#271 - Adventures in the Law, Part VI - Happy Birthday Howard Lederer

Today (Tuesday) was Howard Lederer’s 44th birthday. He was in Washington DC last week, pressing the point, as he has for much of the last year and a half, that poker should not be outlawed, especially not in the privacy of one’s home. He was so busy with all the work connected to that effort that he practically forgot it was his birthday. Consequently, when Suzie gave him a surprise party on Monday night, it really was a surprise.

I visited with Howard on Tuesday, neglecting to bring him a present. I wished him happy birthday, though, right after he told me it was his birthday. But frankly, the guy is ridiculously difficult to shop for. He pursues all our common interests - watches, cigars, baseball - with such zeal that he’s got all the easy stuff. Sure, an Audemars Piguet tourbillon would round out his collection, but unless Phil Ivey leaves his laying around or Uncle Tilty comes through with that six-figure bonus I’ve been hinting at, Bub is just going to have to make do with his IWC Portugueser Moon Phase Perpetual.

He’s not a pen guy, except for one pen that he carries with him everywhere. It’s a Fisher Space Pen with a Black Titanium Nitride Coating. It’s the same coating they use on the space shuttle, writes underwater, never runs out of ink, and is indestructible.

Does that sound like a guy who needs a pen?

So instead of giving Howard a present, I mdae him give me a report on his trip to DC, so I could have some material for the blog. He told me about an interesting argument being made on Capitol Hill that sounds like it’s winning some converts to the idea that people should be allowed to play poker in their homes.

I’m paraphrasing pretty heavily here, so sorry if I don’t do the argument justice, but here it is:

The reason states and localities have a legitimate interest in regulating gambling is because of the social ills that can accompany it. When the government considers allowing a casino to operate in its jurisdiction, it has to consider the social ills that accompany a casino, like organized crime, loan sharking, prostitution, etc. These things affect people other than the gamblers, plus cost the government money. The government has to heavy the risk and cost of those things, against the jobs and additional tax revenues.

The government interest in regulating smoking and drinking is similar. Public places are banning smoking because of the social cost. Many places - my hometown of Scottsdale included, which hosts gigantic parties like the Fiesta Bowl and Super Bowl - require that bars and restaurants and sometimes liquor stores stop selling liquor at certain times.

But not in our homes.

As much damage as liquor can do to the drinker, the restrictions on alcohol never concern its use in the home. And no one is suggesting, despite cigarettes costing hundreds of thousands of people per year their lives, that smokers shouldn’t be able to light up in their homes.

It seems, therefore, that some lawmakers (or people who just don’t like to mind their own business) have gone beyond an arguably legitimate concern that exists when a land-based casino wants to operate, to keep people from doing what they want in their homes, where none of those concerns are present.

The personal costs, if any, shouldn’t be a concern. It’s not a governmental concern, apparently, that people wreck their lungs and livers in their homes, only when they do it in public and potentially hurt others and cost the government money. That should be the same with gambling.

(N.B. - Even the True Believers, who are treading where even anti-smoking and anti-drinking forces (who have incredibly strong arguments about addiction in their favor) refuse to go, have no answer to the argument that the “personal costs” are negligible. The latest study, the subject of post #268, demonstrated that in Great Britain, there has been no increase in the number of problem gamblers (as clinically defined) during the internet poker boom. The percentage of the population who qualify as problem gamblers is the same in 2007 as it was in 1999.)