Changes

==Addiction==

==Addiction==

A certain fraction of the population is addicted to gambling and tend to drain family resources on the habit. Stories are common of addicts losing all their money in a single gambling spree.  Only [[Missouri]] has a [[Gambling_Loss_Limit|gambling loss limit]].

A certain fraction of the population is addicted to gambling and tend to drain family resources on the habit. Stories are common of addicts losing all their money in a single gambling spree.  Only [[Missouri]] has a [[Gambling Loss Limit|gambling loss limit]].

==Odds==

==Odds==

In games played against the "house" (for example, in a [[casino]]), typically the players will have an [[expected return]] of less than 100%. In games against other players (such as poker), the expected return might be 100%, when the players are of equal skill levels (assuming the order of dealing is not important), or certain players might have greater (or lesser) expected returns, if they are better (or worse) players. If all the money stays with the players, then the overall expected return is 100%. If the "house" takes a rake of the money bet, the overall expected return will be less than 100%.

In games played against the "house" (for example, in a [[casino]]), typically the players will have an [[expected return]] of less than 100%. In games against other players (such as poker), the expected return might be 100%, when the players are of equal skill levels (assuming the order of dealing is not important), or certain players might have greater (or lesser) expected returns, if they are better (or worse) players. If all the money stays with the players, then the overall expected return is 100%. If the "house" takes a rake of the money bet, the overall expected return will be less than 100%.

==Internet gambling==

==Internet gambling==

On April 26, 2007, Rep. [[Barney Frank]] (D-MA) introduced HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (IGREA).  The IGREA would modify the UIGEA by providing a provision for licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.  On June 8, 2007, the [[House Financial Services Committee]], chaired by Rep. Frank, held a hearing entitled, "Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?".  Details of the meeting, including the archived webcast, are available on the House Financial Services Committee website<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml</ref>. Expert witnesses at the hearing testified that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated for age verification, money laundering issues, facilitation of state and federal tax collection, and for issues relating to compulsive gambling.

On April 26, 2007, Rep. [[Barney Frank]] (D-MA) introduced HR 2046, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (IGREA).  The IGREA would modify the UIGEA by providing a provision for licensing of Internet gambling facilities by the Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.  On June 8, 2007, the [[House Financial Services Committee]], chaired by Rep. Frank, held a hearing entitled, "Can Internet Gambling Be Effectively Regulated to Protect Consumers and the Payments System?".  Details of the meeting, including the archived webcast, are available on the House Financial Services Committee website.<ref>http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/financialsvcs_dem/ht060807.shtml</ref>  Expert witnesses at the hearing testified that Internet gambling can be effectively regulated for age verification, money laundering issues, facilitation of state and federal tax collection, and for issues relating to compulsive gambling.

On June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Robert Wexler]] (D-FL) introduced HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act.  This act would legalize Internet poker, bridge, mah jong and other games of skill.  Also on June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Jim McDermott]] (D-WA) introduced H.R. 2607, the Internet Gambling Tax Act.  The IGTA would legislate Internet gambling tax collection requirements.

On June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Robert Wexler]] (D-FL) introduced HR 2610, the Skill Game Protection Act.  This act would legalize Internet poker, bridge, mah jong and other games of skill.  Also on June 7, 2007, Rep. [[Jim McDermott]] (D-WA) introduced H.R. 2607, the Internet Gambling Tax Act.  The IGTA would legislate Internet gambling tax collection requirements.

On June 29, 2007, [[Focus on the Family]] issued an alert warning<ref>http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/cog/A000004244.cfm</ref> of a planned visit to Washington D.C. by a pro-Internet gambling rights group Casino Gambling Web<ref>http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/an_internet_gambling_education_for_anti_online_gambling_groups_46698.html</ref>. According to the alert, Casino Gambling Web has collected nearly 5,000 American signatures on their Repeal the Internet Gambling Ban petition, at [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419 www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419], and will take this to Washington in July 2007.

On June 29, 2007, [[Focus on the Family]] issued an alert warning<ref>http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/gambling/cog/A000004244.cfm</ref> of a planned visit to Washington D.C. by a pro-Internet gambling rights group Casino Gambling Web.<ref>http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/gambling-law/an_internet_gambling_education_for_anti_online_gambling_groups_46698.html</ref>  According to the alert, Casino Gambling Web has collected nearly 5,000 American signatures on their Repeal the Internet Gambling Ban petition, at [http://www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419 www.thepetitionsite.com/petition/306149419], and will take this to Washington in July 2007.

