Article: Should California Legalize Internet Poker?

Stick66 · Apr 27, 2011

In my local paper:

Link no longer available

I love how every opponent to online poker has to use scary words like "heroin" or "child abuse" because they never have specific facts to support their stance.

absoluthamm · Apr 27, 2011

I'm just going to be a dick and put it out there, but Internet poker isn't illegal currently

Just frowned upon, like...

Tammy · Apr 27, 2011

Wow. The opponent's view in the article is so unbelievably ignorant it's laughable.

darkassassin89 · Apr 27, 2011

Wow... They make it seem like this is some online drug trafficking scandal. Thank God im moving to canada now.

OH CANADAAAAAA

NineLions · Apr 27, 2011

Interesting how the plus side writer talks about poker as compared with other casino activities, and the no side talks about online gambling, doesn't even use the word "poker", and lumps it together with legalized prostitution, heroin, and child porn.

Stick66 · Apr 27, 2011

absoluthamm said:
I'm just going to be a dick and put it out there, but Internet poker isn't illegal currently Just frowned upon, like...

Yeah. I hear ya. I think they just mean that they want to make it legal to run a poker site within California for Californians, AKA "intrastate online poker". But I'm not 100% sure. This article is pretty lame, but it shows what we're up against. Lameness on both sides, imo. 2 bills trying to get passed? Why don't all the proponents get behind just one? Sheesh.

absoluthamm · Apr 27, 2011

haha, yea i know, I was just being difficult

OzExorcist · Apr 27, 2011

So is someone local going to write a letter to the editor with a rebuttal to this Pia Lopez's arguments?

I find the "prostitution, heroin and child porn" argument to be an interesting one too, if only because I'm amazed that prostitution gets lumped in with herion and child porn. Maybe we're just brought up with different values here...

NineLions · Apr 27, 2011

OzExorcist said:
So is someone local going to write a letter to the editor with a rebuttal to this Pia Lopez's arguments?

I find the "prostitution, heroin and child porn" argument to be an interesting one too, if only because I'm amazed that prostitution gets lumped in with herion and child porn. Maybe we're just brought up with different values here...

But all online poker players use prostitutues, heroin and child porn as well, so why not lump them all together.

Tammy · Apr 27, 2011

OzExorcist said:
So is someone local going to write a letter to the editor with a rebuttal to this Pia Lopez's arguments?

I find the "prostitution, heroin and child porn" argument to be an interesting one too, if only because I'm amazed that prostitution gets lumped in with herion and child porn. Maybe we're just brought up with different values here...

Ah, good idea. I did just leave a comment online. I love though that most (if not all; haven't read ALL the comments) are not idiots like the opponent.

dj11 · Apr 27, 2011

I see that Pia Lopez writes for the Sacramento Bee. Which means the politico's up there are influenced by her drivel, or her dribble...whichever......

Suggest locals write the paper with counterviews, maybe stressing how the state might make a buck, maybe not tons, but it will be +EV over trying to collect 'blood from a turnip' if you will.

StevieHmself · Apr 27, 2011

I live Near Sactown ill try to call them, arguments like these really tick me off. People just using fear and neglecting facts.

Stick66 · Apr 28, 2011

OzExorcist said:
So is someone local going to write a letter to the editor with a rebuttal to this Pia Lopez's arguments?

I find the "prostitution, heroin and child porn" argument to be an interesting one too, if only because I'm amazed that prostitution gets lumped in with herion and child porn. Maybe we're just brought up with different values here...

juiceeQ said:
Ah, good idea. I did just leave a comment online. I love though that most (if not all; haven't read ALL the comments) are not idiots like the opponent.

I left a comment, too. Seems most of the commenters on there know Pia is full of it.

Tammy · Apr 28, 2011

I can't tell if my comment ever made it on there. Anyone see one by tGarb?

Stick66 · Apr 28, 2011

juiceeQ said:
I can't tell if my comment ever made it on there. Anyone see one by tGarb?

