WA Law: 5 Years in Prison for Gambling Online 535
tpoker writes "Online gambling has been an ongoing legal issue for the federal government, but Washington State has recently decided to take matters into their own hands. The Seattle PI reports, 'Beginning next month [June 7th], Washington residents who play poker or make other types of wagers on the Internet will be committing a Class C felony, equivalent under the law to possessing child pornography, threatening the governor or torturing an animal. Although the head of the state Gambling Commission says it is unlikely that individual online gamblers will be targeted for arrest, the new law carries stiff penalties: as much as five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.'"
Age old problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, 'cause... (Score:3, Insightful)
Land of the Free, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep on shining the torch of liberty into the darkest corners of the earth, now, won't you?
Tax Revenue (Score:3, Insightful)
No buying selling stocks online? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Age old problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is about control. As in, the State cannot control the revenue generated wherever the gambling goes on. Be certain that if WA could get "their" cut from "their" citizens gambling they wouldn't have this law.
Think of it this way: State is to Gambling as RIAA is to Music. If they (the State) can't control it, they don't want anybody else doing it.
Dumb Law... (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be a law that you can't put a law on the books with no intention of enforcing it. The law has enough baggage from previous years when politicians would grandstand for the "hang 'em high" crowd. I suggest hanging high anyone who puts a useless law on the book.
The state hates competition (Score:5, Insightful)
The gov't hates when industries that rake in cash don't pay special tribute by donating, ect. Look at how google is now throwing out cash to avoid investigations and avoid the trouble MS had in the 90's.
Pay tribute to the masters and you can do what you want.
plus the state has a monopoly on gambling (state lotteries), they don't want that threatened. so lets throw harmless people in jail for a non-violent, victimless crime. Yes, america "home of the free" what a load of crap
Re:It's illegal over there? (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's an idea for new laws..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Place your bets.... (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.walottery.com/ [walottery.com]
KFG
Re:Place your bets.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uh, a slight disparity? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
Upstaging the competition? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is reminicient of the smoking ban just last year. I don't gamble or smoke, but I do believe in personal freedoms. Sadly, this place is slowly turning into a nanny state as the years go by.
Re:Age old problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember how banning assault rifles ended gangland violence in LA?
Laws can only effect what people do, not what they want.
Re:Place your bets.... (Score:4, Insightful)
OT:In California... (Score:2, Insightful)
Washington has quite a few casinos (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, with unregulated online casinos running in another country, why on earth would anyone A) implement a casino without the ability to skim (Which could be completely invisible to anyone without some serious probabilities analysis tools and a lot of time to sit playtesting) or B) want to play said unregulated online casino?
Mod parent up! (Score:2, Insightful)
My conservative parents have baffled me all my life. They home schooled us kids, went to church, all that stuff, and always ripped on the Government when they would try and meddle in church or homeschooling. "Let us decide what's best for our own!" they would say.
I grew up, went away to college, and started smoking and gambling. "Smoking's bad for you, look at these Government studies!" Right, the Government studies. The same Government that doesn't know what's best for you, that you've been putting down all these years, suddenly they know what's best for me and have my best interests at heart. Right.
One thing drives the Government: Money.
Let me say it again: Money.
Oh, sure, they're after power, too; but power's only a means to an end... and what do you think that end is?
Just one more personal freedom lost (Score:5, Insightful)
The original purpose of laws at all was to impose a minimal number of laws to ensure the safety of lives and property of citizens. How does it ensure the safety of my life or property if I cross a suburban street anywhere other than a street corner if no cars are coming? I learned to look both ways. It's still a crime a cop could fine me for.
What politician does it hurt if two guys want to go consensually behind closed and do whatever the hell they want to do with each other? Who does it hurt if I want to give a guy a blow job, or he wants to go down on me? Hell, we're adults, and yet these are still crimes in some states. Must we get permits?
See why I like a lot (but not all) of the ideas behind anarchy? Get the government the hell out of our lives.
Re:How do you set fireworks off by accident? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, I've never done it anywhere that didn't meet fire code.
I even have ignited dozens of model rocket engines indoors (safely secured) and detonated thermite. I'd say there is a basic expectation of fire-safety with regards to buildings. If there was a lazy/corrupt/incompetent fire inspector that is where the blame lies.
People are going to smoke, light candles, use toasters, and have accidents in the kitchen. You can't always blame the person that finds the problem.
