Can you believe this damn goverment is banning online gambling!!!

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Not only is it technically illegal, funds from many of those sites go to organized crime. Internet gambling and porn are funding today's mafia because funds from these sites often go over seas and can't be tracked.

I'm sorry that blowing your paycheck on online poker to prevent organized crime disagrees with you.

Please.... PartyGaming is a publicly-trading company on the London Stock Exchange.

The issue isn't that it's impossible to have a legitimate company, it's that there's no way to prevent or even discourage criminal organizations.

You are well versed in "risk", surely you can see that there's no way to manage the risk of online gambling, it's way to easy to steal identity on the internet, or just not pay off gambling debts, and the potential losses are incredibly large, or know what entity is behind all the gambling sites, whch is why it's so much worse than other forms of ID theft, which are bad enough.

Legalize. Problem solved.

That is the most retarded response I've seen you give to a complex issue, usually your fairly astute.

Maybe we should legalize online insurance companies and banks too, let any entity that can get on the internet sell insurance, or run a bank, from anywhere in the world, and if they don't pay claims, or abscond with your deposits, oh well.

Wow... what a lovely but absolutely ridiculous straw man you've created here.

Is it your argument then, that a legal and regulated online gaming casino can never deliver on their promised product?

My argument is there is no such thing as a "regulated" online gaming casino, because it is impossible to regulate sufficiently to overcome the drawbacks.

1. there isn't sufficient means on the internet, to allow "legal" casinos and prevent "illegal" casinos.
2. And even at an online "legal" casino, there isn't a way to know if a player is actually who they claim to be. So you can't regulate by age, or prevent identity theft.
3. Any use of credit cards means that even if the player is who they say they are, you are letting them play with unsecured borrowed money.

Compare any of those issues with a physical casino operation, and there's no comparison of the ability to regulate.

Now, you may have some ideas to deal with these issues, but simply giving a one word answer, "legalize", doesn't address any of these issues, or if they even could be addressed.

Wow... based on your logic, we better outlaw online shopping.

You want to legalize online gambling because, according to you, it's just like online shopping ?

There's a customer and a product, is there not? A voluntary exchange of goods and services, no?

By your own logic:
1. There isn't sufficent means to control legal online shopping services and illegal ones.
2. Even at a legal shopping site, there is no way to guarantee that the person is who they claim to be.
3. You're letting people buy things they with unsecured borrowed money that they might not be able to afford to pay back.

Seriously, it's the same thing. You're just being nanny-istic about it because you're (obviously) morally opposed to the product in question. What's your position on online pay porn sites?

I am not talking about whether online shopping should be legal, talk about setting up a straw man, the discussion is about online gambling.

And as far as I can tell, your rationale for legalizing online gambling is you believe it is exactly the same as online shopping ?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tom
I am not talking about whether online shopping should be legal, talk about setting up a straw man, the discussion is about online gambling.

And as far as I can tell, your rationale for legalizing online gambling is you believe it is exactly the same as online shopping ?

I'd be interested in reading your explanation of the differences.

 

[Cuda1447]

Fritz -

The problems you point out are valid and all, but thats not truly why it was banned.

First of all, some forms of online gambling are still allowed. If the US government has their pocket in it.

Secondly, there are ways to verify who you are. First of all a lot of places like neteller/paypal will confirm your bank account #'s with you sometimes via phone and take other security measures. Its not like some 14 year old can just hop online and start pissing away money. Its not quite that easy.

If anything, its a lot more difficult to actually gamble online then it is to buy products online, and by your logic both we should be concerned about both. Theoretically a child could get ahold of a parents credit card (EXTREMELY EASILY) and go on a shopping spree online. They are raking up huge bills on borrowed money, and there is still no way to verify they are who they say they are.

If anything, online gambling is a ton more safe than that because of the measures you have to take to prove you are who you say. When playing with real money of course.


As for the funding of crime organizations and such, I think thats complete bullox. Do you have ANY sources to back up your absurd claims? Like it has already been pointed out, many of these companys' are publicly traded.


