Comments on: Why gambling rules should be national A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: realist50 Tue, 05 Feb 2013 19:28:32 +0000 @y2kurtus – I think that is well expressed.

I’ll also counter Felix’s view that it’s “silly, in the online era, to try to confine legal gambling to certain physical locations, be they states or casinos within states”. There’s a decent regulatory argument to requiring that people must travel to a casino to gamble rather than doing so from home whenever they feel like it. I don’t have any issue with a state saying, “Yes, we’ll allow gambling, but we’re going to place some limits on just how convenient it is to gamble.”

By: PhilH Tue, 05 Feb 2013 09:59:08 +0000 This is a very vague article, Mr Salmon. The headline is that gambling rules should be national, but the copy argues that gambling is basically impossible to govern and therefore not to bother trying.

The constitutionality and legal framework for bans on gambling in a state are not relevant to whether gambling laws should be nationally uniform.

There is no right to gamble, and restricting it does not infringe on any other constitutional rights. The residents of a state should therefore be free to choose whether to permit it in their state or not. Thus I would contradict the headline that it should be uniform throughout the union.

As to whether gambling can be policed, if you believe a national law is feasible, then so is a state law. It can be policed or it can’t. And the internet is very amenable to policing. Does it seem daft that you could cross the border, log in and gamble on some non-geographic website whilst being unable to do so on this side of the border? Yes, but that is state law at work.

The root of your argument is that state variation is silly. That is not a sensible argument in a federal union.

By: y2kurtus Tue, 05 Feb 2013 03:47:02 +0000 Gambling is a great states rights issue… along with about 1000 others. 200 years ago a small subset of the American population (male white land owners) were the most free people ever to live on earth before or since.

When the Union of states was conceived few wanted in. Why should they cede home rule to a far away majority. They agreed on so few things that should or should not be universally legal or illegal that they could actually write a list on a few pages (the bill of rights.)

Everything else was to be left to the states to decide for themselves. That is the only reason small states ever decided to freely offer their sovereignty to the union. They rightly got over representation in the senate, the electoral college, and constitutional amendment procedures. Without those small protections they never would have joined the union at all.

There are places it is safe and prudent to drive 85, and some places not.
There are places it makes lots of sense to carry a loaded gun and lots of places it doesn’t.
If a local population shares a nearly universal view that gambling is a dangerous addiction or harmless pastime there is absolutely no reason for it to be legal in one state and outlawed in another.

By: klhoughton Mon, 04 Feb 2013 22:15:33 +0000 “New Jersey voters have spoken”

Uh, no, we haven’t. We were asked a hypothetical without any details a while back–no indications of cost, no indications of expected revenues, no indication of anything except a pie-in-the-sky. (To be accurately rude about it, it was before the Christie Administration demonstrated its ability to frack up Atlantic City casino management in a manner to make Donald Trump and his multiple bankruptcies appear capable).

AC remains (to borrow a phrase from a wrongly-terminated Janey Montgomery Scott lo those decades ago) “a drab and dreary place in the Winter time.” Would being able to lose money betting on Jersey/B make it more appealing?

NJ voters thought they were given a free option: you can vote for this because there are three things that will keep it from ever becoming a reality. (It’s the closest thing to voting for Romney we’ve had.) The result so far is that our tax monies are being spent on multiple lawsuits trying to make that myth binding–a consequence supporters of the initiative never mentioned.

NJ voters supported a pipe dream–if it was dropped into our laps. What we got so far has been some (other-type-of-pipe-using?) legal bills and Yet Another Bankrupt Buidling in AC (to go with the Meadowlands Shopping Center).

By: BarryKelly Mon, 04 Feb 2013 21:54:38 +0000 I find sports the only thing worth betting on. It makes otherwise boring games more interesting – it’s a cheap way of buying emotional involvement. I do it during large competitions, like the World Cup or Euros.

By: MikeGayner Mon, 04 Feb 2013 19:22:39 +0000 Wait a minute – sports betting is illegal in the USA? Here in NZ it’s a large and thriving industry and isn’t at all seedy (at least not to my eyes). It’s very common for people to place bets on sports games, particularly in workplace syndicates and the like. I can’t imagine having to talk to a “bookie” to place a bet when I just just use the electronic kyosk at the local pub.