Re:and right now .. live from Washington (Score:4, Insightful)
You can day-trade yourself into the poorhouse on Schwab, but online poker is a felony? WTF?!?!
It is a shame. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dumb Law... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dumb Law... (Score:2, Insightful)
FFS... what is this incredible problem Americans have with breasts? I'm amazed you can overcome your fear of them long enough to reproduce.
But, forget all that, look at it from the most selfish perspective imaginable: would you rather have a crying baby on the street or one being breastfed?
Re:Place your bets.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Secondly, the real "because" of the post you responded to is "because politicians of any party always act in their best interest". This is proven time and time again. Sure they do what the people want... but only when it will benefit them, be it re-election to maintain or get more power, obtain industry allies, receive bribes and benefits. The reality of Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal is that they are like an auction house simplified down to 2 bidders. All the industries, special interest groups etc represent people and groups... representing money, influence, power. The political parties are bidding on that money, influence, power. If a new special interest group forms up, never seen before... ONE of those 2 parties is going to pick it up, GUARANTEED. Thats money, power, influence... they don't care what it stands for, as long as it doesn't cause them to lose what they already have. Democrats and republicans are more groups of special interests that can stand each other, not about any real united ideology or great plan or desire to serve. People who really want to help people don't make it in politics, its so easy to ruin their lives. Even if they do make it part of the way, they are forced to surround themselves with people who don't give a crap and just there for themselves... so nothing really gets done.
People sit here and are like... "wow, I can't believe a liberal state is doing this". It has NOTHING to do with that, democrats are simply acting in their best interest. Republicans would do the same if they had more control too. They are paid in power, influence and money. Just like most people they don't really give a crap about freedom, or liberty or anything else... unless theres more power, influence and money to be had. Tell a party you'll send them a billion a year to operating online casinos, or pass some random law and I guarantee one of the parties will try to do it. Even if it doesn't "fit" in their ideology. They'll make it fit. If i gave them a billion to fight for my freedom, or guaranteed them alot of power... they'd give me my freedom to. You think you deserver freedom and liberty, politicians think you should pay them for it.
Re:Washington has quite a few casinos (Score:1, Insightful)
People that are serious about poker *do* have sophisticated tools to watch percentages of each of the possible hands dealt.
Re:How do you set fireworks off by accident? (Score:5, Insightful)
You got some average guy. This guys lights of indoor pyro as part of a music act.
A foam mat catches on fire, people can't leave because the building is not up to code.
That person will ahve to live with that forever. He is NOT a danger to society.
There is no reason to put him in jail cost the taxpayers 100s of thousands of dollars, and put a hardship on his family, which will probably end up cost taz payers even more money.
If this guy was an arsonist, then yeah, lock him up. He is just a guy, doing a task in a club that the fire martial should have closed.
Seems like a tradgic accident, and the need for a scapegoat to me.
Re:Just one more personal freedom lost (Score:3, Insightful)
A Libertarian (such as myself) would say that protecting the poster (the occupant of the house) from you and your jackass friends is an appropriate function for the police, and the reason why most of us are willing to pay some taxes for that service.
What is not an appropriate function for the police? Protecting the poster from himself. If he wants to grow pot in his own house, smoke up, and give another guy a blowjob (a guy who likes that sort of thing) in the privacy of his own home, that's his business -- and nobody would have the right to tell him not to. On the other hand, if the poster wants to smoke pot and give blowjobs while while driving through a neighborhood at 90mph, then he is putting the occupants of the neighborhood at risk and he should be stopped.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is a Libertarian position. Libertarians feel that the government that governs least, and respects the people, is the government that governs best. We recognize that government is a necessary part of society, we just want less of it.
Do we really need another unenforc(ed)(able) law? (Score:3, Insightful)
This one falls into two categories with one go...:
Re:Age old problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, kids! Gambling is wrong, unless it generates revenue for the state!
My two cents as a Washingtonian... (Score:4, Insightful)
This law doesn't bother me. Gambling via the Internet seems like a bad idea. You cannot check for someone's age, and plus there's no way to deal with people who have gambling problems.
However, what does bother me about the law is the punishment. One, at most it should be a gross misdemeanor, not a felony. Two, they should go after any business which doesn't hold a disclaimer saying Washingtonians cannot gamble via their site. A fine equal to 110% of the winnings or amount gambled, whichever is greater, for the individual Washingtonian who gambled.
How many have heard that Washington state is considering raising the gambling age from 18 to 21?