As for the legalize argument by Vic. Its valid. If infact you don't want these 'mafia's' being funded by online gambling and porn, then LEGALIZE AND REGULATE. Same thing with drugs. Sure, it won't happen... but it doesn't mean that isn't the smartest thing to do.


If you legalize/regulate the activities then you know WHERE the money is going. Let company's operate from within the US. Regulate them, tax them like a normal casino/business. And watch where the money goes. If it goes to the mafia, then you know and can stop it. Simply limiting the rights of the US citizens because you THINK something is morally wrong is F'n stupid.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tom
I am not talking about whether online shopping should be legal, talk about setting up a straw man, the discussion is about online gambling.

And as far as I can tell, your rationale for legalizing online gambling is you believe it is exactly the same as online shopping ?

I'd be interested in reading your explanation of the differences.

Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else, but I thought you were in a business where risk/benefit played an important and fundamental role in your day to day activities.

some, but not all, on the risk side-

1. a great deal of online shopping takes place between merchants that also have other relationships with their customers, ie Walmart, Target, Best Buy, which reduces risk for both parties.
2. stealing tangible goods is more involved and potentially riskier for the thief, somebody has to physically receive the goods, exposng themselves to possible arrest.
3. a person who buys a $500 tv is more likely to pay their credit card bill, as long as the tv keeps working, than a person who loses $500 in an online casino; at least that is my belief. You may be able to refute that if you can find a banker who wants to stake your average online gambler.


some but not all, on the benefit side-

1. umm, what is the benefit of online gambling ? I don't see much, it's mostly just a transfer of wealth. There's entertainment value, but since most people lose more than they win, how entertaining is that ?
2. tangible goods can be productive, or counter-productive, but given the overall increase in prosperity of humanity, and the proliferation of human beings, it seems that "stuff" has an overall effect of increasing productivity.

However, I'm not advocating banning all human behavior that doesn't have a positive cost benefit effect, just that the risk of this particular activity is so large, and limiting it to offline doesn't actually eliminate the ability to gamble, but does allow for sensible regulation, that I believe this law makes sense.

It won't actually stop online gambling anyway, but it keeps it where it belongs, on the fringes of what is acceptable.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Fritz -

As for the legalize argument by Vic. Its valid. If infact you don't want these 'mafia's' being funded by online gambling and porn, then LEGALIZE AND REGULATE. Same thing with drugs. Sure, it won't happen... but it doesn't mean that isn't the smartest thing to do.


If you legalize/regulate the activities then you know WHERE the money is going. Let company's operate from within the US. Regulate them, tax them like a normal casino/business. And watch where the money goes. If it goes to the mafia, then you know and can stop it. Simply limiting the rights of the US citizens because you THINK something is morally wrong is F'n stupid.

The problem is, it isn't possible to regulate online gambling very well, if at all. At least not until there's some sort of worldwide agreement to do so.

And this legislation doesn't limit the rights of US citizens, it regulates those rights. It's not hard to find legal places to gamble, offline.

 

[RadiclDreamer]

Originally posted by: dxkj
, Democracy simply doesn't work.
.

Thats nice since we are a democratic republic

 

[Cuda1447]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tom
I am not talking about whether online shopping should be legal, talk about setting up a straw man, the discussion is about online gambling.

And as far as I can tell, your rationale for legalizing online gambling is you believe it is exactly the same as online shopping ?

I'd be interested in reading your explanation of the differences.

Maybe I'm confusing you with someone else, but I thought you were in a business where risk/benefit played an important and fundamental role in your day to day activities.

some, but not all, on the risk side-

1. a great deal of online shopping takes place between merchants that also have other relationships with their customers, ie Walmart, Target, Best Buy, which reduces risk for both parties.
2. stealing tangible goods is more involved and potentially riskier for the thief, somebody has to physically receive the goods, exposng themselves to possible arrest.
3. a person who buys a $500 tv is more likely to pay their credit card bill, as long as the tv keeps working, than a person who loses $500 in an online casino; at least that is my belief. You may be able to refute that if you can find a banker who wants to stake your average online gambler.


some but not all, on the benefit side-

1. umm, what is the benefit of online gambling ? I don't see much, it's mostly just a transfer of wealth. There's entertainment value, but since most people lose more than they win, how entertaining is that ?
2. tangible goods can be productive, or counter-productive, but given the overall increase in prosperity of humanity, and the proliferation of human beings, it seems that "stuff" has an overall effect of increasing productivity.

