opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
David Harsanyi
David Harsanyi
5 Feb 2016
Obama's Mosque Speech Was a Dangerous Fantasy

For eight years now, the president has reprimanded the American people for their attitudes about Islam. And … Read More.

29 Jan 2016
What If Trump Wins?

There are many potential outcomes to a Donald Trump GOP nomination. And every one of them is a disaster for conservatives. … Read More.

22 Jan 2016
It's an Era of Angry Populism and No One Is Immune

As many conservatives grapple with the growing prospect of a Donald Trump presidential nomination, I've … Read More.

Ante Up Against Government Intrusion


Not long ago, a district judge in Colorado declared that poker is a game of "gambling" rather than "skill" because "while poker ... might involve some skill, these games certainly are contingent 'in part' upon chance, and when, as here, the games involve risking a thing of value for gain, they constitute a form of gambling."

Guess what? Nearly everything we do in life depends "in part" on "chance." So we might as well think of our entire existence as one colossal game of craps — with government as the hairy-knuckled, silk-suited mobster calling in the "vig" (whatever the heck that is).

And if poker were primarily a game of chance — rather than skill — probability dictates that I would have won a decent pot once in my stinking lifetime. I have not.

For me, then, no supplementary evidence is needed to recognize poker as a game of logic, deftness and deception, with only a sprinkling of luck. But if you're interested, there are reams of studies, law journal articles and mathematical equations proving poker's rightful place among skill games.

All of this is important why? Well, across the nation, poker players are mounting legal challenges using the "skill" defense in hopes of defining poker as a non-gambling game — both online and in real life.

To begin with, it seems impractical and rather silly for government to decide what games we can play. Chance or no chance, it is un-American (to pinch a phrase from Madam Speaker) for the police to raid suburban restaurants and pubs so they can weed out the debauchery of low-stakes Texas Hold 'em. Yet that kind of raid is not as rare as you may think.

And how many rational Americans believe that federal diktats on computer gaming are reasonable intrusions into the privacy of citizens?

Since 2006, Republicans — who acted like a gaggle of hand-wringing Carrie Nations — have been pushing a clampdown on Internet gambling, sponsoring legislation to make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to process payments of gambling operations.

The Justice Department has frozen or confiscated $34 million belonging to players who have a talent to take it from schnooks like me.

We all know the cliché about the two certainties of life. One of these certainties can be affixed to poker gamers, making a once-underground activity a government boon.

The other certainty of life is made immeasurably more bearable by occasionally indulging in pleasurable activities, which, for some, happens to include playing poker on a computer for money.

After all, when it's convenient, Republicans argue that Americans have entirely too much government interference in their daily lives. Here they have an opportunity to shed a thin layer of hypocrisy by supporting legislation that allows citizens to indulge in an activity they enjoy in the privacy of their own homes.

One such bill, offered by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., currently has more than 50 co-signers (a few Republicans).

In the Senate, Robert Menendez, D-N.J., recently introduced the Internet Poker and Games of Skill Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act (not surprisingly, government has the ability to make playing cards sound like a joyless bureaucratic mess), which stipulates that poker "is part of the cultural and recreational fabric of the United States" and should be legalized.

Now, I will concede that simply because an activity is part of the cultural and recreational fabric of the nation does not necessarily mean that we have a patriotic duty to legalize it, or pot, prostitution and Ponzi schemes already would be on the legislative docket.

One thing at a time.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of "Nanny State." Visit his Web site at To find out more about David Harsanyi and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at




2 Comments | Post Comment
There are some that feel gambling is morally wrong and irresponsible, they also feel that because of this, the government should prevent or punish people for taking part in these activities. Anyone that feels this way might as well just take the constitution and put it into a shredder and let the government tell them how to think and live and die.
I strongly support the right of free people to do with their hard earned money as they see fit. Gambling as are many other things such as smoking pot or drinking alcohol is ultimately a matter of personal choice. As long as I am not forced to underwrite their losses, it is none of my or the governments business what gamblers do with their time and money.
It is too bad I wasn't given the option of whether to support the gambling by AIG or the banks that foolishly leveraged themselves into a position of insolvency and is using my money to do the same thing that they did before the crash and burn. It's too bad I had no choice but to underwrite their losses with my tax dollars.
Comment: #1
Posted by:
Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:18 PM
Government intrusion into the Internet poker issue is not about limiting personal freedoms. It is only about the government's present inability to tax Internet gambling. Once they pass the taxation of amounts wagered (not amounts won) the government's objection to gambling of any form will vanish.

Will Rosegay
Comment: #2
Posted by: Will Rosegay
Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:06 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
David Harsanyi
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 8 Feb 2016
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 6 Feb 2016
Brent Bozell

20 Sep 2011 Let's Eat the Rich

19 Dec 2014 Run, Liz, Run!

16 Jul 2009 Pay Up! Utopia Ain't Free, Ya Know