While I agree that gambling is bad, how is it any different than legal drugs or
pornography? Don't you think that individuals spending their money viewing porn
or smoking could invest it, or spend it in other places? People should be able
to decide whether or not they want to participate in gambling. There are many
responsible gamblers in society, as well as some that are not so responsible.
It is the same for the other things that I mentioned above.
What is up with Reid? He must of received a bundle for his re-election campaign
from the casinos.
This legislation has clear opt-in language that will require the legislators in
Utah to opt-in if they wish online gambling to be legal in your state. The
major, reputable online poker vendors have already blacked out Washington based
on legislation passed there. This bill will actually make it harder for your
citizens to play poker online. I firmly believe that poker is a game of skill
and that the right to choose to is part of what makes this great country
America. I will not take issue with the fact that a great majority of the
citizens of Utah will be against online gambling, but it is issues like these
that make it much harder for the 'reds' and 'blues' in this country to get
along.I guess I would summarize by saying I don't think you should
force your morality on the rest of the country especially when it will actually
allow the citizens of your state to be better protected from said 'vices.' Best
wishes from Florida.
I don't understand your thinking here! I don't know what the legal age for
gambling is in America, but in England it is 18 years old. Here we consider that
to be the age of adulthood, when you can decide for yourself what you want to do
with your money. Personally I think 21 should be the age, but that is my
opinion. However, isn't Utah the state that opposes interferance from
government? 'Give me my freedom or let me die'. 'we believe in each man for
himself and we don't want the government to take our money thank you very muc
hand give it to the poor'. Yet you back state law, enforaced by the governemt
that a adult cannot choose how they want to spend their money? I find this very
confusing. You are either for government interference or against it. I would
choose not to gamble, but I would also choose that any other adult should be
able gamble if that is what they want to do.
People get addicted to liquor. Does that mean we should outlaw alcohol too?So what if people with lower incomes tend to gamble more? They tend to
play the lottery more too.Personally, I think UT is missing out on a
great deal of revenue with their archaic stance on gambling.And so
what if it opens the door for other forms? People will buy Powerball tickets
here instead of ID or NV. People will stay here instead of traipsing off to
Wendover. I fail to see what the issue is.
"It is backed by sound logic and a desire to avoid the societal costs and
economic squandering brought on by games of chance."Sound
logic? 96% of states allow gambling and opposed to the 4% that do not. Are we
somehow more enlightened than the other 96%? No we are not. We just have a
majority in this state that believe freedom means quashing the freedom of those
that believe differently. The arrogance is staggering.
Here we go AGAIN!!!Although I'm personally against gambling
[including speculative investing in Real Estate, per the LDS leadership - as
we've now seen is just as stupid]Why is it Utahns, who SAY
they are for Freedom,who SAY they are for Free Agency,who SAY they
undersatnd who's plan it was to ban all sins and vices - for good reasons....You are either FOR freedom, or against it.I choose
freedom, with all the consequences that come along with it!!!
"For the federal government to officially open the door to Internet poker
would make it that much harder for the state to honor the will of its people and
discourage such activity."Thank you for honoring my will and
discouraging activities that you dont believe in. What would I do without you.
Could you honor my freedom next time?
There are three issues the LDS Church's media (Deseret Media--yes, Virginia. The
Church owns all of Deseret Media.) stands firm and allows no contrary statement
by its staff: polygamy (against), gambling (against), and amnesty for illegals
(for).While gambling should have some restrictions, Deseret Media's
(the Church's) lone focus on gambling because of its potential for becoming
addicting is interesting. Okay, odd. There are a lot of potentially
addicting "things" out there. Some are quite common. Coffee and other
caffeinated beverages, alcohol, tobacco. Behaviors can be addicting as well,
such as shopping/spending, working, loafing, internet usage, and sexual
practices.Though some of these other potentially addictive products
and behaviors might be discussed here and there, it's interesting the major
focus in Deseret Media is on gambling. Personally, I feel I should
have the right to responsibly gamble, or to responsibly use the products or
participate in the other behaviors listed above. Being responsible means I
recognize I have to deal with the consequences. That's why I choose to avoid
most of them.However, singling out gambling as addictive is narrow
Why should the state decide for me if I (an adult) can play online poker or not?
Those who want to play should be able to. Those who don't want to play don't
have to. Let us decide what is best for us.
The only thing more boring than poker is online poker. It is like watching paint
Roscoe: The reason the "state" makes decisions is because we all have
a voice in what our state becomes. Many (but a minority) in Utah would like out
state to become "Pottersville" while most of us would like to live in
"Bedford Falls." (ref: It's a Wonderful Life)Nothing we do
is done in a vacuum. We are all interconnected no matter how much we like to
think we are islands. In every state, there have been compromises and the
spectrum is somewhere between Pottersville and Bedford Falls.Have
you ever been to Camden, NJ? The city never passed legislation that permits
murder or gang warfare. But they did allow an environment to be created where
those activities could thrive. I feel sorry for those Camden-ites who would like
to have the freedom to walk the streets at night instead of having to cocoon in
their homes in order to stay alive.Giving you a freedom, believe it
or not, may take away one of my freedoms. That is why it is should always be
discussed in the public forum. And you will not silence my voice or my freedom
joe5..Please explain how giving utahns the choice to play online poker if they
choose for themselves to do so, infringing on one of your freedoms.
