|
|
Published: Thursday, September 13, 2007 mgowanbo.cc
Two very opposed views
The US publication Business Week carried an interesting debate on Internet gambling this week, pitching the views of gambling attorney Martin Owens against those of an anti-gambling legalisation supporter, Guy C. Clark.
Addressing the question "The U.S. should heed the wrath of the World Trade Organization by making betting games legal on the Web. Pro or con?" Owens opened the debate with a succinct factual summary of the events leading up to the US position vis-a-vis the World Trade Organization, pointing out that international compensation claims amounting to billions were the consequence, and opining that US moves to resolve the issue were blatantly unfair.
"The U.S. stands virtually alone in its uncompromising stance against Internet gambling, a position that is writ large by UIGEA and its actions at the WTO," Owen asserts. "The attempts to ban Internet gambling [financial transactions] are misguided and unproductive, and will do nothing to protect responsible adults."
The futility of the UIGEA and its attempts to curtail US online gambling by prohibiting financial transactions with online gambling companies is underlined by his comment that "U.S. consumers are easily doing an end run around it, because their enthusiasm for online gambling has not waned. Regulation, not prohibition, is in the best interest of consumers. A ban does little except steer individuals to unscrupulous online gambling outfits that operate in the shadows of the industry and may well take advantage of the most vulnerable players.
"The U.S. Justice Dept. has gone out of its way to undermine legitimate and licensed Internet gaming operators worldwide. Officers and board members of Internet gambling companies vetted and approved for trading on London markets—and underwritten by some of the globe’s most respected financial institutions—have been taken into custody while on U.S. soil. And U.S. authorities have arrested online-payment company executives on specious charges of money laundering," Owen claims.
"It remains too early to tell how much this untenable war against Internet gaming will cost the U.S. in trade flows, innovation, and moral authority. But it is perfectly clear that it is time for America to stop pretending that the rule of law is a one-way street," he concludes.
Guy C. Clark, who represents the views of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, had a different perspective and apparently a dim view of the WTO, claiming that the U.S. government has an "...obligation to protect its citizens from a toxic, addictive product [that] exceeds its responsibility to please the gnomes at the WTO."
Clark points out that gambling addiction rises predictably with proximity of games and speed of play, although he does not quote an authority for this, or indeed other statements in his assessment.
"Nothing is more proximate than a personal computer, and nothing works faster," he opines. "Plus, the Internet adds the deadly element of anonymity. The neighbors won’t spot you at the virtual casino. Solid citizens with no previous criminal record commit outrageous crimes when addicted to gambling."
Clark goes on to claim that the rate of divorce, spousal and child abuse, drug and alcohol addiction, bankruptcy, and suicide rises disproportionately high with gambling addiction.
He diminishes the fact that horseracing enjoys carve out status in US national legislation and is at the core of the WTO dispute by dismissing it as: "The WTO ruling claims foreign interests should have access to all American homes, because some states allow people to bet on horse races via the Internet." Clark also asserts that anti-online gambling is not a "conservative moral issue" but is held in disdain across political party lines, sports bodies and religious organisations, because it is seen as a drain on the economy and on society.
Clark says that unspecified "offshore opportunists" claim that the U.S. can’t control Internet gambling, and turns this into an argument for banning the pastime. He points to the difficulties states already have in regulating gambling at casinos and racetracks, alleging that Internet gambling would prove much more difficult to monitor.
"Gaming proponents claim legalization will decrease illegal gambling, though no jurisdiction has ever proved that," Clark avers. "To the contrary, the mob loves legalized gambling. It trains customers," he writes, before concluding with an attack on Congressman Barney Frank and his US regulatory proposals and his belief that the US stance is a new form of Prohibition: "Even with the UIEGA, he can still fleece his fellow Congressmen face to face. We just don’t want him and his offshore card sharks trolling for suckers in our living rooms," Clark observes.
原文在这里：
http://www.businessweek.com/deba ... nternet_gambli.html |
|
发表于 2007-9-14 05:41
楼主