Handicapped People's Civil Rights To Play Poker

I saw a great video on the possible civil rights violation of the handicapped no longer being able to play internet poker, I for one totally agree, how do you feel about it? -

Interesting angle. Since poker itself is legal offline, they may have a case. I would love it if they got a legal team together and were able to move forward.

Here in California, in addition to medical marijuana cards, people could get medical online poker cards!

Can anyone tell me one reason for banning internet poker that makes sense?

Maybe war and global warming, among other things, are to hard to handle so.....

yes, the winnings arent taxed.

It also lacks the regulations and safeguards that are in place for land-based casinos.

Of course these aren't necessarily good reasons to ban internet poker. Instead they're very compelling reasons to regulate and tax it.

As for the argument in the OP I'll be surprised if it flies. Particularly with regard to the current situation people have got to get away from the rights and freedom arguments because they're obviously not working. Whether or not people have any kind of right to play poker online doesn't change the fact that the sites are up on money laundering and bank fraud charges. Economic arguments will need to carry the day here.

Plus anyone who's ever watched a WSOP broadcast knows full well that people with all kinds of disabilities can play poker in a live casino. If they don't have a live casino or card room near them because they're not legal in their state then arguing that they should be allowed to play a game online that's banned live definitely isn't going to work, DUCY?

I refer to my earlier answer in another thread.

http://www.cardschat.com/showpost1726637-post15.html

that's the U.S. governments fault. The poker sites offered to give them the info needed to tax but the U.S. said no.

Plus I could be wrong (not being an American) but aren't online poker players expected to report their winnings to the tax department anyway?

It's not tax on winnings that the government is missing out on - it's licensing fees and tax on company earnings that they're not getting.

Yes they should, but since W2-G's are not issued by the offshore poker sites, its alot easier for players to cheat on their taxes.

And yes, the government is also missing out on the licensing fees and taxes. In PA the brick and mortar casinos are taxed 16% on table game revenue and I think like 33% on slot revenue.

In the big picture what I'm looking for is some good reasons that make sense why the US government doesn't legalize internet poker, tax it, and allow a professional group to regulate it.

If you can loose your weeks pay playing a state lottery which more than 99% of the ticket buyers loose at, what's wrong with a game of (SKILL) that millions of people love to play, I just don't get it ? do we have (ANY) rights left at all?

*shrugs*

Revenue and regulation are their own good arguments and they trump pretty much all others.

If they don't work then I don't see how alternative or touchy-feely approaches like the one suggested in the OP are going to get through.

The support of casinos is crucial. Most of them were against online gambling in 2006, this stance is weakening. I'm sure most of them have sites ready to go once they can convince the regilous right to STFU.

For one, I'm disabled and this couldn't hit closer to home,,,when I heard the news on Black Friday I called my nephew and said," what am going to do to fill the day",,, I play freerolls and micro stakes and playing for play money just wouldn't be the same. Not to mention I get 10% of my income from the games I play..... Try living on 960 dollars a month.....sure $100 a month ain't much to most people,,, but to me it's the difference between just getting by and having something for Christmas every year...
Thanks

















3

Same here,im disabled since 1990,and my income is slightly lower than yours..an xtra $100 per month means the difference between getting a tooth filled,or not...i support this thread all the way!

You got my vote, I am a disabled veteran myself and all day now I have been looking for a place to play, my income is a bit more, but it did allow for me to do other things, now without that my grandkids may not get so many treats from me or visits, with the way gas prices are going

It's a total no brainer for the government to legalize and tax it. Does that mean our government as a whole is short on brains?

If it's a total no-brainer, how come you don't have live, legal casinos and card rooms in every state?

Much as we hate to admit it there is another side to this debate. That other side needs to be acknowledged and effectively countered in order for any change to happen. Some, for example, will argue that online gambling causes social harm that no amount of regulation can prevent and no amount of revenue can offset. The people with that viewpoint have a lot of votes on their side, BTW.

Still think this is a no-brainer?

