More Federal Legislation ... in the Oven??
September's Blog carried a notice that the reality of legalized internet gambling may be just around the corner. H.R.2267 - the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act - passed out of House committee and would be headed for debate on the floor. (See Post 9, dated September 19, for more information on this proposed piece of legislation.)
Now, comes recent news that two other bills are bringing into focus further concerns with regard to gambling in America. H.R. 2906 proposes to amend the Public Health Service Act to specifically include problem and pathological gambling in programs of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Included, also, in this bill are provisions to establish a national program to address the harmful consequences of problem gambling.
The Senate's version of the House bill is S. 3418 - the Comprehensive Problem Gambling Act of 2010. Similarly, this bill proposes to amend the Public Health Service Act to include, in programs of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, programs to research, prevent, and address the harmful consequences of pathological and problem gambling.
What is important for all of us to know is that there are murmurings of concerted efforts to combine the House bills - in other words, to lump the legalization of internet gambling along with a national program to address harm resulting from compulsive gambling.
My question is WHY do these two very different pieces of legislation need to be under one heading? Surely, I am in favor of a national outreach that is designed to deal with the harmful consequences of problem/pathological gambling. This would indicate both a prevention focus and substantial help to those adversely affected by gambling addiction. Could not this focus of national dimension be significant enough to stand alone? Again, obviously, I think so.
However, the bill calling for the legalization of internet gambling opens up an entirely different category of concern. Once more, I ask: why should this be lumped with an entirely different piece of legislation? Most assuredly, there are distinctly, different camps of opinion on these two very different issues. (For consideration of red flags concerning internet gambling, see Post 9 of the GRM Blog.)
In addition, we need to be aware that these bills may very well be introduced during the Lame Duck Session following the elections in November. Representatives and Senators do pay attention to direct-to-their-offices phone calls and letters. Please, write/call your Congressional representatives and give them your opinion of such proposed legislation - and how these pieces should be officially presented. Your voice truly does count!
For more information on problem gambling and recovery issues,
visit http://www.grmumc.org/
visit http://www.grmumc.org/
Rev. Janet Jacobs
Director, Gambling Recovery Ministries
