Posted on 06/07/2007 5:09:21 PM PDT by JTN
The Skill Game Protection Act Defines Poker as a Skill Game
A Florida politician who believes poker should be considered a game of skill has introduced a bill that would allow people to play online poker legally with government protection in the United States.
The Skill Game Protection Act had been introduced by Representative Robert Wexler (D-Fla.). The bill would make several games, including poker, mah-jongg, bridge, and chess, exempt from current laws aimed against online gambling.
Basically, the bill aims to clarify which games are skill games and which games are not. The bill specifically calls poker a game of skill, and if passed, also calls for a system to be in place that would tax and regulated all real-money games of skill to ensure that both the games remain fair and that minors and compulsive gamblers wouldn’t be able to play.
The bill would add language to existing laws – including the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act – that would define poker and the other games mentioned as games of skill. It would allow adults 18 and older to play real-money skill games online.
This is the second bill introduced this year that would tax and regulate online gambling. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) introduced a bill that would create an exemption to the ban on online gambling for properly licensed operators. Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) also introduced a bill earlier this year that calls for an intense study to learn the feasibility of taxing and regulating online gambling in the United States.
Ping
Bump
This is really stupid
“...calls for a system to be in place that would tax and regulated all real-money games of skill to ensure that both the games remain fair and that minors and compulsive gamblers wouldn’t be able to play.”
Bull$hit. They don’t care about “fairness” and “minors and compulsive gamblers.” It’s all about the taxes. The US gov’t. couldn’t get their cut from the off-shore guys so they changed the game. Spit.
+the politicians got lots of campaign contributions from brick and motar casinos.
Oh, don't be so cynical. The real explanation is probably something less self-serving, like big campaign contributions.
I just got a bad beat. I swear.
This is wexler’s state-—check out how much he cares about “fairness.”
http://www.flalottery.com/inet/gamesMain.do
You got that right....in WA the State, our fraud of a Governor is owned, lock, stock, and barrel by the Indians....and their casinos!
“...campaign contributions...”
I hear ya.
I’ll give you three guesses as to who owns my Senator, Harry “Pinkie” Reid. If you need the first two you must not know that I live in Nevada...
At that time, in Kentucky (said the Hon. Mr. Knott M. C.), the law was very strict against what it termed "games of chance." About a dozen of the boys were detected playing "seven-up" or "old sledge" for money, and the grand jury found a true bill against them. Jim Sturgis was retained to defend them when the case came up, of course. The more he studied over the matter and looked into the evidence, the plainer it was that he must lose a case at last -- there was no getting around that painful fact. Those boys had certainly been betting money on a game of chance. Even public sympathy was roused in behalf of Sturgis. People said it was a pity to see him mar his successful career with a big prominent case like this, which must go against him.
But after several restless nights an inspired idea flashed upon Sturgis, and he sprang out of bed delighted. He thought he saw his way through. The next day he whispered around a little among his clients and a few friends, and then when the case came up in court he acknowledged the seven-up and the betting, and, as his sole defence, had the astounding effrontery to put in the plea that old sledge was not a game of chance! There was the broadest sort of a smile all over the faces of that sophisticated audience. The judge smiled with the rest. But Sturgis maintained a countenance whose earnestness was even severe. The opposite counsel tried to ridicule him out of his position, and did not succeed. The judge jested in a ponderous judicial way about the thing, but did not move him. The matter was becoming grave. The judge lost a little of his patience, and said the joke had gone far enough. Jim Sturgis said he knew of no joke in the matter -- his clients could not be punished for indulging in what some people chose to consider a game of chance, until it was proven that it was a game of chance. Judge and counsel said that would be an easy matter, and forthwith called Deacons Job, Peters, Burke, and Johnson, and Dominies Wirt and Miggles, to testify; and they unanimously and with strong feeling put down the legal quibble of Sturgis, by pronouncing that old sledge was a game of chance.
"What do you call it now!" said the judge.
"I call it a game of science!" retorted Sturgis; "and I'll prove it, too!"
They saw his little game.
He brought in a cloud of witnesses, and produced an overwhelming mass of testimony, to show that old sledge was not a game of chance, but a game of science.
Instead of being the simplest case in the world, it had somehow turned out to be an excessively knotty one. The judge scratched his head over it a while, and said there was no way of coming to a determination, because just as many men could be brought into court who would testify on one side, as could be found to testify on the other. But he said he was willing to do the fair thing by all parties, and would act upon any suggestion Mr. Sturgis would make for the solution of the difficulty.
Mr. Sturgis was on his feet in a second:
"Impanel a jury of six of each, Luck versus Science -- give them candles and a couple of decks of cards, send them into the jury room, and just abide by the result!"
There was no disputing the fairness of the proposition. The four deacons and the two dominies were sworn in as the "chance" jurymen, and six inveterate old seven-up professors were chosen to represent the "science" side of the issue. They retired to the jury room.
In about two hours, Deacon Peters sent into court to borrow three dollars from a friend. [Sensation.] In about two hours more, Dominie Miggles sent into court to borrow a "stake" from a friend. [Sensation.] During the next three or four hours, the other dominie and the other deacons sent into court for small loans. And still the packed audience waited, for it was a prodigious occasion in Bull's Corners, and one in which every father of a family was necessarily interested.
The rest of the story can be told briefly. About daylight the jury came in, and Deacon Job, the foreman, read the following
VERDICT.
We, the jury in the case of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. John Wheeler et al., have carefully considered the points of the case, and tested the merits of the several theories advanced, and do hereby unanimously decide that the game commonly known as old sledge or seven-up is eminently a game of science and not of chance. In demonstration whereof, it is hereby and herein stated, iterated, reiterated, set forth, and made manifest, that, during the entire night, the "chance" men never won a game or turned a jack, although both feats were common and frequent to the opposition; and further more, in support of this our verdict, we call attention to the significant fact that the "chance" men are all busted, and the "science" men have got the money. It is the deliberate opinion of this jury that the "chance" theory concerning seven-up is a pernicious doctrine, and calculated to inflict untold suffering and pecuniary loss upon any community that takes stock in it.
"That is the way that seven-up came to be set apart and particularized in the statute books of Kentucky as being a game not of chance but of science, and therefore not punishable under the law," said Mr. Knott. "That verdict is of record, and holds good to this day."
I'd like to see the details on how they would control the part about "minors and compulsive gamblers wouldn’t be able to play". That sounds hard to accomplish.
http://www.flalottery.com/inet/gamesMain.do
Let's see now... Florida Lotto, Mega Money, Fantasy 5, Play 4, Cash 3, Scratch-Offs, Grouper, Millionaire Raffle, Cars & Cash... well, damnation... I'm gonna have to watch myself if I'm gonna have anything left to gamble on baseball, football, basketball, the dogs, the ponies, the casinos, and (hurry Mr. Wexler) internet poker. Yeah, I'm sure he's really concerned about "fairness".
The reason they are off-shore in the first place is because they are not allowed here.
Those off-shore casinos have been lobbying for a long time to be legalized in the US and would be more then happy to be taxed if they could do business.
The gov't won't let them.
What about online strip poker?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.