You are so misguided.
Albert J. Nock argues in his essay, "On Doing the Right Thing," that the moral development of the individual is stunted every time the State extends its activity into new areas because the area available for the unhindered and free exercise of the human moral faculties is thus reduced.
In fact, he argues, in moral philosophy there is a fundamental assumption that individuals are responsible for their actions. It makes no sense to say that an individual should or should not do something on moral grounds (e.g. place a bet on a football game) if that individual cannot freely choose between different courses of action (if betting is illegal). Nock argues that literally there can be no such thing as morality unless one has the freedom to choose between alternatives, without external sources of coercion.
http://www.online-casinos.com/news/news2971.asp
update.
U.S. LAW AGAINST ONLINE GAMBLING CONDEMNED (Update)
"This last minute deal reeks of political gamesmanship" says PPA, but the horseracing business is delighted with its carve out.
Saturday's news that political sleight-of-hand had managed to push through an anti-online gambling measure attached to an unrelated Port Security bill (H.R. 4954) elicited furious reactions over the weekend in both the media and on message boards.
Most posters deplored what was seen as the "stealth" introduction of the measure by Republican Senator Bill Frist, who pulled political strings to attach a compromise version of a stalled anti-online gambling proposal to an essential port security act, which went through after a late night session of Congress. There was also concern and anger that the wishes of millions of American online players had apparently been brushed aside.
"The American people should be outraged that Congress has hi-jacked a vital security bill with a poker prohibition that nearly three fourths of the country opposes," said Michael Bolcerek, president of the Poker Players Alliance, a grassroots advocacy organisation of more than 110,000 poker enthusiasts.
"Allowing this bill to become law would run contrary to public opinion and would damage an already fractured relationship between government and the electorate. The millions of Americans who enjoy playing this great game will have the last voice in this debate come Election Day."
Bolcerek pointed to research which shows that 74 percent of Americans oppose federal attempts to ban Internet poker.
"Congress has an opportunity to regulate and tax online poker leading to potentially billions of dollars in annual revenue for the federal government and the states," said Bolcerek. "If the goal of Congress is to protect people from the possible dangers of gambling, a prohibition is the worst way of achieving it. All it will do is push poker underground, essentially creating online speakeasies, which will provide no protection for youths, no services for the problem gambler and leave only the most unscrupulous operators in the game"
Most players and industry observers were taking a "wait-and-see" position before assessing the true impact of the legislation, which mainly seeks to hamper and disrupt the financial channels through which US players fund their online gambling entertainment at offshore venues not subject to US law.
The bill falls short of clarifying whether the 1961 Wire Act applies to casino and poker gambling online because it was dropped from Frist's compromise attachment. This is being viewed as a small victory for the online gambling community as it is thought unlikely such revisions will be added in the future.
In fact, Frist as the main architect of the stealth ban admitted: "Although we can’t monitor every online gambler or regulate offshore gambling, we can police the financial institutions that disregard our laws.” There are strong reservations within the US banking sector as to whether this can be done effectively, however.
The horseracing industry was clearly pleased that its carve-outs were intact and praised the move, particularly noting that any 'harmful elements' in future 'rule-making' would be prevented . The Frist measure contains language that recognises the horse racing industry's right to offer account wagering under the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 - an important historical carve-out together with state lotteries.
"This is a very significant landmark recognition by the [United States] government of our industry's legal right to conduct wagering under the IHA and of our industry's important position as an agribusiness that supports 500,000 jobs," said Greg Avioli, chief executive officer of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association and Breeders' Cup Ltd. "The bill also includes language that will prevent the addition of harmful elements in any rulemaking required by the bill. This language was crucial for our industry."
Other provisions are still being debated, for instance whether the law can be used to control American ISPs, or whether affiliates and other entities providing gambling information might be vulnerable if based on US soil or carried out by American citizens.
The reaction to any final US regulations that might be developed in the 270 day implementation planning period could be serious. Legal advisers for one major online payment processor have already indicated to the portal Gambling911.com that they plan on joining in on any pending litigation that might materialise as a result of this bill. A third party risk meeting is slated this coming Thursday in London, the portal claims.
One of the best assessments was posted at The RX message board after a detailed but lay study of the legislation. The conclusions were that:
continued...