Pennsylvania Republican Representative Michael Fitzpatrick has introduced legislation to the US House that would ban online gambling at a federal level.
House Bill 322 applies to people who voluntarily add themselves to the Gaming Control Board’s self-exclusion list. The self-ban law was created to help problem gamblers and others who do not want to engage in casino gambling to “ban” themselves from land-based casino gambling. Trespassing Laws on Previous Version.

Jan 15, 2019 The U.S. Justice Department’s decision to expand a federal prohibition on internet gambling will cast a pall on the industry as businesses.

Pro (for)

Losing

Con (against)

Winning

Add to My FavoritesReport this DebateShare with My Friends

The voting period for this debate has ended.

This House Would Ban Online Gambling Sites

Anonymous

Voting Style:	Open	Point System:	7 Point
Started:	2/20/2013	Category:	Economics
Updated:	6 years ago	Status:	Post Voting Period
Viewed:	4,254 times	Debate No:	30430

This House Would Ban Online Gambling Game

Comments (7)

Pro

This is my first debate, take it easy on me!
ToDAY I will be speaking on three main points .
1.Gambling is addictive and psychologically harmful affecting poor people HUGELY
2.Gambling leads to the disintegration of families
3.Casinos are often used to mask criminal activity
So to my first point, gambling can become psychologically addictive in some people. Whenever a gambler wins a reward it produces brain activation similar to when a cocaine addict receives an infusion of cocaine.
Gambling addiction, in addition to the long term effects it has, can result in financial ruin in just a few short hours.
Research has shown gambling effects poor people hugely. Poor people are more likely to gamble, in the hope of getting rich. In 1999, the National Gambling Impact Commission in the USA found that 80 percent of gambling revenue came from lower-income households. Gambling attracts people with little money who are desperate for a windfall.
Also online gambling has increased the incidence of gambling addiction. Gamblers don't even need to leave their home, and online gambling sites are available at all hours. This also means that they are gambling in private. They may therefore be less reluctant to wager very large sums they cannot afford.
In fact the majority of online gamblers are highly addicted and are in huge debts. Even in casinos there are less problem gamblers than there are online. Online gambling sites are an easy, simple way of getting addicted to gambling.
The sites can also get around government regulations that limit the dangers of betting. Because they can be legally sited anywhere in the world, they can pick countries with no rules to protect customers.
To my second point, this is gambling leads to the disintegration of families. Gambling can have a devastating effect on families.
The most obvious effect is financial as one partner uses all their money on gambling the other needs to support the whole family.
Research had proved there is a relationship between gambling and various alcohol disorders.
When a problem gambler becomes seriously addicted to gambling it is not only them who get affected. Their family and friends are also immensely impacted due to their stupid actions. So basically every time gambling ruins a gamblers life it is not only ruining their life, but also the lives of the dozens of friends and family who are truly close to the addict.
Also, normally when a friend or family member hears about the addict and how badly gambling has affected them they leave the gambler stranded. At the end of the day, could you blame them? I am sure that they do not what to be emotionally or financially be involved with the gambler.
Thirdly, I would like to make the point that casinos are often used to mask criminal activity.
Casinos are often associated with crime, particularly organized crime. Drug dealers and other criminals operate near casinos ' they know that there are a large number of potential clients in the area.
Moreover when a gambler is in debt and wishes to continue gambling due to its addictive nature, he or she often turns to loan sharks .
These loan sharks themselves usually have links to organized crime, in some cases are actually run by organized crime, and use brutal methods to reclaim their money. By banning gambling the opportunities for loan sharks to offer their services is greatly reduced due to a lesser amount of gamblers in debt, as are the opportunities for drug dealers therefore reducing criminal activity in the areas surrounding casinos.
Casinos can therefore be devastating to neighbourhoods. It would of course be wrong to assume all gamblers are criminals, although there is an increased possibility that gamblers in debt could turn to criminality through illegal borrowing.
The opposing side may argue that gambling is a way to earn money and support our economy. In contrast to that, John W. Kindt, a professor of business states that gambling is a multi-billion dollar drag on the economy, not the moneymaking boost it is said to be by supporters of gambling.
Cash merely changes hands from gamblers to casino owners. It creates no products or anything else of value. It actually diverts money away from local businesses. If the estimated $100 billion now spent annually on gambling went into these local businesses, economic models show it would generate more than $300 billion for the nation's slumping economy and create jobs and services according to the survey.

Firstly, I want to point out my opponent is entirely right in saying that gambling is addictive, and when taken to excess it usually by and large creates a larger harm to the poor, and has caused family ills. However, I wish to argue that none of this is relevant to evaluating whether it should be illegal.
There are two types of morality. The first is a private moral sphere which says how we act. For example, my private morality is not to waste time on useless degrees like dance, not to smoke, not to waste time watching Jersey Shore and to donate some money to charity when I can. This morality is part of the private sphere, which does not affect other people to an extent large enough to matter.
There is also the public sphere. This is the morality which we put onto other people: like Do Not Kill, respect agreements, don't steal, 'play by the rules', etc. etc. These are the morals which can ban things. If gambling is something which is more than a preference but an actual moral harm, then it should be banned. We must therefore establish the grounds of whether something should be banned.
Society works on a system of contracts: I want something, so does someone else. I have something they want, they have something I want. So we make a consenting agreement to give each other what we both want. This is a crude example of a contract in work. These contracts are inherently by the nature of society something that cannot be banned, or our entire government falls apart. Moreover, they are the founding principles of governments. The right to self-determination proposed by the USA in the Declaration of Independence: the right 'for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another' is the underpinning of contractualism. Thus, if something affirms contractualism, it cannot rationally be banned. The aim of the state, moreover, is to protect the individual and these contracts, and as such the state stopping these contracts is both immoral and illogical.
Does gambling take the form of a contract? It is two parties,