This is wrong. There are families that break up over gambling. There are bankruptcies caused by gambling. There is violence that results from unpaid gambling debts.

The poker community has a responsibility to take reasonable steps to alleviate the problem. We can't stop it, but things like self-exclusion and gambling hotlines are good ideas, and prohibiting deposits on credit is sensible as well.

I get the feeling there are some in our community whose basic attitude on this is "if some fish wants to lose his rent money to me, it's not my responsibility if he gets evicted and his kids are thrown into poverty". That's nt a winning argument politically, and it's also not totally true. We obviously can't stop the guy if that's what he wants to do, but the idea that we have no obligation at all to create avenues for such a person to get help and stay off of online poker sites seems quite wrong.

I would disagree. There are many people addicted to porn and also to shopping. Both of which would cause someone to spend a lot of money.

I am forced to agree.

I won my first wife in 7 card stud game (she was married to the guy I busted at the time). But then I lost her and my mother-in-law in a floating craps games (was kind of bored of the wife and never really clicked with the in law, so it wasn't so bad).

Well, porn is different because there's a First Amendment right to view pornography, whereas gambling is not constitutionally protected. So even if some additional regulation of porn would do good, it's outside the government's power anyway (at least with respect to adults).

And as I said, shopping is different because there hasn't been the clinical and scientific attention brought to bear on it as an addiction. Like it or not, gambling addiction is a live public policy issue in a way shopping addiction is not.

no need to ban all knives, just long pointy ones like they've proposed in UK with support of doctors and chefs

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

The government cant change human nature. People will always be compulsive idiots. Why is gambling addiction some great problem when cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, food, shopping, etc are just as bad if not worse.

People with addictive personalities are going to find something to be addicted too.

Exactly my point.

1. Because gambling addiction is well researched. (As are tabacco, alcohol, and drug addictions, which also have given rise to regulations of various sorts.)

2. Because gambling addiction has caused bankruptcies, broken up families, etc.

The basic problem here is a gaming industry that takes the position "we don't bear any responsibility for any lives that get ruined" is a gaming industry destined to stay illegal.

I think that is a big problem this country faces, the lack of personal responsibility. Everyone is always looking for someone else to blame for the choices they make.

1. Addicts are addicts and eliminating what they are addicted to wont change that.

2. Buying a house you cant afford also caused bankruptcies, broke up families, and caused the the US economy to tank. Should the government regulate what house a person a buy? Cheating on your spouse breaks up families, should that be illegal too?

And gambling really isnt an addiction. People just want to believe its not their fault, that is an actual disease. The medical community obliges them since their is a lot of money to be made from doing so. When in reality your standard 'gambling addict' just truly believes he will win if he keeps playing. His own ignorance and stupidity caused him to put up is house to play high stakes blackjack not some disease.

The only difference between and addict and a rec gambler is an addict believes he will win and keeps trying whereas a rec gambler knows he will lose eventually but only brings what he is willing to lose and enjoys the ride.

I believe in most if not all states the aggrieved spouse can sue.

Whatever it is, it's still a problem.

Actually, it's probably the other way around. Most Americans aren't in debt up to their eye balls because of gambling. The problem is that shopping too much isn't viewed by society as a sickness, so it doesn't appear as widespread.

This is so completely wrong I don't even know where to start.

it probably is more widespread but gambling addiction probably has more severe consequences.

Try telling that to a woman. Women see issues like this in the context of how it might affect the family, in particular, their kids. They don't want their idiot husbands, who are already so obsessed with ESPN they can't take out the garbage, to gamble away the family assets they helped build, on a game they don't get.

Now maybe they are wrong, but they can vote, too. You can't just hold your breath until you turn blue to get what you want, or take your ball home if you don't.

Bottom line, gambling addiction is an issue we have to find a way to deal with or we won't get a decent place to play.

Isn't a major reason for collecting gambling taxes (on top of corporation taxes) b/c it is an activity where some people can be adversely affected?

It's ok for gambling to occur, so long as we collect enough tax to ensure the damage done to society is covered. (not my words)

I would be willing to bet alcohol destroys more families than gambling. Also there is nothing stopping her from getting a divorce and taking the kids if the husband is a worthless POS.

From the beginning I felt that the restriction based on income and/or losses was a viable regulation they could potentially implement. It would suck, especially for full time grinders and even more so for full time tournament grinders who can go on 12 month 100k downswings even though theyre +EV. Really depends on how the law is written, but it could either be a nuisance or completely horrific and ruin the game for many/most.

I think this would be the sort of thing we would have to see written and analyzed before accepting it as a compromise.

On a semi unrelated note, regarding my experience with determining how the income:debt ratio is handled, is that they are way too lenient and make no sense. My wife and I, before we were married, bought a house under my wifes name. Im not even on the loan because they said that my income would prevent us from being able to get the loan, for the same amount of money, because we brought in too much money (wat?). They gave her a loan with payments that were like 80% her monthly income - which is just absurd and we obviously are only able to do it because of both our incomes. Obviously this is exactly why the economy is where it is, but I guess my point is is that these regulations can be so absurdly bassackwards that we have no idea how they will really affect us. I could see people making minimum wage be able to play anything they want and full time grinders with 200k in a savings account reduced to playing .10/.25 because they dont have "income".

Also in before someone calls me a scumbag and saying we're the reason the economy is in the ****ter. We have not been late on a single mortgage, nor do we plan to, even though our house is worth about 50k less than what our loan is.

Gambling addiction is a real problem but it is a problem for a very small number of people, far fewer than alcohol, drugs and yes even shopping. The point for legislation is not just that the numbers are so few though it is that legislation, availability or an outright ban makes no difference to this small number, they can still access their addiction. Legislative limits affect the rec gambler and the pro not the problem gambler who will still devote an excessive amount of time and money to their addiction.

I am amused that you think the addict expects to win. This is so far from the truth as to be laughable. The addict uses gambling to generate an emotional response. Winning can do this, it is nice to have a win, to splash the cash and play at being the man but as anyone who gambles knows the emotional response to losing is if anything more powerful. the addict seeks out both the win and the loss and the loss and emotional pain and sense of risk with life on the line is what they seek not a win. They are not pros expecting to win they are addicts who find the emotional effects of losing stimulating and addictive.

Please explain why US players can't play at Stars or Party? I mean, if all it takes is to tell people to take personal responsibility, then we all should be playing wherever we want. So why aren't we?

Because the US government loves "protecting people from themselves". Same thing applies to drugs and prostitution.

Some believe it to be sinful. Some believe it ought to be socialized (like state lotteries and other schemes where gaming is allowed specifically for government revenue). Some simply hear gaming is addictive and buy that argument without really thinking about it -- almost like osmosis. Some don't like the lack of consumer protection players get in playing offshore sites. Some believe it's easy for sites and other players to cheat at online poker.

There are many reasons. It's up to us to convince lawmakers and the public of the validity of our position.

Begs the question.

?

I agree mostly with this.