Handicapped People's Civil Rights To Play Poker

[OzExorcist]

The biggest issue of all, much bigger than just poker is our rights to freedom of choice so long as we're not (directly) hurting someone else.

Two things. First of all, as I've stated before, for you to win at online poker someone else has to lose money. You are hurting someone else by playing online poker and it's pretty freaking direct too. Never forget that.

Second, while I applaud the effort to improve freedoms across the board, I suspect that this isn't a problem with one universal solution and that each issue will have to be argued individually, on its own merits. The arguments for legalising gay marriage and online poker are very different, for example, and I really can't see a blanket campaign that's going to work for both issues - ignoring the fact that any such campaign would have to be so broad in scope that it would essentially lose all meaning.

Gambling addiction does exist, but online poker didn't create the problem and banning online poker won't solve it. IMO it's a just a red herring since many forms of gambling in the US are legal and advertised heavily. Ironically, instead of just pure poker sites, if we end up with US based sites, they will be casinos offering all types of gambling, which is more likely to increase the numbers of addicts than just offering poker.

Absolutely positively 100% correct. That doesn't help us though because as we've pointed out above opponents of online poker will argue that legalising online poker will result in more problem gambling as a result of the ease of access. The problem gamblers that already exist will still be problem gamblers but what happens when, say, a few million Zynga Poker players move over to a real money site, get addicted and lose loads of money? Those are brand new problem gamblers that we wouldn't have had if we hadn't have legalised online poker.

Personally, in anticipation of that argument, I'd respond that regulation would be able to enforce protections for all problem gamblers, new and old alike. In the current environment there really aren't any problem gambling protections built into online poker, at least not effective ones - in fact, the current laws force the sites to advertise their services as "fun and risk free" which is clearly misleading. Problem gamblers gonna gamble, we may as well regulate to provide protections and derive revenue, some of which can be put towards support services for them and society at large.

 

[Charade You Are]

Two things. First of all, as I've stated before, for you to win at online poker someone else has to lose money. You are hurting someone else by playing online poker and it's pretty freaking direct too. Never forget that.

lol - sorry, but I'm not making that person play, it's HIS CHOICE. He can stop at any time.

Let's make lotteries, sports-betting, B&M casinos, bingo, horse-racing, and raffles illegal, then we are not increasing the addiction problem. And while we're at it, reinstate prohibition and outlaw tobacco, prescription drugs and video games.

We don't close down stores because some people are kleptomaniacs.

Those that aren't addicts shouldn't lose their freedoms because some people can't control themselves? People have to take responsibility for their actions. If you are an alcoholic and it's ruining your life, don't drink. If you bet the mortgage payment every month, stop gambling. I'm not saying it's easy, but a lot things in life aren't easy.

As far as protections go, I don't have an opinion because I don't know what they would be. I agree with you that gamblers will find a way to gamble on something, poker or not. I think that's the difference. I only want to play poker.

 

[OzExorcist]

Protections would usually include things like prominently displaying links to gambler's help services, instituting voluntary deposit, time-based or stop-loss limits, making voluntary temp or perma-ban facilities easier to find / use and possibly regulating the kinds of advertising sites are allowed to do.

On the other issues you're missing my point entirely. I'm not for a second saying we should be banning things that have the potential for negative addictive behaviour - for the most part I'm saying regulation is the correct approach to take.

Obviously people make a choice to play online poker, nobody's holding a gun to their head. That doesn't mean it doesn't hurt when they lose. They were going to play anyway and if you didn't take their money someone else would have but that doesn't make the hurt any less real. Again, we can't dismiss issues like this because the opponents of online poker will eat us alive.

Also it's not true to say that player can stop at any time. If they're an addict then by definition they have a problem stopping themselves from playing. FWIW you've got a very, very naive view of addiction.

