Is it right to ban online gaming?
So we all know about the UIGEA and there’s going to be mixed views on it. Although gambling has been around forever (gambling artefacts have been found which date back to around 2300 B.C in China), it still remains a bit of a taboo subject in many cultures and countries, including the USA.
Despite this, the US reportedly makes a turnover in excess of $60 billion a year, and so it’s no wonder that they would want to restrict where American citizens can play. The online gambling market opens up the globe with its huge number of online casino and poker operators, and revenues of this size don’t want to be lost. The UIGEA has continued to cause a stir since it came into effect in October 2006. Lawsuits have been filed and lengthy court battles fought, but still the situation continues.
One side of the argument is that that the restrictions assist with problem gambling - but just because there are restrictions on where the bets can be placed, it doesn’t guarantee that there’s any limits on the amount that can be bet in the accepted casinos. In addition, most followers of the gambling ban would argue that the revenue filters back into the country’s economy, helping to stabilise it. However, if you follow current events in America it is real estate and banking that is affecting the economy. Land based casinos are showing consistently stable turnover, but the fact that online gaming is banned has not had any obvious effect on the economic situation.
Those who oppose the gambling ban state that it is an unnecessary form of control that takes away a citizen’s right to choose. The common view is that gambling bans are merely concerned with a monopoly over taxable expenditure, and if there was no money involved there addicted gambling wouldn’t even come into the equation. So what are the implications?
Unsurprisingly enough, rather than being frowned upon, many other countries are starting to follow America’s lead. Just take a look at recent events in Germany and the Netherlands, and it becomes apparent that we could have an epidemic on our hands.
But is it right that governments should be able to impose such restrictions over is citizens? Is it right that we can have the world at our fingertips, only to be told we can’t use it?