While I'm on a rant, let's look briefly at this supposed "right" people have to play online poker. Can anyone show me where it's written that this right exists? If it really was a universal right you'd have live card rooms and casinos in every state, as I mentioned above. Since you don't have these things obviously your government doesn't believe this is a universal right - or if it does, it believes it's one that's trumped by other social concerns.

So my point is don't make this about rights, disabled or otherwise, because you'll lose. And don't ignore or dismiss your opposition because they've got loads of money, votes, the status quo and probably even the moral high ground on you already.

Amendment IX to the US Constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, it need not be written that this right exists in order for it to exist. We don't have the enumerated right to shower, for instance, but it exists.

That said, gambling (including poker) has been singled out and laws about it have been written. In many states, it is expressly illegal. In others, it is restricted to certain geographic areas. In others, it is restricted to state run and Indian reservation operations. Then there are city and county ordinances which can further restrict it.

For online poker, you have potential transactions across state lines which then involves federal interstate commerce and wire laws. I think this was the original problem for online poker. And then most recently, of course, was the 2006 federal law which doesn't allow money to be transferred to play.

So, if you happen to live in some jurisdiction where the right is not expressly denied, then you have the right, even if it is not explicitly granted. But because of the 2006 federal law, I don't think such a jurisdiction exists. Unless the game of poker itself gets around the law because it is not a "game of chance". In which case the issue of the legality of online poker could be tied up in the courts for years.

As far as the "no-brainer" stuff goes, I agree with you. Poker is, in the minds of many Americans, right up there with the sins of drinking and prostitution. Prostitution has been almost entirely outlawed and many states are still "dry" on Sundays. Many Americans would love to see Prohibition return. So you are right, poker will not have an easy go of it here in the US.

-Dave

Just one of my points is why should any human being have the right to tell another human being what he/she can and can't do, if what that person is doing only effects themself.

I guess state lotto and lotteries are ok, it's a joke and my civil rights are being violated...

My point also is if that's not my civil right it should be. Life is and should be simple, I was born free and it should stay that way.

Weather it's on the books or not is it my civil right to eat what I want, choose my friends, dress as I see fit, etc., etc.

People have their civil rights to burn our flag, say whatever they wish about any religion. Torment the family of our soldiers that die serving us at their burial. Those civil rights are protected but I don't have the right to play poker, this is a very big problem and anyone that excuses it also has a problem...

...or sure, I guess you could choose to keep making this about your so-called "rights" and never make any actual progress on the issue.

Obviously I believe you should be allowed to play poker - why would I even be a member on a site like this if I didn't?!? And I've got sympathy for the people that have told their stories in this thread. But what I'm saying is if you try to make this debate one about emotion and rights you will lose.

I think a lot of people, online players in particular, tend to forget that poker is a zero sum game. For you to win money someone else has to lose it. And there are a lot more losers than winners. For every disabled person you can find with a compelling story about how it should be their right to play a game of skill on the internet for money the opposition can find a dozen stories like this:

"My name is John and internet poker ruined my life. I just played for fun at first but I ended up losing a lot of money. I was addicted. I tried to stop playing but the sites kept sending me e-mails offering me bonuses to deposit more money and keep playing. I ended up losing my house, my job and my family. Ban internet poker to stop more people ending up like me."

I made that up off the top of my head but I guarantee you there are real people out there willing to tell that story. Put your emotional stories up against that one and which do you think will win?

Revenue. Tax the company earnings so at least the government can do something positive with the money that's being spent. Use it to build roads, pay off national debt or whatever else government does with the money it makes from things like state lotteries.

Regulation. For the protection of players and for people like "John". These are arguments that might get you somewhere.

Thanks for posting the video, everything the man said is true. I'm not disable/handicapped but I enjoy playing poker as much as anyone else. I hope this gets resolved and we can still play online poker.

Why should poker be legal to only the people that have it in their area and can afford the cost of traveling to a casino and play for the stakes they force you to play for.

You say that poker is a zero sum game. Your chances to win are much better than the lottery, casino table games, and all the other forms of legalized gambling.

Most people play poker as a source of entertainment and let the chips fall where they may. If you go to a ball game, a broadway play, disney world world, etc. it's all negative $$$, no chance to win, or break even.