While I agree that you shouldn't lose your freedoms just because they pose a danger to some other people you've got to remember that decision makers in government take the greater good into account when they're weighing the argument... which is why I've been saying all along that emotional appeals won't work. Weighing your right to have some fun playing a game and taking some poor schmuck's money vs the right of the child of a problem gambler to food and shelter. The homeless hungry kid will win every time, even if there's only one of him and a hundred happy poker players.

One other thing to think about: poker, whether live or online, really can be insidious when it comes to problem gambling. We all talk about how it's a game of skill long-term and not to worry about short-term downswings if you're making the right decisions. As a result it's very easy for a losing player to delude themselves into thinking that they're a winning player that's just running bad - at least with table games or the lottery people know the odds are stacked against them to begin with. At a poker table a problem gambler may even be able to convince himself he's not gambling at all.

What do you do when the opposition throws that argument at you? Hint: telling them that these people would just gamble somewhere else isn't going to get you your poker sites back.

 

[BigJamo]

All I hear are a lot of "MAYBE'S", but very unlikely.

I wish him all the best though.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Let me start by saying that this is a great debate! I think we can all agree that there is much to be gained by sharing ideas, arguments, and counterarguments. I feel that even our friends outside of the US are really feeling this one.

In reading the comments regarding my argument (which has been presented in bits and pieces), I feel that I haven't made my position very clear. So please allow me to state my position more fully. It probably won't change many minds, but hopefully will open people up to some other ideas. So here it is.

The recent crackdown on online poker in the US is merely a symptom of a much larger problem in our country. It is this larger problem that I am interested in addressing, not the symptom. Yes, I enjoyed playing online poker and yes, I would love to play again. But I am not interested in making poker the exception to this greater rule -- I am interested in changing the rule itself.

The greater rule itself has to do with maintaining our rights as citizens. Our Constitution contains nothing in it which would preclude us a priori from playing poker online. Or from smoking marijuana. Or from marrying someone of the same sex. Or for gambling outside of an Indian reservation or state lottery system. Or from purchasing liquor on Sundays. Or from buying a McDonald's Happy Meal. Or from eating the meat of a horse. Yet, depending on where you live in the US, each and every one of these individual rights has been taken away.

So yes, there will be those who want their poker and they'll go fight for their poker. And there will be those who want to smoke their marijuana and they'll go fight for their marijuana. That's a fine approach and for the particular right in question, it can be restored. We did get the right to drink alcohol back, for instance.

But at some point, even the person who doesn't play poker has to realize that he has a vested interest in this right if for no other reason than to protect his own rights. That's why I voted to legalize marijuana even though I don't smoke it. That's why I voted to allow gay marriage even though I'm heterosexual and already married. That's why I voted against banning the use of horse meat for human consumption even though I've never even tried it and can't really imagine wanting to.

While we all have different interests, we all have a common interest in not allowing others to dictate how we live. United we stand divided we fall has never rung truer. I lose my right to play poker but you just let it go because you don't happen to play? You lose your right to smoke marijuana (yes, even if you get that right, you will most certainly lose it again) but I just let it go because I don't happen to smoke? So divided against each other in this manner we lose right by right by right.

Coming back to poker in particular, for those wishing to focus on legislating that right alone, let's take a glimpse of what that future potentially holds. Conventional wisdom tells us that, for the states that allow it, online poker will most likely be allowed within the boundaries of the state. So not only have you lost international play, but you've also lost the ability to play within the greater US.

But it could get even worse in states like California. With the current budget problems in the state, there is a political movement to take various state responsibilities and operations and shift them onto local governments. For those living in rural areas, could you imagine being confined to playing in your local county poker network? I'm not suggesting that that will necessarily happen. But it certainly could happen if we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that this has nothing to do with rights.

Some may see this argument as emotional. But our rights were founded on an emotional rationality. It doesn't get any more emotional than, "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!"

So that's my take on this whole thing. Thanks for reading. Comments of course welcomed.

-Dave

Do you realise that convincing members of CC that US citizens have a constitutional right to play online poker will not change the legal status of online poker in the US?

