Hullabaloos in Online Gambling

One of the most controversial issues today is the proposed legalization of online gambling. Ever since the start of online gambling’s popularity in the internet, lawmakers, gaming industries as well as individuals have been debating over whether gambling should be legalized or not. This debate is none more apparent than in the United States of America where it is estimated 50% to 70% of online gamblers resides. This ongoing debate has lead to the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) of President Bush, and the congress and has also led some nations like UK, Antigua and others to protest against the US resolution against gambling, their point being that this is against the principles of free trade. The 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) basically restricts the use of some financial options like the credit card for online gambling activities.

Other countries like UK and Antigua, in the meantime, are taking steps not just to tolerate online gambling but to legalize it as well. The Remote Gambling Summit of 2006, which took place in Britain and was attended by 30 countries, discussed the regulation and taxing of online gaming industries. Some points discussed in the summit were the age and identification systems that will be needed to be installed in order to regulate online gaming. Also discussed was the role and responsibilities of governments in regulating the online gaming companies.

It is the opinion of some people, who are for legalization of online gambling, that banning or preventing the legalization of online gambling could lead to the industry falling into criminal hands. A concrete example of this is the liquor ban the US implemented way back in the 1920s, which has led to the growth of underground and illegal liquor joints and the loss of control over the regulation of the banned substance. The best way, they assert, of controlling the effects of a potentially dangerous substance, product or game is to strictly regulate it through government channels. This will ensure that only qualified people will be able to play the game, thus, limiting its effects were it is not legalized.

This line of reasoning can be attributed not just to the fact that it has happened before but to the fact that it is happening again as the primary reaction of registered and legal corporations providing online gambling to US citizens were to leave their US customers only to be replaced by privately owned corporations where it was next to impossible to find the real owners. The online gamblers, on the other hand, just switched over to the sites that permitted US citizens to play. Many people who were against the bill also asserted that the resolution had no effect whatsoever on online gambling as many banks had credit card policies that does not allow it to be used in online gaming even before the bill was passed. On top of this, several countries has also filed a case against the US stating that prohibition of online gambling is against the principles of international free trade. Whatever the outcome is, we can definitely be sure that this will be a raging debate for many more years to come.