If any form of gambling is legal on the internet, which it is, there's no reason at all that makes sense why poker shouldn't be...

TIMMY!!

ROFL, i just pictured a ouht park image right there... lol

I would agree that ban ONLY in case they are mentally disabled, that way they wouldn't be aware or enough aware and could be scammed, etc...

If they are only physically, then they should play just like the rest of us.

lol! That is so wrong....




Tee-hee...

I'm glade to see that some brighting faces to that ..lol

Not sure it will actually gain any traction, but being a player with disabilities myself, I know banning internet poker will make it difficult for me to play at all!

Isn't that the basis of US democracy?

Each state being a sovereign entity.. so what is legal in one state isn't necessarily legal in another?

The real question is whether the rake will be (handi)capped

I'm starting to think you're not listening to me.

Erm... it is a zero sum game. There are no intermediaries, if you're winning money it's because someone else is losing it. And while certainly I rate my chances of winning better than the lottery or table games that's not the case for all people. Some people suck so bad at poker that in the long run they'll never win. After the site takes its cut in rake and tournament fees it stands to reason that there are more winners than there are losers in poker. Those losers really would be better off playing table games or the lottery or something - just please don't tell them that, because I want them to stay on my tables.

This may be true, but you still don't get it. Opponents of legalised online poker will have thousands upon thousands of degenerates and addicts lined up ready to tell their stories about how they lost their house, their job, their family or all of the above as a result of online gambling. Here is just one example:


They'll also have thousands upon thousands of people willing to vote the issue at the next election. You cannot make this about emotion because you cannot possibly win on those grounds. You can't argue that you should be allowed to play internet poker because you enjoy it and it's a fun game, because the opposition can turn around and say "how many people had to lose their houses for you to have your fun?!?" The same goes for your rights arguments - your right to gamble vs the right of a problem gambler's child to eat and have a roof over their head, which do you think wins?

It's also absolutely true that it's unfair other forms of gambling online are legal and poker isn't - the hypocrisy of it is even more startling where I'm from, FWIW. But do you know why those other forms of gambling are legal and poker isn't? It's because someone got in front of the people that mattered and did the numbers for them: this much in revenue for the government, this many jobs created and regulation so you can control it. I promise you they didn't make their case on the basis that horses really like to go for a run and it's every American's right to lose money on greyhound racing.

Cool video! Thanks for posting. It makes me want to play more.

And someone should tell that walking the earth guy that his life wasn't ruined by poker, it was ruined by stealing. And from a friend, no doubt!

The thing that really struck me was the amounts of money involved were relatively small and yet it still somehow managed to "ruin his life".

As for trying to shift the blame away from poker I'm not sure I agree. Maybe he would've stolen money from his friends and ruined his life without poker but the fact remains that, in this case, he was addicted to internet poker and that was the reason he stole the money. I guarantee you that's the way Average Joe watching this video will see it.

Yeah, that was a little suspect as well.

See, this is one of those situations where, sure, it may be the case that this person's life was ruined over a very small amount of money lost to internet poker. Or, it may be the case that this guy was bored out of his mind with his classes, didn't really want to go, was going to fail out anyhow, stole $10, pinned everything wrong in his life on internet poker, found a cause that somehow "legitimizes" the fact that he still doesn't have a job, found Jesus, and is enjoying his 15 minutes.

I guess there's really no way to tell which is the case.

Well, I think we're in a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation here. I'll agree that he was likely addicted to internet poker. But is that addiction the reason he stole? Or is that addiction the reason he wanted more money? I agree that the compulsion made him really want the money. But can that be enough to effectively force someone to steal it?

You got that right.

What frustrates me is this: internet poker in the US is not in trouble because it's addicting or costs society. Alcohol and cigarettes are miles ahead of internet poker on both fronts and they're both legal. Internet poker is in trouble because not that many people play it and it doesn't have a well enough funded political lobby.

I wish instead of people taking the attitude, "Well I don't play, so what do I care?" they would take the attitude, "What right does the government have to tell people how they can live their lives?" I don't buy McDonald's Happy Meals but I still think the laws created to ban them in certain parts of my state are absolutely ridiculous.