If you think the legality of online poker in the US can be argued in terms of constitutional rights, then start writing to congress.

Personally I dont think the rights argument would hold water, but I do know that airing that argument only on CC has a zero percent chance of bringing about the change you want. If you want change, start writing to people who can actually bring about that change.

 

[dj11]

Do you realise that convincing members of CC that US citizens have a constitutional right to play online poker will not change the legal status of online poker in the US?

If you think the legality of online poker in the US can be argued in terms of constitutional rights, then start writing to congress.

Personally I don't think the rights argument would hold water, but I do know that airing that argument only on CC has a zero percent chance of bringing about the change you want. If you want change, start writing to people who can actually bring about that change.

Once upon a time, one of the KEYPINS of American Liberty and Freedom was that we Citizens had the right to do anything not SPECIFICALLY prohibited. So, at this point we do have the right to play online, What we do not have is the right to use money to do so.

While this thread was originally about disabled players, I think that they (the disabled players) could be a significant factor if this case goes before a live jury, as would any person engaged in the poker playing biz. If he could show he listed himself as a gambler (perfectly legal) on his IRS forms, he could be a voice that needs to be heard. These forums could show a financial impact and be another voice from a purely bisiness POV.

But all these voices would have to come before a LIVE jury. Personally I hope that happens, but I think it never will.

Greedy bastards on both sides here will never want the whole story out in the open. Moralistic chumps have the upper edge at the moment and will never willingly give it up.... I get this feeling that our best hope is that the Supreme Court Justices were/are closet online players. And that is a sick hope at best.......

 

[Charade You Are]

I agree with what I think is your overall argument that logic and emotion is going to have no effect on whether we regain the ability to play poker where we want. It's going to take the casinos getting enough backing to get a law passed where they have the edge (which the DOJ just gave them by effectively shutting down the 3 biggest sites to US players). So I will never get what I want, which is my FTP back.

Protections would usually include things like prominently displaying links to gambler's help services, instituting voluntary deposit, time-based or stop-loss limits, making voluntary temp or perma-ban facilities easier to find / use and possibly regulating the kinds of advertising sites are allowed to do.

Those are certainly reasonable.

Also it's not true to say that player can stop at any time. If they're an addict then by definition they have a problem stopping themselves from playing. FWIW you've got a very, very naive view of addiction.

FYI my great-grandfather was a gambling addict. He never logged on to the internet, and had enough self-control to pay his bills first. The only time he lost all his money was in the stock market crash of 1929. A number of my family members are alcoholics. Most were able to stop drinking eventually, some sooner than later. The ones that stopped sooner had family that didn't enable them, made them take responsiblity for their actions (i.e. didn't bail them out of jail when they were caught DUI, didn't drive them around when they lost their license, eg). The ones that stopped much later had family that enabled them, bailed them out, hid the problem and generally felt sorry for them. So I don't think my view of addiction is naive at all.

While I agree that you shouldn't lose your freedoms just because they pose a danger to some other people you've got to remember that decision makers in government take the greater good into account when they're weighing the argument... which is why I've been saying all along that emotional appeals won't work. Weighing your right to have some fun playing a game and taking some poor schmuck's money vs the right of the child of a problem gambler to food and shelter. The homeless hungry kid will win every time, even if there's only one of him and a hundred happy poker players.

So emotional arguements only work on their side?

If you think congress weighs the greater good in making their decisions, you are the one that is naive. In a country where gambling is NOT illegal, it's obvious government could care less about the "poor smuck" or his kid. It's just the argument the right uses to get the uninformed on their side. I have yet to hear anyone arguing that the old lady down the street shouldn't be allowed to spend her entire social security check on lottery tickets.

One other thing to think about: poker, whether live or online, really can be insidious when it comes to problem gambling. We all talk about how it's a game of skill long-term and not to worry about short-term downswings if you're making the right decisions. As a result it's very easy for a losing player to delude themselves into thinking that they're a winning player that's just running bad - at least with table games or the lottery people know the odds are stacked against them to begin with. At a poker table a problem gambler may even be able to convince himself he's not gambling at all.

