by everending

Created on: January 09, 2009

For the most part, proponents of the illegalization of Internet gambling fear numerous economic and ethical implications of the activity. According a 1999 report by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, these concerns far outweighed any personal or social benefits of Internet gambling. The concerns addressed in the report included "underage gambling, pathological gambling, lack of consumer protections, and criminal abuse" (United States General Accounting Office [GAO], 2002, p. 6). In a sense, the original push for the prohibition of Internet gambling was very paternalistic in natureit purported the need to protect gamers from themselves.

However, these ethical concerns are no different than the ethical concerns expressed in the realm of in-person gambling. Outside of casinos, many forms of betting are not closely regulated, and nave gamblers can easily be taken advantage of by more experienced players. Also, underage gambling and pathological gambling will always exist wherever there is gambling of any kindthe popularity of poker, for example, is obvious in high schools and middle schools across the United States, and while the pots may never top a few dollars, it is the act itself that matters. While many addicts may not be able to travel to casinos, they can travel to local race tracks or even the corner market to purchase scratch ticketswhere there is a will there is a way, and society has already provided numerous other convenient ways to gamble and gamble obsessively.

In the end, it is my belief that if a person desires to take part in a risky behavior such as gambling, that is his choice. It is not the place of the government to protect an individual, especially when it means curbing freedom. There are many responsible gamblers across the country who would not abuse Internet gambling, just as there are many irresponsible gamblers who already abuse casinos and lotteries. Proponents of the illegalization of Internet gambling are right in their opinions that Internet gambling can be harmful, but so can any other activity performed in excessand many of those activities, such as video games, eating, sex or even working, are legal.

What bothers me most is that the Interstate Wire Act especially is not as concerned with the ethical and social ramifications of Internet gambling as it is with the economical impacts of its legalization. The criminal abuse explored by the United States Government Accountability Office is far less concerned with individual criminal activity than it is with terrorism and more globally-oriented activity. One of the main fears of lawmakers is the susceptibility of Internet gambling to money laundering. In other words, many of these online gambling sites may be nothing more than thinly-disguised havens of criminal activity, allowing individuals to move large amounts of illegal money across state lines and country borders in a matter of minutes. While law enforcement agents believe in this potential, "representatives of the credit card and gaming industries believe that Internet gambling [is] not necessarily more susceptible to money laundering than any other type of online transaction" (GAO, 2002, p. 38). And in the end, few cases have been prosecuted.

Learn more about this author, everending.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.