Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Representative Sandstrom Pushes Utah Opt-Out for Online Gambling Representative Sandstrom Pushes Utah Opt-Out for Online Gambling

12-28-2011 , 09:46 PM
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/sports/...bling.html.csp

Quote:
Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, will sponsor a bill in the upcoming legislative session that provides Utah with an opt-out option for any kind of online-gambling green light provided by the federal government.

“I think there is a huge difference between what we consider Republican principles and allowing for gambling,” Sandstrom said. “It has a detrimental effect on society. People get addicted to gambling or drugs or pornography. I think it’s completely prudent and constitutional to limit gambling.”
12-28-2011 , 10:37 PM
People are addicted to smoking, alcohol, the computer. Are all those banned in the state? How about scratch offs and the lottery?
12-29-2011 , 07:43 AM
His fear is evidence of his anticipation of federal legislation. I smell blood in the water... soon we shall feast... Unless they really F up the federal legislation.
12-29-2011 , 08:42 AM
I feel really bad for the Americans in Utah. It is a scary world where a man who claims to think that it is "constitutional" to ban online gaming is a man who is actually in a position to do just that.

I believe the notion of age-restrictions are a good thing, but when consenting adults decide they want to wager on something that isn't rigged governments only intervine should be to help make sure that it is fair/as advertised. It is not my governments job to tell me what is morally right and "save me from myself".
12-29-2011 , 09:03 AM
We all agree this guy is ******ed as are most politicians from states as 'conservative' as Utah. Hilarious that's what 'conservative' and 'constitutional' mean in the US these days.
12-29-2011 , 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by girahy
People are addicted to smoking, alcohol, the computer. Are all those banned in the state? How about scratch offs and the lottery?
pretty much, at least re: alcohol. Just try to pick up a bottle of wine for dinner while grocery shopping. I'm not the least bit surprised by this. The real surprise would be if it or something similar does not get passed easily. Utah will be the first opt-out AINEC.
12-29-2011 , 01:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiQ
I feel really bad for the Americans in Utah. It is a scary world where a man who claims to think that it is "constitutional" to ban online gaming is a man who is actually in a position to do just that.

I believe the notion of age-restrictions are a good thing, but when consenting adults decide they want to wager on something that isn't rigged governments only intervine should be to help make sure that it is fair/as advertised. It is not my governments job to tell me what is morally right and "save me from myself".
I clearly support the idea unfettered access for adults to online gaming.

However, sorry to tell you this, but it clearly IS constituional for a State to pass a law that bans online gaming for residents of that State.

Unless we recognize that there are a LOT of people who feel the issue is up to the States and not the federal government, we will continue to see proposed federal legislation proposed that tries to bootstrap "opt-out" obligations on those folks. (FWIW, I think a federal "multi-state poker act", without any opt-out or opt in restrictions or "qualified State agency" language, would stand a GOOD chance of passing in 2012, if it is proposed and supported by the AGA.)

You and I may agree that banning online poker is not the role we want government to play at the federal or state level , but it IS constituional for it to do so.

Last edited by DonkeyQuixote; 12-29-2011 at 01:13 PM.
12-29-2011 , 01:33 PM
It's important to bear in mind, as well, that governments reflect the consent of the government (in theory). Utah is a "weird" state, at least to outsiders, but since Mormons make up something like 60% of the state, I think it's reasonable that they have and have no problem with much more restrictive laws than other states.

Obviously I think it's ludicrous, but they have a right to be teetotaling anti-gamblers if they so choose. Just like I have the right to chose to never move to Utah.

There are a couple of other states who might take the opt out (Bible belt area), I think, if its offered, and I feel sorry for the people who live in those states who'd like to play and can't move, but if that's what it takes to get federal legislation passed I'll take it. Get it passed now, and some of the original opt-out states might sing a different tune in a few years when they see how much revenue is available.
12-29-2011 , 02:31 PM
[QUOTE=SGT RJ;30631599]It's important to bear in mind, as well, that governments reflect the consent of the government (in theory). Utah is a "weird" state, at least to outsiders, but since Mormons make up something like 60% of the state, I think it's reasonable that they have and have no problem with much more restrictive laws than other states.QUOTE]

Don't/didn't the Mormans have some casino interest?

The irony here is that the Mormans were forced into Utah because they wanted the freedom to practice their religion.
01-07-2012 , 03:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aruj Reis
pretty much, at least re: alcohol. Just try to pick up a bottle of wine for dinner while grocery shopping.
where is the problem
i`m pretty sure some states will drop out if poker gets ever regulated in the usa.
02-18-2012 , 05:08 PM
People are addicted to shopping, sex, and video games, so by our glorious representative's logic those things should also be banned.
02-20-2012 , 06:21 AM
Sandstrom is so wrong, banning something is the wrong way to go, it only allows for un-regulated gambling online. Do they never learn about prohibition? Does it ever work? If people want to play then they will.

Better to allow and control than say no and have no control.
02-21-2012 , 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiQ
I feel really bad for the Americans in Utah. It is a scary world where a man who claims to think that it is "constitutional" to ban online gaming is a man who is actually in a position to do just that.

I believe the notion of age-restrictions are a good thing, but when consenting adults decide they want to wager on something that isn't rigged governments only intervine should be to help make sure that it is fair/as advertised. It is not my governments job to tell me what is morally right and "save me from myself".
I agree scary

      
m