However, I'm not advocating banning all human behavior that doesn't have a positive cost benefit effect, just that the risk of this particular activity is so large, and limiting it to offline doesn't actually eliminate the ability to gamble, but does allow for sensible regulation, that I believe this law makes sense.

It won't actually stop online gambling anyway, but it keeps it where it belongs, on the fringes of what is acceptable.

See I think there is a fundamental difference between what I think and what you think. I believe the government should protect its people from foreign enemies, from murder/theft/natural disaster. Give the people good jobs and a strong economy etc.

I do NOT think the government should protect its people from THEMSELVES. This is not to do with just gambling. The government should not ban smoking in your own home, drinking of alcohol when it affects nobody else, eating fast food, spending to much money on a car, having to many credit cards open, buying to many 'toys' or gambling, be it online or offline. That is the individuals responsibillity/right.

I do NOT want the government telling me what is and isn't safe when it affects no one but myself.


It seems that you would prefer the government to protect its citizens from themselves.


I have no doubt in my mind that there are some people who are going to hurt themselves from online gambling. Just like some people will become morbidly obese from fast food, not save enough money for retirement, and do all kinds of other stupid things. However, that is their right to do so. And I'd much rather have that, then have a country with very limited rights.


As for the moral arguments against gambling, and how it will cause the destruction of families etc... In those extreme circumstances (like that golfer that lost millions gambling) banning online gambling won't solve a damn thing. Cause guess what, if someone is THAT messed up that they will destroy their entire life from gambling, a simple restritction here or there really isn't going to stop them. They WILL find a way to gamble, and probably with HIGHER risks because they will have to go to underground bookies/casinos etc that have absolutely no rules. Instead of just being in debt, now he will be in debt to the kind of guys you don't want to be in debt too.

Instead, we restrict gambling online and all it really hurts is the responsible citizens who want to spend THEIR money however hell they want.


As for the entertainment factor, gambling CAN be very entertaining, even if you lose. I know a LOT of people that gamble online. Some play little $1 buy-in tournaments a few times a week. A tournament may last a couple hours at night. They can play while they watch MNF or something else. Its fun and relaxing, and hell, they might win some money in the process. But if they don't, they paid $1 for a few hours of entertainment. Or if they have more money and want a little bigger thill $10. Big deal? When I take my g/f out on a date I usually spend atleast $15 and thats if we don't eat dinner that night.

Its all just entertainment, and citizens of America have every f'n right to spend their money however they want, as long as it does not impede on other peoples rights. Which this clearly does not.


Banning it is STUPID.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Linflas
All they have done is create a new business opportunity for some entrepreneurs outside of the US to set up an intermediary business to handle these transactions.

Gamblepal.com?

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: everman
The bill appropriates $10,000,000 a year for the next four years to the DOJ for enforcement. More wasteful spending and tax increases to fund it. They should just tax gambling sites at a higher rate, bring in more tax dollars, everyone is happy.

and just how is the US Government going to tax a off shore gambling site?

Ban online gambling, billions of dollars are being sent overseas that does not benifit our country at all.

Sounds like most of the aid the U.S. gives out.

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
Dont care, I dont gamble. Its a tax on people who cant do math

Thats the lottery Beavis.

Poker is different.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Not only is it technically illegal, funds from many of those sites go to organized crime. Internet gambling and porn are funding today's mafia because funds from these sites often go over seas and can't be tracked.

I'm sorry that blowing your paycheck on online poker to prevent organized crime disagrees with you.

Please.... PartyGaming is a publicly-trading company on the London Stock Exchange.

OK, that's one. What about the 1000000 other ones?

 

[JS80]

don't worry, the poker lobby will make poker a non-gambling game

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: JS80
don't worry, the poker lobby will make poker a non-gambling game

Ill feel better when that happens.
Poker is/was a small source of income for me. I really enjoy playing online.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Not only is it technically illegal, funds from many of those sites go to organized crime. Internet gambling and porn are funding today's mafia because funds from these sites often go over seas and can't be tracked.

