Posted Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:57 am GMT by c0l0rad0
I have an opinion regarding the state of poker play in america for cash.
America, after the passage of any act relating to personal freedoms, seems to have a penchant for creating a 3-ring circus to make a point.
Soon, I would expect to see a few players online and a few poker rooms offering cash play to americans to be busted very publicly. There will be a big noise about it and lots of media. All with the intent to scare the bejesus out of players and to show america means to enforce the ban.
Until I see the media circus happen I would beware. Big brother IS watching.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:17 pm GMT by Dave B
Online gambling is not illegal in the US (with the exception of a few states). What would they bust them for?
Posted Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:31 pm GMT by Ensano
if they're just looking to put on a show for the media they don't need to charge them with anything that will stick...
"okay kid step away from the computer, you're under arrest for ummm... conspiarcy to commit money laundering... "
and the press goes wild....
then the parents put their kids' computers on lockdown...
Posted Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:15 pm GMT by BeerWench13
We have personal freedoms? When did this happen? Last time I checked, I can't smoke a cigarette while having a beer in a bar, I can't place wagers online and I can get a ticket for not wearing my seatbelt. I love my country, but our government has become tyrannical. Let me pursue happiness as I see fit (playing poker online) and I'll pay my taxes just as I have always done and let you spend my money on some frivolous study on how global warming is affecting ant colonies in South America.
*End Rant*
Posted Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:38 pm GMT by supafrey
not being allowed to smoke indoors is not tyrannical.
Posted Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:47 pm GMT by BeerWench13
I mean this in the nicest possible way, supa, BITE ME.
Posted Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:03 pm GMT by supafrey
sounds like someone needs a smoke. have fun outside.
Posted Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:14 pm GMT by BeerWench13
Must you spread fecal matter on every thread? 
For the record, you can still smoke in bars and restaurants in the state in which I live. It will be outlawed eventually, no doubt, but currently it is still legal. I was simply making examples regarding how our government is limiting and restricting our personal freedoms in even the smallest matters in the name of "public health and/or interest".
Posted Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:19 pm GMT by supafrey
| BeerWench13 wrote: | Must you spread fecal matter on every thread?
For the record, you can still smoke in bars and restaurants in the state in which I live. It will be outlawed eventually, no doubt, but currently it is still legal. I was simply making examples regarding how our government is limiting and restricting our personal freedoms in even the smallest matters in the name of "public health and/or interest". |
This is not a small matter. It has also been banned in my province for a while.
Posted Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:32 pm GMT by BeerWench13
You're right. It's not a small matter.
Posted Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:57 pm GMT by UrAteUp
| c0l0rad0 wrote: |
Until I see the media circus happen I would beware. Big brother IS watching. |
I love my country but hate it's government....as for Big Brother...he can kiss my you know what. Just make sure he wears some damn chapstick this time because my arse is getting sore from all the screwing he has been doing to it over the past years.
And one more emot for Wenchy and Sean...
Posted Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:05 pm GMT by golddog
I thought the rule in Virginia and the Carolinas was that you had to smoke.
I'm pretty torn on this one. We passed a state-wide smoking ban (well, pretty much, casinos, cigar bars, and some other things can be exempted).
I grew up around smoking, so it really doesn't bother me, as long as people are courteous. The other weekend I was at one of our casinos, the guy who sat down on my right first asked if I minded, and was thoughtful enough to blow his smoke up toward the ventilation. I really don't think that me spending 2-6 hours around some smoke is going to hurt too bad.
On the one hand, I hate the infringement of making people who take part in a legal activity out to be second-class citizens. You people, we're going to herd into a certain area. That seems bad. If you want to ban it, make it illegal, or don't; no middle ground.
On the other, smoking was a contributing factor in the early deaths of my father and older brother, so I'm against it at that level. I wish nobody smoked, but I probably have too many beers, and that's not good for me either.
I understand the argument about the health of the wait staff and bartenders and so on. I also agree with the notion that nobody's making them do those jobs.