You have a point there, but if the concern is actually for the gambler, then I would think that including poker with an online casino would be much more dangerous for gamblers than poker alone. I don't have numbers, but I would guess the % of gambling addicts that would play only poker is small versus the % that would play other games. Yet every attempt to legalize gambling in the US favors casinos.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Once upon a time, one of the KEYPINS of American Liberty and Freedom was that we Citizens had the right to do anything not SPECIFICALLY prohibited.

Thats always going to be a problem with a common law judicial system vs a civil law judicial system.

You started with very few laws and were free to do anything not specifically prohibited (which would make sense with civil law)

Over time a common law system deviates from what might be the true intention of a specific law because every trial allows a slightly new precedent to be established, in effect a slight rewriting of the law without the need to go back to legislators.

So over time, you dont just end up with more laws, you end up with existing laws taking on a wider scope than originally intended.

I have never understood why the founding fathers wrote a constitution and then decided upon a common law judicial system. The very fact they thought a constitution was a good idea would surely have led them to consider civil law.

Not only that but much of the thinking surrounding a constitutional nation came from French political writers, and of course, france uses civil law.

 

[PurgatoryD]

Do you realise that convincing members of CC that US citizens have a constitutional right to play online poker will not change the legal status of online poker in the US?

I wasn't aware that changing the legal status of online poker in the US was a criteria for posting here on CC. Of course I realize that. This is a community of people with the common interest of playing poker. In light of what has happened, I think it's pretty natural that we're going to hash out some different ideas regarding the legality of online play in the US.

If you think the legality of online poker in the US can be argued in terms of constitutional rights, then start writing to congress.

That's certainly one route. Another is the poker lobbyists talking to members of congress directly. Another possible route is the federal court system. If the current law is indeed unconstitutional, then it can be overturned. But I think there are sufficient lawmakers that see the dollar signs in online poker, so I'm sure we'll see new laws on the books.

Personally I dont think the rights argument would hold water

Well, you're certainly entitled to that belief. Other rights removed by force of law have been struck down as unconstitutional in the past, so it's not as if this argument is completely unprecedented or unproven. In the specific case of online poker, there are all kinds of interstate commerce laws that kick in as well, so I could see it going either way. But I think we'll get new laws well before anything could work its way through the court system.

but I do know that airing that argument only on CC has a zero percent chance of bringing about the change you want.

Who said that this argument is being aired only on CC? And since when is the desire to bring about social change a prerequisite for posting here on CC? What's wrong with just hashing out ideas with others who share a love for the game of poker? Posting my argument here on CC has actually been quite fruitful in that I have learned that even poker players really don't believe that US players have a constitutional right to play online. I honestly did not know that before, so this discussion has been quite useful.

If you want change, start writing to people who can actually bring about that change.

I had written to our local newspaper even before the recent federal crackdown. Our state has been pushing to get a state poker network operating. Personally, I think that's a bad idea. I don't want my government telling me that I can play online poker so long as I play in this little sandbox over here. LOL, not surprisingly, my idea is not very popular, so I'm pretty certain that the plan for intrastate play will be moving forward. On the bright side, at least California is a fairly populous state. I can't imagine living in North Dakota and being stuck on their state network. Who could make a go of that?

Thats always going to be a problem with a common law judicial system vs a civil law judicial system.

I think the US is a bit of a hybrid system. Yes, preference is typically given to previous case precedence when possible, but judges can break from precedence when they feel it misinterpreted written law. By doing so, though, they realize they are setting new precedence, so this is not done lightly. Supreme court justices, for instance, have done this.

Strict civil law sounds good on paper, but the problem is that due to ambiguities in language alone, you inevitably end up with laws that are enforced one way for some and another way for others. That is a basic ingredient for corruption within the judicial system.

I have never understood why the founding fathers wrote a constitution and then decided upon a common law judicial system. The very fact they thought a constitution was a good idea would surely have led them to consider civil law.

