THE ISSUE: Two competing bills in the Legislature would legalize online poker games for Californians. Meantime, Rep. John Campbell, R-Irvine, has introduced a bill to repeal the federal Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which bars U.S. banks from handling transfers from poker websites.

Should California legalize Internet poker and other types of gambling?

Ben Boychuk: Yes!

Ben Boychuk is managing editor of The Heartland Institute's School Reform News.

With most casino games, the odds are always with the house. Play long enough, the casino will make a tidy profit, and the player may have the consolation of a glorious hand or a lucky roll of the dice, and a few complimentary drinks.
With public policy, the advantages are almost always with the house – or, in this case, the government. Put crudely, the government sets the rules and has the guns. And a big government has lots of rules and lots more guns.
But poker isn't like most casino games. Instead of betting against the house, you bet against other players. If you play your cards right, sometimes you can win big.

In a similar vein, it isn't obvious that current policy on Internet gambling favors the government or, if you like, "the public good."
As my Heartland Institute colleague Jim Lakely points out, several economic and legal analyses note how the current emphasis on prohibition in lieu of regulation may have more costs than benefits. Among the benefits: more tax revenue and more liberty.
How much more revenue?

It depends on the legislation, but one estimate suggests California's 2 million online poker players could feed an addition $1 billion into the state's treasury over 10 years. Sen. Lou Correa's Senate Bill 40 would license up to five poker websites to serve California poker players exclusively. Sen. Rod Wright's Senate Bill 45 would license three sites and require the operators to share at least 10 percent of their monthly gross revenue with the state.

Neither bill is perfect, and both would benefit major gambling concerns. Also, as The Bee noted in its editorial Sunday, the revenue from legalized Internet poker would make a small dent on the state's multibillion-dollar budget deficit.
But that's not the point. Taxes on legitimate, legal gambling winnings are precisely the sort of revenue the state should be happy to collect, along with other so-called "sin taxes."

Finally, the state still has the clout to set an example for Congress and other jurisdictions. Isn't that what we often hear about more "progressive" policy initiatives? From regulating carbon dioxide emission to legalizing medical marijuana, the Golden State often gets out in front of federal law or even clashes with it.

Why not add Internet poker to that litany? Current federal law is already on shaky ground, with bipartisan support coalescing around Campbell's bill. California could provide the push Congress needs to legalize and regulate a thriving global industry.

Pia Lopez No!
Let's face it: The big push for state-sanctioned online gambling reeks of decay and decline. The arguments in its favor could be made for state-sanctioned prostitution, heroin sales, child porn sites – any number of human vices that might generate revenue for the state.

The proponents delude themselves on two fronts – that they can make such gambling safe ("consumer protection" is their mantra) and that the state will benefit by taxing it (ignoring all the social ills that come with legitimizing and encouraging the activity).
Some activities, in my view, should be left risky, so that individuals are more likely to think twice about engaging in them. As one columnist has written, online players "should know in advance that they're entirely alone if things go badly."
Government, in my view, should stay out of facilitating, legitimating and becoming dependent on revenue from activities that cause demonstrable harm to large numbers of individuals and communities. Encouraging people to wager online with a credit card – actually making it easier for them to do so – should not be a government sponsored activity .

State-run lotteries are bad enough – writing into law the insipid, simplistic notion that this state activity supports the "rights, liberties and welfare of the people" by raising additional monies "without the imposition of additional or increased taxes." Removing barriers to online gambling, when we know that a large proportion of the money comes from problem gamblers, is unsavory, at best.

And then there's the delusion that state-sanctioned online gambling will bring in mega-dollars in an era when political leaders shy away from broad-based taxes to pay for services. Yet encouraging spending on online gambling doesn't create wealth; it merely shifts it from other activities, creating costly social ills in its wake.

It seems so simple, doesn't it: Since we cannot stop people from online gambling, why not organize, license, supervise it and gain financial benefits from it? Because we'd be aiding and abetting it – assuring that we'd get more of the activity.
The promoters whine that with unlicensed online gambling "California players assume all risks" – and wax righteous that their aim is "protecting players" with the proposed "public-private partnership." In fact, this is all about giving 20-year contracts to a few chosen "hub operators" and setting up a "revenue-sharing" scheme with these favored operators.

It is time for Californians to stand up and expose this farce for what it is – a boon for a few gambling operators at a big cost to all the rest of us.
Pia Lopez is an editorial writer at The Bee.