of the federal government, but it can also be quite different from state-to-state. Most states do not have any laws passed pertaining to the ability to place bets online. However, a few states, such as Nevada, have laws which prohibit local residents from placing wagers online while also allowing local licensed casinos to accept bets online (Rose). While the consequences of breaching these laws usually are misdemeanors (Rose), they are rarely, if ever, used to prosecute an online gambler since it is a very difficult thing to regulate without seriously impeding the public’s personal privacy by monitoring what applications one runs on their computer, it is impossible to know if they gamble online. In high gambling revenue states such as Nevada, these laws merely act as a way to help the casinos not lose business to their online counterparts by scaring the local residents. So rather than trying to uphold a nearly unenforceable law, it is ignored but written on the books to help local business. Also many state laws merely act to further inhibit the citizen from getting his or her money online to make a wager rather than banning the online gambling itself.
There are several reasons why one may be against having online gambling legal in a society. One of these is the possibility of gambling addiction, which is obviously a very serious issue. There are many people defined as either pathological or problem gamblers, and estimated 1.6% of the population, yet for the vast majority of people gambling remains a harmless form of entertainment (NASPL). These people do need help and their problem should not be taken lightly, but gambling addiction is still the result of a lack of self control. It is similar to alcoholism in that those who cannot control themselves during certain activities should stay away from them. Both alcoholism and gambling addiction stem from personal problems, tendencies, and lack of self control. There are many hospitals as well as private agencies (such as gamblers anonymous) which treat gambling addiction. Dr. Steven E. Hyman M.D., the director of the national institute of health states “we should never medicalize our society so that we remove personal responsibility” ( United States, Addictive Gambling). Ample help is out there to treat those who need it, so why should this inhibit the general population from such recreational activities? Certainly the fact that a small portion of the population cannot gamble responsibly does not justify making gambling illegal for everyone anymore than alcoholism (a much more widespread problem) justifies making alcohol illegal.
When gambling online there is also the increased risk of potential fraud from having your funds stolen or seized. At the larger online casinos ones money just as safe as it at a live casino. These companies get so much traffic that they have too much to lose in reputation and little to gain by mistreating their customers. The risk though lies within the hundreds of smaller casinos online. Many of these sites are not as financially stable as they lead one to believe. They convince a person to deposit money there and when that person decides to cash out they may be given many false promises and lies via e-mail and telephone conversations for weeks before they give that person some, if any, of their money back. If one is cheated out of hundreds of dollars the only thing you can presently do is report the casino to a watchdog site which will attempt to help that person get their money from the casino using the threat of blacklisting. If the federal government made it clearly legal to operate an online gambling site from within the United States it would enable users a much more secure way to gamble from their homes. Until this happens the general online gambling public will be fine as long as they stay away from the less known casinos or make sure they they sign-up through a watchdog site to greatly decrease their risk of online fraud.
When gambling online there is often the fear of online cheating. This applies much more heavily to online poker, in which one is playing against other people than it does to online casinos. While there are several poker sites that have been around for years and ones money is much safer and more easily accessible then when at an online casino, there is much greater concern and suspicions about cheating. If a person searched through forums online they would see thousands of threads of accusation that online poker is rigged. These threads almost always pertain to the bigger sites and are due to losing players trying to blame someone other then themselves for losing. Party Poker, a favorite room for online cheating theorists, regularly has 90,000 players online at primetime hours. A site such as this has no reason to make good players lose since it is attaining an unbelievable amount of rake (the poker room’s cut which is taken out of each pot) each day. This rake will be taken out of each pot no mater who wins. The winner of each pot is just an arbitrary name as far as online poker sites are concerned. Party Poker itself made 903.5 million in gross revenue during 2005 (Party Gaming). So why would a company which is making 4.47 million a day risk its business and reputation to help certain players win online? To put it simply, it would be completely illogical to do so. Hence, it is in the best interest of online poker rooms to stop cheating in any way possible.
There are several financial benefits for the government not only keeping online gambling legal, but allowing online gambling sites to be based in the U.S. Internet gambling is the second biggest money maker, behind only the sex industry. It generated 5.7 billion dollars in 2003 ( Kearney). If some of those sites were based in this U.S. then the U.S. government could get a piece of a several million dollar pie. Also, having a U.S. based online casino or poker room would add a large amount of validity in internet gambling since the sites would be regulated more judiciously. People would have a much better gambling experience online by having their money in a safe place that they trust. It would lead to more tax revenue to complement current casino and lottery taxes. One of the reasons that the government is against online gambling because it is trying to protect it’s local gambling industry. If it was made legal to base an online site in the U.S., then mainstream Las Vegas casinos would then be able to boost their revenue by offering gaming online for those who are not located near their casino. This is a win-win situation for the government, the U.S. gambling industry, and the average American.