Also, saying that this bill is a disservice to open debate cause its being
sneaked onto the tax-reform bill, and then mentioning the UIGEA bill that
President Bush passed is quite hypocritical. Considering that the UIGEA became
law in the EXACT same way that this bill is trying to. It was attached to some
Free Port Trading act that noone would think to shoot down
@devinm33: I'm not sure I understand your confusion. You didn't graps the
Pottersville vs Bedford Falls concept? You didn't understand what I was saying
about Camden, NJ? You don't understand the connectivity between people in a
society?Just last week, a store owner was stabbed to death in her
own store right here in the Salt Lake valley. Why? Was it because the perp had
been using drugs? Was it because he was a gang member fighting for his turf? Was
it because he was broke due to gambling debts? We don't know but it could have
been any of those reasons; including the gambling issue.If that kind
of violence repeats itself enough times, what kind of effect will that have on
you and me? Might we restrict where we travel in the valley? Could it limit what
times of day we are out at all? Or dozens of other decisions we might make
because we feel unsafe? You don't think those are restrictions on our freedom?
Lumping online poker in with gambling is the real problem here. It is completely
different. By your reasoning we shouldnt allow our children to ride
a bike then. Who knows they may lose control go into the street have a car
swerve to miss the child, lose control and roll over into another car and kill
everyone. And, no I dont think those are restrictions on our
freedoms..You would still have the choice to go into that area of town without
fear of breaking the law and going to prison for it.I can understand
your fear of being held up by a knife though. Seems logical.
People who participate in online gambling are just dumb, dumb, dumb. There
is no regulation. Most of the sites are operated out of foreign countries. When you go to Vegas the odds are against you. But at least there they make
sure the casinos do not cheat.Would you play poker if you had to play with
all of your cards showing?Well thats what they do with online gambling.Just block all other gambling sites and only allow ones operated by the
government. In the disclosure you could say, you will not win, we will
just collect all your money for taxes, have fun, no one reads the disclosures
anyway.If people want to just throw their money away, we should just let
them, and put it toward public funds.
Free Agency - Choose toorNot To.If you take
away choice, You've taken away Freedom & Agency.Tell me
again Conservatives....What is it you are trying to Conserve?It most certainly isn't freedom.
I hope he turns all of Utah into a Las Vegas casino. Don't worry, with your new
tax cuts the IRS won't deduct much from this. Sen. Harry Reid, the majority
leader from Nevada, is pushing ahead with his efforts to legalize Internet poker
before Congress adjourns this year, despite new criticism from state lottery
officials, including a former Democratic National Committee chairman, that
Reid's plan was an outrageous reward for big Las Vegas casino interests that
heavily backed his campaign for re-election. Hope the GOP repeal that new 1099
Bill comeing in 2012.
Gambling costs more than it ever earns. It takes money away from the poorest,
least educated, and most desperate families, increasing the burden on the rest
of us. It builds addictions. Those who compare it to other bad
behavior that we don't regulate make me wonder, why not? Why don't we return to
the regulation of some of that other bad behavior, like drinking alcohol,
homosexual behavior, and committing adultery? Perhaps we should add tobacco to
the list. That's what laws are for, after all, reducing the amount of immoral,
destructive, costly behavior, all of which is sapping our country's strength.
Those who claim the privilege of destroying their own lives in the
name of freedom already have plenty of avenues to pursue that freedom. I just
worry about the collateral damage. These are not victimless crimes. They
deprive the most helpless among us, our children, of safe and caring
environments.Let's remember what adult, mature behavior used to
Towin' the church line..
May I pose this question?Okay the arguments here is "you can
drain your lifes savings gambling so let's avoid that risk" vs "hey, I
should have the free will to do what i want with my money".How
is that so different from the debate about social security privatization where
the arguments are "you can drain your retirement account if you invested
your SS money in companies and then a recession occurs so let's not
privatize" vs "hey, I should have the free will to do what I want with
Surprised that this has not been mentioned.I do not gamble on-line.
I dont trust it.But, I could gamble 24/7 on a multitude of on-line
sites if I choose.So, whether this bill passes or not, it would not
affect my ability to gamble.What is would affect would be to offer a
source for on-line gaming that would be regulated (ie not corrupt).It would be a huge tax win as the profits could then be taxed.So,
rather than all of the talk about the morality of it, lets talk Reality.I am confident that on-line gaming could be stopped. But if it is NOT
BEING STOPPED, we might as well tax it.
Why not make it legal and let individuals decide whether they want to gamble or
not. If it is legal I won't gamble, I don't now. Why should I keep others from
doing so if they are that dumb?
RE: LDS Liberal | 3:02 p.mHow about the freedom those who do not
want gambling in this state?Freedom means if the majortiy do not
want, we do not have to have it,Free agency does not mean we have
to make bad choices easy.Freedom means we have freedom to chose our
representatives and senators,and if the majority of those do not want
online gambling..., well...that IS free agancy at work.Free agency
does not mean your agency should be made easy.Those who oppose
online gambling have their agency to.Just because one person wants
something does not mean all the rest must go along with them, they
have thier agecny as well.
I find it interesting that so often those who clamor for "diversity"
and "tolerance" really don't want either when it comes to the
character of neighborhoods, communities, or States. Of 50 States and DC, there
are only two States that do not allow any form of legalized gambling:
conservative Utah, and liberal Hawaii. As luck would have it, Utah
sits next door to the original gamblers' paradise, Nevada. All of our other
neighbors offer at least lotteries for those who need a legal gambling fix. So
those Utah residents who want to gamble can easily do so.We need to
maintain some diversity of character among the States. Not every State should
look like Nevada or New Jersey. Not every city like Las Vegas or Atlantic
City.Society would be more civil if we had more diversity among
local culture and character. Our nation is too large, too diverse for one-size
fits all. We need the Bible Belt and Utah as much as we need New England. We
should all vote with our feet and live where we like how things are done and
then allow other areas to do things as they like.