I guess I'm just going to be stuck in middle on this one; I dislike the activity, but as long as it's still legal, I equally dislike legislating morality.
Anyway, sorry for the hijack. We return you to your regular programming.
Posted Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:01 am GMT by Ensano
personally I feel that, in a nutshell, you should be free to do whatever it is you want... AS LONG AS IT DOESN't AFFECT ANYONE ELSE... it's simple... smoking fills the air with toxic chemicals that are KNOWN to cause illnesses such as cancer... so it's simple... if you want to smoke then do it somewhere away from other people... outside for example...
how hard is this... why is this an unreasonable expectation?
my uncle explained to me like this... "If it's legal for me to masturbate then why can't I do it in a restaurant?... if it bothers other people they don't have to eat there..."
Posted Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:50 am GMT by Dr_Pablo
smoking a ciggarette is far from giving somone instant cancer. I live in NC so i live in toacco country, and even here they are cracking down and restricting smoking space. I've even been threatened with a tobacco citation for smoking on my way to work (It passed by a kids museum, "Kidzoo"). Im saying, if you really dont want me smoking near you tell me. I will move. But otherwise it should not be legislated in a utilitariate fashion.
Posted Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:26 am GMT by Ensano
the smoking outside thing I do have to agree is too much... but shouldn't it be automatic not to do it inside?...
when you go to a restaurant or bar, does someone really need to come up to you and ask you to stop?... when you get into a reataurant you don't keep farting until someone asks you to stop do you?... you just know better than to do it... smokers don't seem to understand that... some people feel that the air around them belongs to them alone...
and it's not JUST cancer... every single cigarette contains chemicals and poisons... EACH one is harmful... for example some TOXIC agents include (Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Hydrogen Cyanide and Ammonia)... 1 may not kill you but it's not doing your body any good..
A "Global Air Monitoring Study" (7 September 2006) of 1,212 indoor workplaces in 24 different countries at found that:
Air pollution (PM 2.5) averaged 317 ug/m3 in smoking workplaces, and 36 ug/m3 in smokefree workplaces (89% less).
Air pollution (PM 2.5) averaged 261 ug/m3 in smoking restaurants, and 36 ug/m3 in smokefree restaurants.
Air pollution (PM 2.5) averaged 494 ug/m3 in smoking bars, and 28 ug/m3 in smokefree bars.
Air pollution (PM 2.5) averaged 265 ug/m3 in smoking workplaces in the U.S., and 22 ug/m3 in smokefree workplaces.
The" Air Quality Index" classifies PM 2.5 levels above 65 ug/m3 as UNHEALTHY, above 150 ug/m3 as VERY UNHEALTHY, and above 250 ug/m3 as HAZARDOUS.
,li>To protect public health, the US EPA has set a limit of 15 ug/m3 as the average annual level of PM 2.5 outdoors. In September 2006, the EPA lowered the limit for average daily level of PM 2.5 from 65 ug/m3 to 35 ug/m3 .
To find outdoor PM 2.5 levels throughout the U.S. today, go to http://www.airnowdata.org/pmfine/latest.html.
even if you want to ignore all that... ever go into a room and have 1 or 2 cigaretts?... ever smell your clothes or hair afterwards?... ever see the yellow on your ceiling or on your clothes... the burn marks on the floor?... you have the right to do what you want but why do other people have to suffer for your choices?
they didn't bad smoking in public places for the smokers... it's to save the rest of us from you....
DISCLAIMER:.... the use of the pronoun (you and your) was not directed at any specific person but was used for simplicity purposes only...  
Posted Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:43 am GMT by khaosanroad
In NY a senator is trying to pass a law making it illegal to walk across the street while using your cellphone or ipod.