Legalized Internet gambling has been made available in New Jersey since November 2013.<ref>http://nypost.com/2014/05/19/illegal-sites-hurting-new-jersey-online-gambling/</ref>  Gamblers physically located in New Jersey can place bets on websites run by [[Atlantic City]] casinos.<ref>http://www.nj.gov/oag/ge/gamingsites.html</ref>

Legalized Internet gambling has been made available in New Jersey since November 2013.<ref>http://nypost.com/2014/05/19/illegal-sites-hurting-new-jersey-online-gambling/</ref>  Gamblers physically located in New Jersey can place bets on websites run by [[Atlantic City]] casinos.<ref>http://www.nj.gov/oag/ge/gamingsites.html</ref>

The Missouri legislature, with the approval of voters, adopted a gambling loss limit in an effort to prevent substantial losses by gambling patrons.  The loss limit allows for a loss of no more than $500 every two hours, or $6000 per day.  This loss limit does not limit recreational gambling but does clearly help reduce the impact felt from pathological and problem gamblers as well as help prevent illegal money laundering.  

The Missouri legislature, with the approval of voters, adopted a gambling loss limit in an effort to prevent substantial losses by gambling patrons.  The loss limit allows for a loss of no more than $500 every two hours, or $6000 per day.  This loss limit does not limit recreational gambling but does clearly help reduce the impact felt from pathological and problem gamblers as well as help prevent illegal money laundering.  

Those individuals who would gamble and lose more that $500 ever two hours are most likely to be the pathological and problem gambler.  Those individuals are the least able to control their gambling and are the most responsible for the social cost that result from gambling <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org</ref>. This loss limit helps to reduce binge gambling because “many problem gamblers have binge activity extending over long hours. If casinos would have closing hours, (or loss limits) even if only for two to four hours an evening, such binge behavior could be temporarily stopped, and a problem gambler could be brought back to reality." <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/briefing_points.html</ref>  In fact, “removing loss limits at gambling establishments will lead to an increase in compulsive gambling and an escalation of the gambling by those individuals in the early throes of addiction." <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/lorenz_letter.html</ref>  

Those individuals who would gamble and lose more that $500 ever two hours are most likely to be the pathological and problem gambler.  Those individuals are the least able to control their gambling and are the most responsible for the social cost that result from gambling.<ref>http://www.casinowatch.org</ref>  This loss limit helps to reduce binge gambling because “many problem gamblers have binge activity extending over long hours. If casinos would have closing hours, (or loss limits) even if only for two to four hours an evening, such binge behavior could be temporarily stopped, and a problem gambler could be brought back to reality." <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/briefing_points.html</ref>  In fact, “removing loss limits at gambling establishments will lead to an increase in compulsive gambling and an escalation of the gambling by those individuals in the early throes of addiction." <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org/loss_limit/lorenz_letter.html</ref>  

The $500 loss limit also significantly deters the use of casinos as a means for illegally laundering large sums of money.  “The federal government is currently expanding regulation necessary to limit [[money laundering]] by [[drug cartel]]s and [[terrorist]] organizations. The federal government has found that existing federal regulation of, and reporting requirements for, casino transactions are not sufficient to limit or reduce money laundering and that additional regulation is needed. News reports indicate that terrorists were using casinos (including Missouri casinos) in the course of the recent terrorist attacks. Thus, in this climate, it is not a time to loosen the regulations on casinos but a time to -- as the federal government is doing -- consider additional money laundering regulations for casinos and other gambling enterprises.  An investigation by the United States General Accounting Office concluded that, ‘As the amount of money wagered annually has increased, casinos may have become more vulnerable to individuals who attempt to launder their illegal profits in the fast-paced environment of casino gaming.’” <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org/terrorists/money_laundering.html</ref>  A gambling loss limit provides the regulation necessary to prevent such harmful and illegal money laundering from organized crime syndicates and terrorists alike.

The $500 loss limit also significantly deters the use of casinos as a means for illegally laundering large sums of money.  “The federal government is currently expanding regulation necessary to limit [[money laundering]] by [[drug cartel]]s and [[terrorist]] organizations. The federal government has found that existing federal regulation of, and reporting requirements for, casino transactions are not sufficient to limit or reduce money laundering and that additional regulation is needed. News reports indicate that terrorists were using casinos (including Missouri casinos) in the course of the recent terrorist attacks. Thus, in this climate, it is not a time to loosen the regulations on casinos but a time to -- as the federal government is doing -- consider additional money laundering regulations for casinos and other gambling enterprises.  An investigation by the United States General Accounting Office concluded that, ‘As the amount of money wagered annually has increased, casinos may have become more vulnerable to individuals who attempt to launder their illegal profits in the fast-paced environment of casino gaming.’” <ref>http://www.casinowatch.org/terrorists/money_laundering.html</ref>  A gambling loss limit provides the regulation necessary to prevent such harmful and illegal money laundering from organized crime syndicates and terrorists alike.

<references/>

<references/>

[[category:gambling]]

[[Category:Gambling]]

[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

[[Category:Liberal Traits]]