The Constitutional Right to Wager

[andyfox]

Do we have a constitutional right to wager? According to the guy in the betonsports.com commercial, we do. And not only that, it "they" take it away, they'll soon start taking away other rights we have.

What do we think?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Do we have a constitutional right to wager?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know, I'm assuming he's talking about a federal law to outlaw internet gambling and he's opposed to that. God I hope he's right. The Feds do not want to see that revenue stream go untaxed IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
And not only that, it "they" take it away, they'll soon start taking away other rights we have.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would seem that the feds would have to be awfully instrusive to stop internet gambling.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Do we have a constitutional right to wager? According to the guy in the betonsports.com commercial, we do. And not only that, it "they" take it away, they'll soon start taking away other rights we have.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its all spelled out in the constitution. Look it up. It is right next to the "right to have an abortion".

Stu

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do we have a constitutional right to wager?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't know, I'm assuming he's talking about a federal law to outlaw internet gambling and he's opposed to that. God I hope he's right. The Feds do not want to see that revenue stream go untaxed IMO.

[ QUOTE ]
And not only that, it "they" take it away, they'll soon start taking away other rights we have.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would seem that the feds would have to be awfully instrusive to stop internet gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the govt will eventually give up and decide the potential revenue streams from legal internet gambling sound better than fighting an unwinnable war. I think this issue should be left up to the states to decide for themselves. I would expect most states to allow it, with a few exceptions (Like Utah).

The question I think that should really be pondered is does the serious internet player really WANT internet gambling to be state sanctioned? I say no. If Bellagio (For example) was allowed to open an online casino/poker site it is my opinion that thousands of casual players (fish) would abandon sites like PP & Stars to play with a recognized, regulated and trusted name in the gaming business. Assuming internet sites would be free to advertise, deep pocketed land based casino firms would have a huge advantage in the amount of money they could spend to attract new business. They could also offer synergies between their land based and internet casinos, such as FPP's earned online earn free rooms, etc. Serious players would likely have little choice but to follow the fish to the new sites.

And now the govt has you where they want you. That casino would likely have to turn over records of your winnings to the IRS at the end of every year. Currently land based casinos will report sizeable tourney wins, but most of your ring play is relatively incognito. An internet casino would have records of every buy in, wager and cash out made during the year. It does not take too much imagination to see a scenario where your aggregate winnings get reported to Federal and State agencies. And if the govt wants more info, they would have the right to summons your personal info held by these casinos & your funds on deposit there could even be subject to levy. As an aside, foreigners would certainly not like this new arrangement as any large win would likely be subject to tax withholding before funds would be released.

Don't get me wrong, I do not advocate tax avoidance. It is just that I am always against giving the govt even more power over our lives, and information is power. Uncle Sam does not need to know how I am spending my free time when my activities do no harm to others. Fortunately for the internet player, politicians thus far have shown no inclination to press the issue of internet gambling one way or another. Here's hoping it stays that way.

[natedogg]

Gambling is only illegal due to paternalism in government. Anyone should be able to gamble on anything they like, for any amount. It SHOULD be considered a constitutional right in that any activity that doesn't expressly cause harm to your neighbor should be protected consitutionally.

We need an anti-paternalism amendment FAR FAR more than we need, for example, a gay marriage amendment.

natedogg