The current ban over online gambling in America has been enacted for a moral reason, as supporters of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act would claim. To their opinion gambling is not a moral way to pass one's time and the widespread of gambling, using the internet, should be limited. If people won't be exposed to gambling they won't gamble and the community would be safe. That's more or less their line of thought. However, it seems that when online gambling isn't concerned, gambling is the very right way to go. Apparently, Massachusetts politicians support the ban over the online casino industry, on the one hand, but are eagerly happy to expand state lottery outlets on the other.
This hypocritical morality was exposed by the Network World which took a swipe at the politicians' stands. "You can't play online poker, but go ahead and gamble in Dunkin' Donuts," was the headline of the article. It seems that gambling isn't really the problem. The real problem is what kind of gambling are we talking about or - more importantly - who's interests does allowing or banning it serves? Expanding state lottery outlets will do exactly what the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act is intended at stopping - making gambling widely and easily accessible. If politicians want to stop gambling, they should stop gambling and not only act against virtual poker rooms on the internet.
The idea over at Massachusetts is that Dankin' Donuts, for example, is a very powerful business that reaches a broad audience; why not partner with them and have out lottery tickets sold all around? While the ban over online casino gambling prohibits financial companies from doing business with online gambling firms, the state of Massachusetts wants to combine their gambling operation with successful business firms.
|
