The Viva Las Atlasia Bill [LAW'D]

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Badger

(this goes in slot four)

[k-onmmunist]

Another step to further liberty and get the state out of people's lives.

This has my backing.

[Purple State]

Dis deb8n betta be full o' pizzazz!

[Hans-im-Glück]

I support this bill. Gambling is a part of human nature and no one can control it. A free, but controled gambling is less dangerous than it's all forbitten. It still happen, but in the underground.

[Bacon King]

Dis deb8n betta be full o' pizzazz!

Hush, you! There wasn't enough space in the subject line for the full word

[Хahar 🤔]

Crime.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Department of the Interior would like to put on the record that it is opposed to this bill.

[Badger]

The Department of the Interior would like to put on the record that it is opposed to this bill.

Why?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Department of the Interior would like to put on the record that it is opposed to this bill.

Why?

The DoI feels that the impact on society of liberalising the gambling laws to this extent would be entirely negative.

[Badger]

The Department of the Interior would like to put on the record that it is opposed to this bill.

Why?

The DoI feels that the impact on society of liberalising the gambling laws to this extent would be entirely negative.

Could the DoI please be more specific?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's pretty much self-evident. Gambling is addictive and providing more facilities for gambling will make more addicts which will cause all sorts of other social problems. In addition, most forms of organised gambling are essentially scams. The DoI would not be opposed to liberalising certain gambling laws (especially those relating to gambling within domestic locations), though feels that this ought to be up to lower levels of government, but can't see any logical reason for removing all restrictions.

[Bacon King]

Offering a friendly amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just to keep us meta.

[Badger]

It's pretty much self-evident. Gambling is addictive and providing more facilities for gambling will make more addicts which will cause all sorts of other social problems. In addition, most forms of organised gambling are essentially scams. The DoI would not be opposed to liberalising certain gambling laws (especially those relating to gambling within domestic locations), though feels that this ought to be up to lower levels of government, but can't see any logical reason for removing all restrictions.

With respect, Mr. Secretary, those same arguments could be used to outlaw alcohol and bars.

Everyone should envision for a moment what Nevada would be like to live in--or support government services--without legalized gambling.

As an economic issue, there's a reason Las Vegas (and to a lesser degree, Reno) is called "the last Detroit". It's one of the only places in the country a high school graduate can get a decent middle class job where they can own a house and send their kids to college with a minimum of debt.

I would only support BK's amendment if the DoI can give an overview of what criteria it would use in granting licensure of gaming establishments. I'm all for reasonable common sense regulation of the gaming industry, but I'm loathe to turn the licensing process to an organization that will work to stymie opening such establishments at every turn.

[k-onmmunist]

I honestly see no reason to oppose this under the grounds Al has provided.

[Bacon King]

Seeing that it was not accepted as friendly, there is now a vote on the following amendment to this bill. Please vote aye,  nay, or abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[k-onmmunist]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

Aye

[Badger]

Mr. PPT, I would ask for a brief delay in voting on the amendment so the Secretary of the Interior and I can finish some discussions from earlier today via PM. Such delay may obviate the need for a vote on the amendment.

[Hans-im-Glück]

AYE

[Bacon King]

Mr. PPT, I would ask for a brief delay in voting on the amendment so the Secretary of the Interior and I can finish some discussions from earlier today via PM. Such delay may obviate the need for a vote on the amendment.

I'll consider this an injunction to prolong the debate of the amendment, per 4.3.5 and I will second your motion myself. You have 48 hours, Senator Badger.

Voting on the amendment is now postponed.

[Badger]

Mr. PPT, I would ask for a brief delay in voting on the amendment so the Secretary of the Interior and I can finish some discussions from earlier today via PM. Such delay may obviate the need for a vote on the amendment.

I'll consider this an injunction to prolong the debate of the amendment, per 4.3.5 and I will second your motion myself. You have 48 hours, Senator Badger.

Voting on the amendment is now postponed.

And with just over 45 hours to spare...


Based on assurances from the DoI Secretary that his department will be reasonable in its regulation of the gaming industry, rather than trying to make requirements so onerous as to make legalized gambling basically impractical, I accept the amendment as friendly.

My thanks to the Senate for its patience and the Secretary for his professionalism.

[Badger]

Bump.

As there's apparantly no further debate, could we please bring this to final vote Mr. PPT?

[Bacon King]

Sorry for the delay. The amendment has long been accepted as friendly and seeing as there's been no further discussion, I'll open a final vote.

[Bacon King]

Senators, there is now a final vote on the following piece of legislation. Please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fritz]

Aye