Nope. They make you "sign in" (sacbee, twitter, etc.) before you can post. I've found sometimes your post can get lost in the process. Try signing in first, then typing your comment.

I've replied 4 times so far. Interesting stuff going on in the comments.

Tammy · Apr 28, 2011

Yeah, that's what happened then. I had to register. But then my comment was still in the box. Maybe it will still be there and I can copy/paste

nightmoves44 · Apr 28, 2011

cc

I saw your comment tGarb,I posted also via twitter,Al is my comment.
Its uninformed ignorant people like Pia,that are standing in the way of online poker.I really just cant grasp their ideals against online poker.Its like they cant really come up with any real good legit reason against online poker,so they just make up anything and add online poker to their bad list...and expect everyone to believe their view.

OzExorcist · Apr 28, 2011

FWIW problem gambling is a real problem and it's an issue that's going to come up time and time again as the legalisation debate continues.

The people who bring it up can't simply be dismissed as ignorant because the reality is that it's an issue that needs to be addressed. JQ's argument in the comments to this article is a good one: people can develop dangerous addictions to all kinds of things but in most cases instead of being banned they're regulated (some aren't even that).

The case can also be made that with regulation some of the problem gambling issues could be mitigated. Sites could be forced to provide more facilities to help problem gamblers and to advertise their availability more strongly. At the moment I think most sites have voluntary lockouts but they're buried inside a mound of different options and I suspect many people don't even know the option exists. Sites could be forced to ask all players if they want to set a stop loss limit or caps on deposits within a certain time period. They could be forced to advertise gambler's help services more strongly.

Measures like these won't stop all problem gambling but they'll definitely help some people and it's within the power of regulators to make them happen. Without regulation I doubt we'll ever see them because there's no real upside for the sites in providing them.

If sites were regulated and had to pay taxes and licensing fees a portion of the amount received could also be used to fund problem gambling services. At the moment the problem exists but it doesn't contribute any money to the solution.

My point is unless arguments like the one in this article are refuted clearly, sensibly and logically people will listen to them. Knowing that they're ignorant won't be any help to us if legalised online poker gets sunk because of them - we need to educate them, to change their minds, and we can't do that if we just write them off as ignorant.

danprince10 · Apr 29, 2011

Ignorant article, but to answer the question of course cali should, so should everywhere else! =P

fletchdad · Apr 29, 2011

OzExorcist said:
FWIW problem gambling is a real problem and it's an issue that's going to come up time and time again as the legalisation debate continues.

The people who bring it up can't simply be dismissed as ignorant because the reality is that it's an issue that needs to be addressed. JQ's argument in the comments to this article is a good one: people can develop dangerous addictions to all kinds of things but in most cases instead of being banned they're regulated (some aren't even that).

The case can also be made that with regulation some of the problem gambling issues could be mitigated. Sites could be forced to provide more facilities to help problem gamblers and to advertise their availability more strongly. At the moment I think most sites have voluntary lockouts but they're buried inside a mound of different options and I suspect many people don't even know the option exists. Sites could be forced to ask all players if they want to set a stop loss limit or caps on deposits within a certain time period. They could be forced to advertise gambler's help services more strongly.

Measures like these won't stop all problem gambling but they'll definitely help some people and it's within the power of regulators to make them happen. Without regulation I doubt we'll ever see them because there's no real upside for the sites in providing them.

If sites were regulated and had to pay taxes and licensing fees a portion of the amount received could also be used to fund problem gambling services. At the moment the problem exists but it doesn't contribute any money to the solution.

My point is unless arguments like the one in this article are refuted clearly, sensibly and logically people will listen to them. Knowing that they're ignorant won't be any help to us if legalised online poker gets sunk because of them - we need to educate them, to change their minds, and we can't do that if we just write them off as ignorant.

And I vote to elect you as one of the voices of reason.