I'm sorry that blowing your paycheck on online poker to prevent organized crime disagrees with you.

Please.... PartyGaming is a publicly-trading company on the London Stock Exchange.

The issue isn't that it's impossible to have a legitimate company, it's that there's no way to prevent or even discourage criminal organizations.

You are well versed in "risk", surely you can see that there's no way to manage the risk of online gambling, it's way to easy to steal identity on the internet, or just not pay off gambling debts, and the potential losses are incredibly large, or know what entity is behind all the gambling sites, whch is why it's so much worse than other forms of ID theft, which are bad enough.

Legalize. Problem solved.

That is the most retarded response I've seen you give to a complex issue, usually your fairly astute.

Maybe we should legalize online insurance companies and banks too, let any entity that can get on the internet sell insurance, or run a bank, from anywhere in the world, and if they don't pay claims, or abscond with your deposits, oh well.

Wow... what a lovely but absolutely ridiculous straw man you've created here.

Is it your argument then, that a legal and regulated online gaming casino can never deliver on their promised product?

My argument is there is no such thing as a "regulated" online gaming casino, because it is impossible to regulate sufficiently to overcome the drawbacks.

1. there isn't sufficient means on the internet, to allow "legal" casinos and prevent "illegal" casinos.
2. And even at an online "legal" casino, there isn't a way to know if a player is actually who they claim to be. So you can't regulate by age, or prevent identity theft.
3. Any use of credit cards means that even if the player is who they say they are, you are letting them play with unsecured borrowed money.

Compare any of those issues with a physical casino operation, and there's no comparison of the ability to regulate.

Now, you may have some ideas to deal with these issues, but simply giving a one word answer, "legalize", doesn't address any of these issues, or if they even could be addressed.

Your arguments against verifying age, identity, et cetera, apply to pretty much everyone online where money, age requirements and such are involved. Why aren't you campaigning against porn sites, sites that sell stuff, anything where it can be difficult to verify identity? Why focus on gambling?

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Not only is it technically illegal, funds from many of those sites go to organized crime. Internet gambling and porn are funding today's mafia because funds from these sites often go over seas and can't be tracked.

I'm sorry that blowing your paycheck on online poker to prevent organized crime disagrees with you.

Please.... PartyGaming is a publicly-trading company on the London Stock Exchange.

The issue isn't that it's impossible to have a legitimate company, it's that there's no way to prevent or even discourage criminal organizations.

You are well versed in "risk", surely you can see that there's no way to manage the risk of online gambling, it's way to easy to steal identity on the internet, or just not pay off gambling debts, and the potential losses are incredibly large, or know what entity is behind all the gambling sites, whch is why it's so much worse than other forms of ID theft, which are bad enough.

Legalize. Problem solved.

That is the most retarded response I've seen you give to a complex issue, usually your fairly astute.

Maybe we should legalize online insurance companies and banks too, let any entity that can get on the internet sell insurance, or run a bank, from anywhere in the world, and if they don't pay claims, or abscond with your deposits, oh well.

Wow... what a lovely but absolutely ridiculous straw man you've created here.

Is it your argument then, that a legal and regulated online gaming casino can never deliver on their promised product?

My argument is there is no such thing as a "regulated" online gaming casino, because it is impossible to regulate sufficiently to overcome the drawbacks.

1. there isn't sufficient means on the internet, to allow "legal" casinos and prevent "illegal" casinos.
2. And even at an online "legal" casino, there isn't a way to know if a player is actually who they claim to be. So you can't regulate by age, or prevent identity theft.
3. Any use of credit cards means that even if the player is who they say they are, you are letting them play with unsecured borrowed money.

Compare any of those issues with a physical casino operation, and there's no comparison of the ability to regulate.

Now, you may have some ideas to deal with these issues, but simply giving a one word answer, "legalize", doesn't address any of these issues, or if they even could be addressed.

Wow... based on your logic, we better outlaw online shopping.

