Why Online Poker Should Be Legal

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

The data show that poker is indeed a game of skill, not chance, and a Federal judge agrees. So why are players still being treated like criminals?

More in:

Comments [2]

Adel from Tibboes, Mexico

I don't smoke pot nor participate in online or offline gambling. I think engaging in these activites is either a waste of time or injurious to one's health. But I dislike the Government's paternal attitude towards these activities by criminalizing people engaged in these activites. I don't think hammering by head with a ballbean hammer is fun either. Interestingly, the Government has not yet criminalized this activity.

Sep. 25 2012 02:07 PM
Mikeh from Tallahassee, FL

The conclusion is correct. The D.C. politicians and the Vegas casino bosses are pissed that someone is stepping on their turf. Just like Marijuana Legalization, Poker Legalization is blocked and marred by people who's financial interests are opposed. Would Marijuana be illegal if there wasn't budweiser and big cotton? Who's to say, but I believe our government is run on bribery. Wake up and smell the coffee people.

Sep. 20 2012 11:21 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.


About Freakonomics Radio

In their books Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomicsSteven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner use the tools of economics to explore real-world behavior. As boring as that may sound, what they really do is tell stories — about cheating schoolteachers, self-dealing real-estate agents, and crack-selling mama’s boys. American Public Media’s Marketplace and WNYC are now bringing those Freakonomics stories — and plenty of new ones — to the radio, with Dubner as host. Just like the books, Freakonomics Radio will explore “the hidden side of everything.” It will tell you things you always thought you knew but didn’t, and things you never thought you wanted to know, but do.


Supported by