Re:Age old problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when is gambling a problem? It's entertainment with an attached fee. And like every other form of entertainment in the history of man, some people do it too much. Sucks to be them, but let the rest of us have our fun.
Amen, brother. The thing is, officious busybodies who are willing to use force to get their way (by passing immoral "laws") don't ever stop with one issue. Once they've forgotten that Government is an immensely powerful tool -- the monopoly on the use of force -- then they use the tool to solve problems that ain't really there. Like adding useless enhancements to fundamentally simple programs.
On the flip side, if there is a fundamentally Liberty-oriented culture, mindful of the proper small role of government force, this similarly tends to protect everyone's rights.
Case in point was the Smoking Ban in New Hampshire [freestateblogs.net] --- that didn't happen, thanks to legislators willing to say things like "market forces should dictate the rules, and that smokers have rights, too" [mp3] [freestateblogs.net]
Re:All that's needed to circumvent the law is for (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Might as well kill someone before you gamble. (Score:5, Insightful)
So gambling is apparently fine, it's the online part that is illegal.
Re:and right now .. live from Washington (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How do you set fireworks off by accident? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the goal is that future pyrotechnicians won't just start lighting off fireworks and saying, "eh, it's someone else's job to worry about fire safety, not mine". Hopefully the first question out of the pyro's mouth to the club owner will be, "is this place up to code, cause my ass isn't spending 4 years in the state pen if it isn't?"
Re:How do you set fireworks off by accident? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Label the majority of citizens as criminals and one gains control over the population.
Re:How do you set fireworks off by accident? (Score:3, Insightful)
Doing it in a crowded building is still incredibly wreckless, and IF someone where to be killed, you SHOULD be held accountable.
The whole "I've done incredibly wreckless things multiple times and haven't hurt anyone yet" justification is nothing but a cop-out...
Hey, as the owner of a pesticide plant, I've been dumping explosive chemicles into the ocean for YEARS now, and nobody has been killed yet!
Re:Dumb Law... (Score:2, Insightful)
In Australia there are laws stating that you can't be, for example, kicked out of a restaurant because you're breastfeeding.
Re:Age old problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the pointed-to page for rationale on why this is pro-everyone's Freedom, but in a nutshell:
a) Property either means something, or it does not
b) The business owner does not run the business for the convenience of those who freely agree to work for him
c) Jobs are created by people, and as such those people who create them must distribute them
Otherwise you have the perversion of police coming, with guns (or other weapons) to implement the "social good"... by force. Even if every worker and every customer in the place approves of the smoking.
Oh wait... they're there by their free choice. Nobody is holding them at gunpoint.
It's you who brought the guns in... "for everyone's good".
Please, stay the hell away from New Hampshire.
We don't want you here.
Crawl back to whatever hell-hole Socialist paradise you live in.
Re:and right now .. live from Washington (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nonsense (Score:2, Insightful)
Simple. It's another club for those in government to use against their enemies, political and personal, and anyone else they want to "punish".
One issue no one mentioned so far (Score:4, Insightful)
How can the state make sure the online games are not rigged?
Why is this not a problem that bothers online gamblers? If you gamble online, please reply and tell me how you know the virtual cards or virtual dice or virtual roulette wheel is not rigged. I am curious to know as I don't gamble at all.
Re:How do you set fireworks off by accident? (Score:1, Insightful)
You may get in trouble with the pollution people, but from a fire safety standpoint I don't see any problem with this, and fire/the ocean actually works as a pretty good comparison. If I were dumping a can of gas into the ocean then throwing a match in, I'd say it's a fairly reasonable expectation that I'm not going to burn down the entire ocean. Of course, there's an extremely slim chance that my little gas slick will spread farther and faster than expected and come into contact with the contents of some sinking tanker. If that happened would you be screaming for me to be hanged?
If you ever get the chance, I'd like you to try something. Take some junk floorboards/roof tiles/random building materials and some (non-professional) fireworks, and try start a fire with them (in a safe place, hopefully). You may make a few singes, some smoke damage, maybe even a few wisps of fire, etc, but you'd probably have to go well out of your way to be able to create some conditions that would ignite easily enough and quickly enough to consume a building and the people inside before it can be controlled/the people can flee. And I'm pretty sure there's a law or two about building owners having to make sure those conditions don't exist.
Re:How do you set fireworks off by accident? (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, I would disagree that someone who is unstable enough to kill someone during the course of an argument is not a danger to society. What about the next time someone spills their pint on him?