Wednesday, June 17, 2009 | 2:01 a.m.
Las Vegas Sun reporter Liz Benston’s story Monday on the Justice Department’s seizure of millions of dollars from bank accounts used to process online poker transactions contained a quote that caught my attention.
The quote was from an executive with a company that hosts free and subscription-only poker tournaments online. The executive said he believes federal regulators are opposed to Internet gambling because they believe gambling at home presents a bigger risk to Americans’ homes and life savings than gambling at casinos.
This could be a valid concern in cases where the government is paying people’s wages and subsidizing their housing.
But it should not be a blanket concern. I have a job and pay my own way. I am a responsible low-limit Texas hold ’em player with a fund set aside specifically for gaming.
I study the game and am a winning player. If a player is irresponsible and loses his house, why should I be banned from online play? Let that player suffer the consequences accordingly. That’s the price of irresponsible gambling in casinos or online.
It appears we have yet another case of government trying to get involved in the private affairs of the individual. I believe the real reason the feds are on a mission is that they want a bite of the action, the millions garnered by poker sites every year. Furthermore, they have the audacity to want to save my home and savings when their own financial affairs are in deep trouble. They need to clean their own house before trying to clean mine, which but for the dishes, is in no need of cleaning anyway.
Join the Discussion:
Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.
Full comments policy