You make great points. How great would it be if players get people with the right information on what online poker is really about - including the inherent problems such as gambling addiction, to state one - in a position where they are not only heard by the masses and the law makers, but respected as well.

Pinch me, I must be dreaming..............

buster999 · May 2, 2011

i can get a medical marijuana card for $40 plus free joint with first purchase.lol

Tammy · May 2, 2011

buster999 said:
i can get a medical marijuana card for $40 plus free joint with first purchase.lol

Ha! It's a joke isn't it? And yet we can't put $20 on a poker site to play a little cards.

Gunner57 · May 2, 2011

Oz I agree with everything you said however I am afraid that when it comes down to the US government they will screw it up. I fear that they will tax online poker to the point where for everyday people will not be able to grind out a small profit for their hobby or that their hobby will not loose them money directly but will raise their tax rate costing them thousands... So at that point does it make sense to play online or to go underground and play live home games?

Again I agree that regulations are important, players should pay their taxes, and that the government should receive revenue for services that they provide in regards to online gaming. However, in the current political climit, with budget shortfalls, and despiration to find revenue streams to make big Government financially solvent. I think they will find a way to screw this one up.

Fundamentally as well Poker is a game where you prey on your opponents weakness. You profit from other peoples mistakes (Very similar to Wallstreet, however WS has the benifit of helping companies receive capital vs. poker is entertainment). Setting up limits and regulations are good for the bad player, addicted player, and very well likely society as a whole but the game may suffer. If you regulate peoples losses you also will be caping peoples winnings and in turn may negativly impact the game. (I am playing devils advacate here a little but theoretically I think has a point)

absoluthamm · May 2, 2011

Gunner57 said:
the government should receive revenue for services that they provide in regards to online gaming.

What exactly is the government going to be doing that they deserve a cut of the profits for? I will almost guarantee that the only people the government will have working in the Online Poker field will be people collecting the taxes on it and making sure that the sites are complying. They won't really have anyone making sure that the players' are playing in a safe, secure environment...all they care about is the money that they might be getting if legislation is passed.

Do I think legislation is needed to allow internet poker, absolutely. Do I think that the government should tax it? Hell no. Just as with everything else the government taxes, I believe they are taxing absolutely way too much. They put a tax when you earn money(income), a tax when you spend money(sales), to live in your own home(property), a tax on the money you have left when you die(estate)...

They get enough.

Tammy · May 2, 2011

absoluthamm said:
What exactly is the government going to be doing that they deserve a cut of the profits for? I will almost guarantee that the only people the government will have working in the Online Poker field will be people collecting the taxes on it and making sure that the sites are complying. They won't really have anyone making sure that the players' are playing in a safe, secure environment...all they care about is the money that they might be getting if legislation is passed.

Do I think legislation is needed to allow internet poker, absolutely. Do I think that the government should tax it? Hell no. Just as with everything else the government taxes, I believe they are taxing absolutely way too much. They put a tax when you earn money(income), a tax when you spend money(sales), to live in your own home(property), a tax on the money you have left when you die(estate)...

They get enough.

Amen. Don't forget yearly vehicle licensing fees (basically a tax).

Article: Should California Legalize Internet Poker?

Stick66

Legend

absoluthamm

<==Poker Face

Tammy

I'm Here to Help

darkassassin89

Legend

NineLions

Advanced beginner

Stick66

Legend

absoluthamm

<==Poker Face

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle

NineLions

Advanced beginner

Tammy

I'm Here to Help

dj11

Legend

StevieHmself

Rising Star

Stick66

Legend

Tammy

I'm Here to Help

Stick66

Legend

Tammy

I'm Here to Help

nightmoves44

Legend

OzExorcist

Broomcorn's uncle

danprince10

Visionary

fletchdad

Legend

buster999

Rock Star

Tammy

I'm Here to Help

Gunner57

Rock Star

absoluthamm

<==Poker Face

Tammy

I'm Here to Help

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site