You want to legalize online gambling because, according to you, it's just like online shopping ?

There's a customer and a product, is there not? A voluntary exchange of goods and services, no?

By your own logic:
1. There isn't sufficent means to control legal online shopping services and illegal ones.
2. Even at a legal shopping site, there is no way to guarantee that the person is who they claim to be.
3. You're letting people buy things they with unsecured borrowed money that they might not be able to afford to pay back.

Seriously, it's the same thing. You're just being nanny-istic about it because you're (obviously) morally opposed to the product in question. What's your position on online pay porn sites?

I am not talking about whether online shopping should be legal, talk about setting up a straw man, the discussion is about online gambling.

And as far as I can tell, your rationale for legalizing online gambling is you believe it is exactly the same as online shopping ?

He's just saying that your arguments cover a lot more online activity than merely gambling, yet you seem to have it in only for gambling.

EDIT: That is my interpretation of what he is saying, not trying to put words in Vic's mouth.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
My hunch is that Harrah's and Trump had a bunch of lobbyists in Washington trying to push this into law. All of this online gaming is probably cutting into their casino profits.

I know some of the casinos gave money to fritz and such..not sure how much they backed him on this....its very very very confusing.

You would assume that the casinos are losing money because people arnt playing in the casinos...but i am 99% sure thats wrong. The poker boom is really all about the online poker rooms. THe amount of people that swoop down into las vegas for the wsop is all due online poker. The size of the tourney since 2000 has grown from hundreds..to over 6 thousand. THe casinos must recognize that the online rooms are only helping them...not hurting. I know I would have never gotten into poker as much as I am now without online poker. Sure i would play at home and with friends but i would not be even close to as serious.

The confusing part is why they helped get this bill passed....to rationalize it some may say we need some tin foil hats. Harrah, MGM, and others have showed interest in making there own online rooms. I believe they even attempted to make some but the legal implications were too complicated. By making it illegal for a lot of the sites to let us players play it disrupts the market in the US. Maybe in the near future they hope to actually legalize online gambling in the US....since the big names would be gone they could sweep in..and make HUGE profits.

ALSO...party poker who has recently left the US market has said that they would not be surprised if they got offers from harrahs or other us casinos. By taking out the US market party's stock as droped...allowing harrahs to maybe swoop in and buy it cheaply. Since the company no longer deals in the US it would be legal for them to own it..


its all very confusing and interesting.

i am in class tho...time to pay attention.

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: dxkj
They only got it to pass by tacking it as a rider onto a port security bill. such lowlife BS.

Ive said it before, and I'll say it again, Democracy simply doesn't work.



And for the alarmist title, it isnt illegal or banned, it is a gray area, all that bill being passed does is prevent CC's from depositing money into a site (90% of CCs already wont) and it stops banks from transferring money in.

There are already tons of ways around this, call down alarmists.

Democracy does work, all they have to do is make a law stating that if you include something with a bill, it must be proven relevant to the bill in question.

 

[Pastore]

Man there are some people in this thread who are seriously against freedom.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Vic
Legalize. Problem solved.

gambling has been legal in vegas forever and it was still run by the mafia.

Not since the '70s it hasn't. They are public corporations traded on Wall Street.

This legislation BTW is protectionism that was pushed through by those Vegas casinos.

well no duh.

companies traded on the london stock exchange and operating out of islands in the carribbean are keeping people from having to drive over to lake charles (not that the gamblers i know don't do that, anyway).

it was still run by the mafia for decades. so 'legalization' doesn't remove the criminals immediately.

 

[Tom]

"He's just saying that your arguments cover a lot more online activity than merely gambling, yet you seem to have it in only for gambling."

I gave my explanation yesterday, guess you overlooked it.

not going to repeat the whole thing, but to summarize, online gambling and online shopping are not the same thing, they don't have the same risks, or the same benefits.

 

[Tom]

Cuda1477 said-

"It seems that you would prefer the government to protect its citizens from themselves. "


Not at all. Did you read the post that you quoted ? I don't give a damn what gamblers do to themselves. And I don't advocate banning gambling.