Posted Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:22 am GMT by BeerWench13
I realize why we got off on a smoking tangent here, but I was simply pointing out that our government is making laws, such as forcing me to wear a seatbelt, that are petty and ridiculous. The reason they're passing these laws is not for our personal health or safety. Don't kid yourself. It's all about the money. You know how much more money the courts make by citing you for not wearing your seatbelt? My thought is that if you're not bright enough to wear your seatbelt and you get killed in a car accident, there's one less idiot in the gene pool. There's a difference between caring about our health and forcing us to do what they think is best for us. We are not children. Once you reach the age of 18 I believe you should have some opportunity to make choices, even if they're the wrong ones.
As for the smoking ban thing, I agree with golddog. If you're not going to ban the substance, don't make those who partake in it second-class citizens. For the record, I won't smoke around the elderly or children and I always ask anyone sitting next to me if they mind my smoking if I'm in a bar. Most of those folks are smokers themselves and don't mind. If they say they do mind, I don't smoke. I know most smokers are not this polite, but those of us who are are being punished for those who could care less about anyone else.
And, supa, I apologize. I had a very, very bad day yesterday and I was less than polite toward you. I'm sorry.
Posted Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:42 am GMT by supafrey
| BeerWench13 wrote: | I realize why we got off on a smoking tangent here, but I was simply pointing out that our government is making laws, such as forcing me to wear a seatbelt, that are petty and ridiculous. The reason they're passing these laws is not for our personal health or safety. Don't kid yourself. It's all about the money. You know how much more money the courts make by citing you for not wearing your seatbelt? My thought is that if you're not bright enough to wear your seatbelt and you get killed in a car accident, there's one less idiot in the gene pool.
|
Not quite. While these are paternalistic laws (they're forcing you to do things you don't want to "for your good") and sources of revenue for the government, it would be naive not to see the positive social benefits of these regulations. While you guys don't have social healthcare down there, your taxes do in many ways support your hospitals - having thousands of idiots in there with cracked skulls because of laziness doesn't exactly sound like fiscal responsibility.
Lets also not forget what happens to the "other" side of the traffic accident - could you imagine being "responsible" for someone's death, even if they weren't wearing a seatbelt? Would this take away your guilt for "causing" a death when you see someone fly through the front of their windshield?
And what if they fly through the windshield and survive? Current Canadian tort law says that "not wearing a seatbelt" only excuses 25% of the damages caused to someone. As in.. if i'm driving recklessly and hit you, and you're not wearing a seatbelt and I cause 1 million bucks worth of damage, and am found to have "equally" caused the accident to happen with you, I'd actually owe you roughly $375,000. (1 million, -25%, divided in 2). If you were wearing a seatbelt, you likely wouldn't have gotten hurt in the first place, and I'd have owed you nothing. I'm not updated with state by state versions of this law, but am almost certain that it's similar.
It's really just a lot more reasonable and functional if society tries to stop these problems before they occur, not even mentioning court costs, seeing ppl dying all over the place, police + fire services, traffic, etc.
There's few ppl that would disagree with ALL paternalistic laws (most of you working stiffs happily contribute to your pension plans, for instance) so it's really not a theoretical argument against losing autonomy that you seem to be worried about - just that these laws have gone "too far".
Considering your examples, I'm seriously unconvinced. To strengthen your argument I'd really avoid the smoking issue entirely - I've never seen a rational or reasoned argument against banning smokes indoors that doesn't come off as the selfish or illogical rantings of an addict. Sadly the strongest argument for the cause seems to be for allowing it in veteran halls for the elderly ("they're gonna die soon enough, and they've probably earned the right to do whatever the hell they want until they do").
Posted Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:28 am GMT by BeerWench13
These are just examples. I'm not trying to argue semantics just that our government has gotten too "big" and the laws that are being made are requirements to which anyone with any sense should adhere. I know there are many idiots out there, but we should spend our time and money educating people, not regulating them.
Persoally, I always wear my seatbelt, I only smoke indoors when I'm in a bar and I play small stakes poker online with money that I can afford to lose. I'm not in debt, I'm not a drug addict (though some days I really think I'm missing out on a great opportunity) and I don't drink and drive. I'm a regular citizen who pays my taxes, goes to work every day, and donates to charity. I don't think that some schmoe up in DC should have the right to restrict my "pursuit of happiness" which happens to be playing poker online when I have time to do so. Our country was founded on personal freedom and it is losing and/or has lost sight of that foundation.
