Say no to online poker

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Considering Stockton, UT
    Dec. 11, 2010 7:25 p.m.

    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.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Dec. 11, 2010 7:18 p.m.

    RE: LDS Liberal | 3:02 p.m

    How 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.

  • Dektol Powell, OH
    Dec. 11, 2010 8:10 a.m.

    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?

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    Dec. 11, 2010 6:43 a.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 7:06 p.m.

    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 my money".

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 5:42 p.m.

    Towin' the church line..

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 4:49 p.m.

    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 mean.

  • JHP Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 3:39 p.m.

    Good editorial.

  • Brother Chuck Schroeder A Tropical Paradise USA, FL
    Dec. 10, 2010 3:15 p.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 3:02 p.m.

    Free Agency -

    Choose to
    Not 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.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 2:45 p.m.

    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.

  • devinm33 Provo, Ut
    Dec. 10, 2010 12:41 p.m.

    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.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 12:10 p.m.

    @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?

  • devinm33 Provo, Ut
    Dec. 10, 2010 11:49 a.m.

    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 Provo, Ut
    Dec. 10, 2010 11:47 a.m.

    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.

  • joe5 South Jordan, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 11:30 a.m.

    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 of speech.

  • 42istheanswer SLC, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 11:29 a.m.

    The only thing more boring than poker is online poker. It is like watching paint dry.

  • Roscoe West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 10:19 a.m.

    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.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 10:18 a.m.

    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 minded.

  • devinm33 Provo, Ut
    Dec. 10, 2010 9:24 a.m.

    "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?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 8:13 a.m.

    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!!!

  • dave Park City, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 8:06 a.m.

    "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.

  • SLC gal Salt Lake City, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 7:24 a.m.

    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.

  • Sally in England Crawley, England
    Dec. 10, 2010 6:53 a.m.

    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.

  • AmericaTheFree Tallahassee, FL
    Dec. 10, 2010 2:33 a.m.

    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.

  • JBrady Murray, Ut
    Dec. 10, 2010 1:49 a.m.

    What is up with Reid? He must of received a bundle for his re-election campaign from the casinos.

  • three11stu Saratoga Springs, UT
    Dec. 10, 2010 12:43 a.m.

    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.