 

[Pastore]

Originally posted by: Tom
"He's just saying that your arguments cover a lot more online activity than merely gambling, yet you seem to have it in only for gambling."

I gave my explanation yesterday, guess you overlooked it.

not going to repeat the whole thing, but to summarize, online gambling and online shopping are not the same thing, they don't have the same risks, or the same benefits.

So you are putting it in our incompetent governments hands to decide what the risks are, and to whom they apply? Using this argument, tobacco should have been banned a looooong time ago, but it hasn't, why? Because of fat taxes and lobbyists. I'm going to go out on a limb and say cigarettes cause a lot more harm to our society than online gambling has/would. You consider tobacco company executives to be in morally higher standing than online gambling execs?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Pastore

Originally posted by: Tom
"He's just saying that your arguments cover a lot more online activity than merely gambling, yet you seem to have it in only for gambling."

I gave my explanation yesterday, guess you overlooked it.

not going to repeat the whole thing, but to summarize, online gambling and online shopping are not the same thing, they don't have the same risks, or the same benefits.

So you are putting it in our incompetent governments hands to decide what the risks are, and to whom they apply? Using this argument, tobacco should have been banned a looooong time ago, but it hasn't, why? Because of fat taxes and lobbyists. I'm going to go out on a limb and say cigarettes cause a lot more harm to our society than online gambling has/would. You consider tobacco company executives to be in morally higher standing than online gambling execs?

I don't hate the government or consider it inherently incompetent, so your point about that is lost on me.

As I just said, I don't advocate banning gambling. If banning online gambling meant that people's freedom to legally gamble was completely eliminated, I would oppose banning online gambling. So I don't see your comparison to tobacco as particularly relevant.

As far as "risk to society", that isn't the kind of risk I have raised concerns about. I have raised concerns about risks to individuals, that are not the gambler.

So far, nobody has disagreed with my points, so I guess nobody disputes them. The only arguments seem to be that-

1.online gambling is the same as online shopping.
2.online gambling is the same as online pron.
3.online gambling is the same as tobacco.

I don't agree with any of those arguments, and don't believe anyone with average intelligence actually agrees with them either.

 

[MaxDepth]

this is becomming law so that the casino industry "survives"

artificially supporting an industry leads to more pain down the road.

 

[Pastore]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Pastore

Originally posted by: Tom
"He's just saying that your arguments cover a lot more online activity than merely gambling, yet you seem to have it in only for gambling."

I gave my explanation yesterday, guess you overlooked it.

not going to repeat the whole thing, but to summarize, online gambling and online shopping are not the same thing, they don't have the same risks, or the same benefits.

So you are putting it in our incompetent governments hands to decide what the risks are, and to whom they apply? Using this argument, tobacco should have been banned a looooong time ago, but it hasn't, why? Because of fat taxes and lobbyists. I'm going to go out on a limb and say cigarettes cause a lot more harm to our society than online gambling has/would. You consider tobacco company executives to be in morally higher standing than online gambling execs?

I don't hate the government or consider it inherently incompetent, so your point about that is lost on me.

As I just said, I don't advocate banning gambling. If banning online gambling meant that people's freedom to legally gamble was completely eliminated, I would oppose banning online gambling. So I don't see your comparison to tobacco as particularly relevant.

As far as "risk to society", that isn't the kind of risk I have raised concerns about. I have raised concerns about risks to individuals, that are not the gambler.

So far, nobody has disagreed with my points, so I guess nobody disputes them. The only arguments seem to be that-

1.online gambling is the same as online shopping.
2.online gambling is the same as online pron.
3.online gambling is the same as tobacco.

I don't agree with any of those arguments, and don't believe anyone with average intelligence actually agrees with them either.

You continue to say there's all this risk, yet you don't say who is at risk, other than it's not the person that is doing the gambling. If you're talking about the parent of the kid that stole his credit card, well we're back to the same issue that is had by all types industries that accept credit cards. So who is inherently at risk?

EDIT: And as for reward, it's called free enterprise so anyone can reward from it being legalized, taxed, and highly regulated. The government could probably spend LESS regulating it than they will enforcing the ban.