Posted Thu Feb 08, 2007 2:09 pm GMT by supafrey
It's just far too easy to criticize "big government" in favour of "little government" but it's ironic that it's really just a matter of semantics - something you said you wish to avoid. No government is really "big" or "small" in absolute terms, as each should hypothetically be facing the concerns of its own respective constituents. I neither hate "a lot of regulation" nor do i hate "little regulation" - things ARE about specific issues and examples, and the government should respond accordingly for each one. You have to remember the difficulties of addressing such a large and diverse populous (well not really diverse in America.. cough)... there's going to be deviance from what is best for "most people" in individual experiences, but that's sort of the cost of democracy.
Things like smoking indoors, prohibition of hard drugs, retirement funding - these are all fairly reasonable goals of a western democratic state based on effectively and painlessly dealing with a diverse group of people with varying interests. I would argue that America is, in fact, ignoring a good deal of other more coercive legislation that would make your country a much better place to live - whether gambling restrictions and marijuana prohibition are included in this is a matter of debate. Seeing as how I'm so personally involved in both areas, I have trouble separating my own interests from those of what's reasonable, effective or beneficial to society - something you clearly seem to suffer from as well when it comes to things like cigs and belts.
Posted Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:27 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
On the subject of smoking bans.
Smoking in enclosed public places was banned here almost 12 months ago, anywhere from bars to bus shelters are no smoking zones.
At the time I was totally opposed to it, i believe i posted about it here but can't be bothered looking 
So almost 12 months have passed and I have totally reversed my position on it.
Smoking in areas where you smoking will make even one person uncomfartable is just wrong to the point where if i have non smoking visitors I will actually go smoke in the kitchen or somewhere rather than subject them to my smoke.
Probably the best thing about the smoking ban here is when you're out at the pub. Small groups of total strangers form outside pubs and other buildings to smoke. This is a really good way to meet women!
Posted Thu Feb 15, 2007 5:28 am GMT by snoogins47
As a smoker, who hates having to go outside to smoke, and will smoke with abandon while drunk in bars, I can't decide.
Banning it in public buildings = no brainer. The bars thing is tricky though, as it is clearly a matter of health/safety, and the "They don't have to work there" "They don't have to go to those bars" arguments are weakened pretty significantly in the face of capitalism. Leaving the smoking/no-smoking choice up to the bars themselves leads to an inevitability: smoking in most/all bars. There's just too much of a market there that they can't give up, and almost assuredly can't 'make up for' by trying to turn it around and pitch the place as a 'clean no smoking environment.' Hence in a very real way, the free market stabilizes itself to the harmful environment. The tree-hugging liberal side of me doesn't think that makes much sense: if the magic hand of things sorting themselves out doesn't work out well, it's probably a good idea to do something about it.
I just really wish that the non-smoking bars I've been to all had patios/decks/some way to smoke without the hassle. I'm pretty much stuck nicotine free at a busy college bar, unless I want to leave, smoke, and spend 15 minutes in line getting back in. Sounds like a winner!
Posted Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:35 am GMT by BeerWench13
| snoogins47 wrote: | | I just really wish that the non-smoking bars I've been to all had patios/decks/some way to smoke without the hassle. |
I agree with you, snoogs.
There is a bar here that has a non-smoking area downstairs and a smoking area upstairs. It's really nice and the non-smokers have a completely separate part of the building to be in which is nice for them. There is also a patio on both floors so both smokers and non-smokers can enjoy the outdoor area in seasonable temperatures without having to share the same space. However, I can't tell you the number of non-smokers you'll find in the smoking area. Apparently, most of the hot chicks are upstairs so they'll risk the second-hand smoke for better odds at finding a hottie to hook up with. I guess it all has to do with priorities.
|
|