Gambling itself has great recreational value. There is a thrill which one gets while playing casino games which is very hard for most people to experience in their everyday lives. It is said that gambling gives you a rush unlike any other. This is why gambling is so popular. It gives people a chance to deviate from the ordinary and experience strong emotions which cannot they cannot experience in their everyday life. The chance of winning or losing can evoke strong emotions as a way of satisfying the gambling customer (Jolley, Mizerski, and Olaru). The fun which people experience when gambling either online or at a casino is why it is the second biggest money maker on the internet. It gives the people the chance to experience special emotions which cannot be found elsewhere.
Yet others gamble as a way to express a skill. The ability to be better then an opponent at a game composed greatly of luck, but also skill is a very attractive combination. Not only does one get the rush which is found when playing a casino game like blackjack, but there is also the possibility for the few who are good enough to have enough skill to win in the long run based on their ability. This is why the recent poker explosion has caught on so much. Poker is a game of luck where you are not necessarily at a constant disadvantage. The poker explosion was launched by the poker amateur Chris Moneymaker winning the 2003 World Series of Poker and 2.5 million dollars (Cavouras). He won his entry to this event, the most prestigious event in the poker world, in a $40 online satellite. “This win wasn’t only a milestone for the unknown Moneymaker, but was a real coup for the entire Poker industry; it has catalyzed an explosion in the popularity of the online game, and a general buzz surrounding the game in general” (Cavouras). It signified that you did not have to be a poker pro in order to play the game well and win. The thrill of gambling at a game of skill, what more could the public ask for. Poker will undoubtedly be a very popular game for years to come due to the excitement it allows people to feel as well as the ability for people to use any skill which they might have.
The majority of our society views live gambling as an acceptable recreational activity and the cries for Las Vegas to ban casinos and the city to be shut down are few and far between. Hence it is obvious that our society is not inherently against gambling. Yet still many people and politicians who dare not say such radical things as Las Vegas should be shut down are consistently trying to push to make online gambling illegal. One must be curious why that is. Is there any reason that an activity processed over an internet connection is more immoral or negative then the same activity in a social setting of an American run, big business casino? Is betting $5 a hand on blackjack acceptable when at Atlantic City an acceptable form of recreation but once that same activity takes place in your home from your computer screen do you suddenly become a degenerate gambler? To base the acceptance of an activity on something as arbitrary as where it takes place is illogical. It is the same as making it illegal to watch T.V. in your bathroom. Such arbitrary rules to sometimes ban an activity should not be accepted by a cognitive society. Either something is O.K. or it is not. The setting in which an activity takes place should not change this. If one believes that gambling is wrong, either live or online, that that persons view are consistent and respectable. The majority of our society however does not associate going to a casino when in Vegas with a negative stigma. Rather we imagine it to be an invigorating activity to take part in when on a vacation and the majority of Americans either can or at some time would like to gamble in a brick and mortar casino. So how can a society which so openly is pro gambling even consider banning the exact same activities in a different venue? The answer is simply government influence. Since the U.S. government is getting no revenue from online gambling sites on foreign soil it sites things such as gambling addiction in an effort to make such activities illegal when in fact the dominating majority of our society, whether they know enough to admit it or not, believe that online gambling should be legal and this view is expressed by the millions of people who vacation to Las Vegas every year to gamble. To make an activity such as online gambling illegal sometimes based on its venue is nothing more then the government attempting to skew the logic of its people to protect its own hidden agendas.
I still need to discuss the recreational value of gambling. I will examine the “thrill” of gambling as well as the recent poker explosion in the U.S. I will then compare live gambling and internet gambling. This comparison should drive my point home and should set to rest any remaining arguments against my view which I have not yet combated aside from the view that all gambling is wrong, which is quite rare. I will end with a conclusion to my paper.
We must ask ourselves: Is it our government’s duty to protect us from ourselves? To some extent it is. Harmful drugs such as heroine and crack are best kept illegal for our society. However, other harmful drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are completely legal in our society. This is because the government makes large sums of money off of alcohol and tobacco sales, hence they are O.K. for our society. Such examples show that the U.S. government is not only in the business of protecting the people, but it is also in the business of protecting the government. For the government to even consider making online gambling illegal in the U.S. while much more harmful mainstream activities are allowed shows perhaps that the government does not always have our best interests at heart. Hence, it is our duty to protect our civil liberties at all costs. To pass laws against things activities as internet gambling has more negative impacts on society’s civil rights then it has positive impacts due to inhibiting the few with gambling addiction.
There is nothing inherently worse about gambling online than in person and our society openly condones live gambling. There is also no greater risk online of gambling addiction or any other problem then there is in a live U.S. casino. Hence our government’s current position on proposing laws to prohibit such activities in the U.S. is wholly unacceptable. If the government truly follows the will of the people it will either leave the issue alone or take its piece of the online gambling market by allowing online casinos to be based in the U.S. Should the government do anything other than these two actions they are going agaist the will of the people and against the laws of logic.
Works Cited
Cavouras, Greg. “Christ Moneymaker wins 1st Prize – 2003 World Series of Poker Main Event.”
Blind Bet Poker. May 2 2006.
Rose, Nelson. “Gambling and the Law: Understanding the law of internet gambling.” 2002
United States. Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate.
Addictive Gambling. Washington: 2000.
