The Pros and Cons of the Online Gambling Legislation

An interesting debate - a long time coming - is going in Congress about the future of online gambling.  A new bill - H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act of 2009 - would allow online gambling sites to apply for licenses and be subject to regulation.  Though these regulations could alter how some online gambling sites operate, the bill legitimizes gambling on the internet. 

Understandably, this is a fairly controversial measure with strong proponents and opponents.

First, the lowdown from the Washington Post on the online gambling legislation:

"The House Financial Services Committee approved a bill on Wednesday under which Internet gambling operators could get licenses authorizing them to take bets from people in the U.S. If it becomes a law, it would overturn a federal ban on the payments of Americans who gamble online.

However, the bill would continue to prohibit betting on sports, which accounts for millions of dollars in online gambling activity.

The Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act passed out of the committee by a 41-to-22 vote. Now the committee can send the bill to the House for consideration, where it could be considered in September at the earliest."

Keep in mind that online gambling sites aren't totally happy with these provisions.  For instance, the bill puts a restriction on how money is paid: gamblers cannot use a credit card, which is currently common practice.  The general gist of this bill, however, is in line with other internet freedom legislation:  It's not up to the government to tell people how they can spend their money.  If someone wants to bet their house and lose it, that's their prerogative. 

This both does and doesn't make sense.  By that logic, brick and mortar casino gambling should be legal everywhere--if there's a market for people gambling in their own neighborhoods, then the government shouldn't really stop it.  That's almost convincing, but this is more of zoning issue than anything.  Just as you can't build a 7-Eleven in the middle of a suburban neighborhood, the same sort of zoning restrictions go for building a casino in a state where gambling is illegal.  An online gambler playing poker on his desktop, however, is not really encroaching on anyone else's territory, which is why cyberspace is subject to different sorts of rules than the brick and mortar world.

Still, unsurprisingly there are opponents to the legislation.  Republican congressional candidate Raul Labrador was quoted saying,

"There is legitimate fear that this bill, should it become law, will prove disastrous for families across the nation," said Labrador.  "Under Minnick's bill, throwing thousands of dollars away will be just a click away for children and adults with gambling addiction issues."

This isn't entirely persuasive because you could make the same argument that we should shut down every liquor store.  My position: It's a little weird that you can gamble anywhere in the U.S. outside Nevada (and a couple other areas), but the internet has changed our conception of "the world" as it's both everywhere and at the same time has no location.  Internet gambling isn't going away.  Making it illegal is almost impossible to prosecute without monitoring everyone's surfing habits in some sort of police-state way.  That's not exactly ideal, so devising laws to regulate gambling makes a lot more sense (and it's easier) than trying to outlaw it entirely. 

What do you think?  It's a pretty contentious issue.  Internet gambling: for or against?