In a March 25th editorial, the Christian Science Monitor published an editorial Don’t fold on Internet gambling ban arguing that the current US laws which prohibits online gaming should not only remain on the books but also toughened to include horse racing.
The CSM argues that bringing back online gaming would be bad because
“the social price paid from the suffering and financial ruin that online gaming inflicts on a minority of players who become addicted to gambling. And the privacy of Internet gambling provides a particular problem for this vulnerable group.” Then, in a quote from Congressman, “Internet gambling is a growing problem in the United States, particularly among young people and college students,” Rep. Darlene Hooley (D) of Oregon said in a floor speech at the time. “It is known to destroy families, marriages, and entire lives.”
So CSM’s view is that the entire United States of America should not be allowed to gamble online because “minority of players who become addicted to gambling.” Belittling the wishes of millions of American who gambled and bet on sports online without any problems. There are plenty of gambling help groups and even many online casinos provide access to information about addicted gamblers. Is it really fair to deny the entire country the freedom to play poker from a computer, because of a few sick individuals?
Following CSM’s logic we should also ban Las Vegas, Atlantic City and other casinos around the United States because they are contributing to a sickness of a few individuals. What difference is it if you play in person or online? Why do we need a nanny state to tell us what is permissible and what is not? America was built on the idea of capitalism, where the tough and enterprising survive and on freedom to do what we want without a nanny state. Have we all became so brainwashed by the government to idly stand by?
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.