I'm sure it had to do with the fairness issue and corruption. Imagine those with means or those with ties to the church getting a different form of "justice" than everyone else. That's why, for better or worse, I think it's the closest form of "blind justice" they could come up with.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

I'm sure it had to do with the fairness issue and corruption. Imagine those with means or those with ties to the church getting a different form of "justice" than everyone else. That's why, for better or worse, I think it's the closest form of "blind justice" they could come up with.

?????

How does a civil law system lead to unfairness due to wealth or religion?

 

[PurgatoryD]

How does a civil law system lead to unfairness due to wealth or religion?

It can lead to unfairness because it allows a law to be interpreted differently by different judges. You can imagine that for those who are wealthy or in the good graces of a well-connected church, you might be able to ensure that you are led to a judge who tends to rule one way versus another. Also, if judges are not bound by previous precedent, then it's not clear that they'd even have to adhere to their own precedent. In other words, a single judge could rule differently given the same facts but different participants.

A common law system overcomes this problem by forcing judges to act fairly. If a law is interpreted one one for one defendant, then it must be interpreted that way for all defendants.

Don't forget that founding fathers saw the ability of "The Church" to corrupt the political process. I'm sure it at least crossed their minds that it could corrupt the judicial process as well.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

It can lead to unfairness because it allows a law to be interpreted differently by different judges. You can imagine that for those who are wealthy or in the good graces of a well-connected church, you might be able to ensure that you are led to a judge who tends to rule one way versus another. Also, if judges are not bound by previous precedent, then it's not clear that they'd even have to adhere to their own precedent. In other words, a single judge could rule differently given the same facts but different participants.

A common law system overcomes this problem by forcing judges to act fairly. If a law is interpreted one one for one defendant, then it must be interpreted that way for all defendants.

Don't forget that founding fathers saw the ability of "The Church" to corrupt the political process. I'm sure it at least crossed their minds that it could corrupt the judicial process as well.

Its the other way around.

Common law allows for more interpenetration from judges.

 

[PurgatoryD]

Its the other way around.

Common law allows for more interpenetration from judges.

Under each system, judges must interpret the law. It's certainly a much more involved process interpreting the law under the common law system. That's why it's so important that lawyers present relevant precedent at trial.

Regardless of system, most every law or set of laws contains ambiguity. Assume that a law or set of laws is written vaguely enough to be reasonably interpreted as either "A" or "B". Using common law, if judges start by using interpretation "A", then "A" will be used in future cases. But in civil law, judges can ping-pong between "A" and "B" with no regard for which interpretation earlier judges have used.

That's what I mean when I say that civil law allows for more interpretation by judges. I will give you that common law makes interpreting the law more involved and therefore more difficult. But if the lawyers are doing their jobs, then the judge's interpretation will be forced to follow precedence. That's no so under civil law.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

Im not so sure that common law allows for less interpertation.

I have sat through a few trials and I remember a barister arguing a point of law for about 2 hours. When I say arguing, I mean talking until the judge just gave in.

It was his position that it was possible to commit an honest deception, in that an honest man could knowingly deceive others yet that did not automatically mean that he was a dishonest person.

 

[AUPhoenix]

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

Not really, but I can tell you why they did ban on line poker in the U.S. Because the damn politicians were not getting there "cut" out of the pot.

 

[Charade You Are]

Not really, but I can tell you why they did ban on line poker in the U.S. Because the damn politicians were not getting there "cut" out of the pot.

They didn't ban online poker.

 

[bobsay225]

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!

carbon account yet????

 

[OzExorcist]

So emotional arguements only work on their side?

If you think congress weighs the greater good in making their decisions, you are the one that is naive. In a country where gambling is NOT illegal, it's obvious government could care less about the "poor smuck" or his kid. It's just the argument the right uses to get the uninformed on their side. I have yet to hear anyone arguing that the old lady down the street shouldn't be allowed to spend her entire social security check on lottery tickets.

