Throughout time around the world, humans have found new ways to be immoral. Only now in resent times has the United States government felt responsible to stop people from committing immoral acts. While most immoral acts fall into black and white, issue such as gambling are in grey areas. Should the government dictate how people spend their earned money? Currently, gambling in most states is legal, but technology allows people to gamble online. According to John Shadegg online gamble has been increasing since 1998. Likewise, in the article "The Federal Ban on Online Gambling Should Be Overturned" the online gambling industry is estimated to be worth over 12 billion dollars. Online gambling is a growing industry; yet it is illegal in the United
…show more content…
Both of the authors agree that gambling is morally wrong. Radley Balko, a propionate for online gambling, does not hide the fact that online gambling is a vice. In his argument, the issue is should government dictate what citizens do with their money. I agree with Mr. Balko, citizens should have the right to spend their earns on what they wish. However, John Shadegg believes that gambling still effects society on a large enough scale that it should be illegal. Gambling can destroy a household, so I can see the base for his agreement. Nevertheless, both still authors can agree that no matter whom it affects or want the government says, online gambling is morally …show more content…
Much like any other immoral vice, just as smoking and drinking, there are laws in place to minimize negative affects. In the article, “The Federal Ban on Online Gambling Should Be Overturned” argues that definition should be set in place on what is considered to be online gambling. Because right now the United States government is uses the Wire Act from 1961 and not only is it outdated by it creates loophole to where gambling is almost unregulated online. Both authors agree that due to not having strong regulation on online gambling it could possibly be funding organized crime and terrorism. The authors are right, with a law saying who can run a gambling website the money could be going to anyone offshores. And most of the time the money does find outside of the United States. Therefore, if the question is not, is doing gambling online wrong? But, should the citizen have the right to gamble their
Both of the authors agree that gambling is morally wrong. Radley Balko, a propionate for online gambling, does not hide the fact that online gambling is a vice. In his argument, the issue is should government dictate what citizens do with their money. I agree with Mr. Balko, citizens should have the right to spend their earns on what they wish. However, John Shadegg believes that gambling still effects society on a large enough scale that it should be illegal. Gambling can destroy a household, so I can see the base for his agreement. Nevertheless, both still authors can agree that no matter whom it affects or want the government says, online gambling is morally …show more content…
Much like any other immoral vice, just as smoking and drinking, there are laws in place to minimize negative affects. In the article, “The Federal Ban on Online Gambling Should Be Overturned” argues that definition should be set in place on what is considered to be online gambling. Because right now the United States government is uses the Wire Act from 1961 and not only is it outdated by it creates loophole to where gambling is almost unregulated online. Both authors agree that due to not having strong regulation on online gambling it could possibly be funding organized crime and terrorism. The authors are right, with a law saying who can run a gambling website the money could be going to anyone offshores. And most of the time the money does find outside of the United States. Therefore, if the question is not, is doing gambling online wrong? But, should the citizen have the right to gamble their