Absolutely - it's because their emotional arguments trump any of the ones the legalisation side could ever come up with.

You have a point there, but if the concern is actually for the gambler, then I would think that including poker with an online casino would be much more dangerous for gamblers than poker alone. I don't have numbers, but I would guess the % of gambling addicts that would play only poker is small versus the % that would play other games. Yet every attempt to legalize gambling in the US favors casinos.

I disagree.

Obviously if poker is included in a casino site with a bunch of other games then a bunch of "ordinary" gamblers will try the game, even though they probably never would have gone to the effort of downloading and depositing on a poker-only site. Chances are thought that someone who's sat down at a poker table because it's just another game the casino offers may not even know or care that it's a game of skill.

I think stand-alone poker sites probably contribute to the misconceptions some people have about poker that I mentioned above. After all they're playing poker, a game of skill, and nothing else - the site doesn't even offer anything else - so how could they possibly be problem gamblers? Loads of people firmly believe that poker is not gambling. Statistically they can't all be winning players so that's a very dangerous attitude for someone to be holding...

One last thought: I suspect one of the reasons legalisation attempts favour casinos is because they're making effective arguments to those who matter rather than banging on about things like the rights of the disabled.

 

[PurgatoryD]

It was his position that it was possible to commit an honest deception, in that an honest man could knowingly deceive others yet that did not automatically mean that he was a dishonest person.

LOL! Yeah, well, there's a reason why the word "lawyer" is often considered a dirty word here in America. I'm sure that was an interesting argument to watch. Talk about splitting hairs... can a man be "honest" but still lead a woman to believe that she looks good in that dress? Yikes! Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies.

The whole process can get downright ugly. President Clinton's infamous argument boiled down to the definition of the word "is"!

That's why the process depends on competent counsel on both sides. When I talked about precedence for judicial interpretation "A" earlier, of course a judge under the common law system could still go with interpretation "B" if the lawyer is incompetent and does not provide the judge with the precedence for interpretation "A".

So I can definitely see your position. But if that does happen, it should in theory be reversed upon appeal. As if the system wasn't complicated enough already!

 

[Charade You Are]

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

One last point, the reason legislation favors casinos is because they pay big money to lobbyists and campaign coffers.
Lobbying:

Campaign Contributions 2010:

All Candidates: $5,741,416

Incumbents Only: $4,976,588

 

[OzExorcist]

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

One last point, the reason legislation favors casinos is because they pay big money to lobbyists and campaign coffers.

Fair enough - and we're on the same page on that last point, I've always figured paying big money to lobbyists is a big part of making an effective argument when it comes to something like this. Still, I promise you those lobbyists aren't talking about rights when they make their trips to the hill...

 

[PaulThePokerCat]

I want this game legalized as much as anyway but I think people have to stop using the "Poker is a game of skill" angle as an argument to legalize it and seperate it from other forms of gambling. Skill wins out for the people who will play on a steady basis. You will have tons of people who sporadically give it a try and do that now. No different then a tourist who pops in a casino and tries a tournament.
45 people enter and 6 get paid.. 39 people lose and they all took a gamble. Nobody will argue that horseracing is gambling yet you have people that win at that. They will argue that they are "skilled handicappers". But its clearly gambling. What rubs me the wrong way is that as soon as I am done with this post I can access my Nassau County OTB account online and make a perfectly legal bet.

 

[Charade You Are]

Poker has been declared a game of skill in a number of court cases. The International Mind Sports Association accepted poker in Apr of 2010 as a mind sport. And since games of skill are exempt from the shackles of the UIGEA, it is in poker's best interest to be recognized as such.

Just because there are bad poker players doesn't mean it's not a game of skill. There are crappy chess players too.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

There are crappy chess players too.

Yes but they dont tend to wager money playing games against people they cant beat.

 

[Charade You Are]

Yes but they dont tend to wager money playing games against people they cant beat.

Gamblers do