and log on to aljazeera.com. thanks for watching. hi, i'm lisa fletcher, and you in the "stream." online gambling is now legal in some states. we ask if online gambling is a bet worth making. ♪ wajahat ali is off tonight, taking the rains is our i digital producer. glad to have you here to do this >> always fun. >> when we start talking about

online gambling, there is a big divide in responses. >> yes, we have some responses here . . . of course for those of you at home, we want you to be part of this conversation, to tweet us using the hashtag, aj stream. >> americans are logging on to place their bets, spending more than $2.5 billion on illegal offshore gambling just in 2012. analysts at morgan stanley predict this kind of gambling

will generate close to $10 billion by the end of the decade. a justice department ruling cleared the way for online gambling at the state level but not nationally. some are calling on the federal government to lift its ban, seeing it as a way to create consistency. so far flee pro online gaming bills have been introduced in congress, but not everyone wants to see those bills become law. >> in the history of bad ideas this has to be one of the worst. internet gambling. >> that video is from the coalition to stop internet gambling, backed by sands ceo, and sheldon adelson, they claim it crosses the line of responsibility. adelson has vowed to spend whatever it takes to convince

congress to keep the online gambling ban in place. so what is the future of online gambling, and is there a compelling argument for congress to make it legal. joining us is a former congressman from arkansas, and with the association of players% association and online gamers. vin we're seeing this move forward at the state level. why not just leave it there? what is the argument for federal regulation? >> from the argument is from a pure business standpoint. what companies want to see is single regulatory compliance, and just say it's a lot of money to do that, the other reason you want to do it from the federal

level is for online poker. many people play poker to kill time and play against each other. on a state to state basis [ inaudible ] nevada, players in delaware have to play [ inaudible ] delaware, on a federal level if you have a federal regime, you say all right, other players in new jersey can play players in nevada or delaware against say california if it decides to play in the system. so you create a lot more players being able to play against each other. >> if this is the first time you are watching us, we bring guests in on a variety of platforms and sometimes we have a little bit of technical issue with them. we're going to work on vin's audio, but keith you testified about this in 2011, the issue keeps coming up and keeps failing.

why the sense of urgency? what has changed? >> well, i think part of it has been the huge need for revenue at the state level, so because there is all of this experimentation on the state level, it has created a very unequal playing field. and there are a lot of people who would like to see this federalized if you will. and we know that that is pretty ahistoric ahistorical, gambling has always been left pretty much to the states to legalize it as they see fit. so this is a little bit of a dish approach. >> both sides with beefing up their lobbying efforts. the gaming association just hired jim messina, and then the ore side backed by billionaire sheldon adelson.

now? >> because it is dangerous. it's a very dangerous thing for kids, our economy, for a host of different things. and one of the reasons that we're focusing on it now is because not only is it dangerous, but because these states are just now getting up and running, but as they grow, it is going to be harder and harder to deal with that. to federalize it would be very dangerous. online poker can be very much manipulated. it crease at its a danger for all kinds of things, money laundering, the fbi and the law enforcement say there is no way they will be able to monitor online gambling like this. so i think it's just time. it's time for me because i have young children. >> uh-huh. >> my boys will be going to college soon. i think about what this could mean at a time when our fragile economy is trying to come back.

you look at the kind of debt it could create for people, there's just a lot of dangers here, and we're asking that something that was changed right before christmas, i think it was the 23rd of december, 2011, the justice department changed its perspective on how the wire act should be interpreted. we're asking -- we just need -- we need right now to -- to stop what is going on. we need to put a moratorium on what states are doing, and what is happening out there, so we can give the appropriate time for both public comment as well as congressional hearings and intervention. this happened in the dead of night. and i think certainly states -- the three states that have begun this process has found some difficulties, but they entered into it, knowing that, one, the justice department could rescind its decision or change its views or

congress could step in or a whole host of things. but why not go back to where we were before. look at -- use that as an opportunity to take the time to let congress do the kind of investigation that they need to, and the conversation and debate that needs to be had, and the public. i mean the views that you have heard are very consistent with what we have been finding out. two to one say this is dangerous. the majority of the people have said it creates a very dangerous world for our children. it's one thing to walk into a casino, but to carry one around in your pocket 24-7 is a whole different thing. >> we have a lot of people joining in talking about the money aspect of it.

and finally we have this video comment. >> i have played online poker, and i think it's a really good idea to legalize it, because it means you have more control over what is going on, and you get the tax revenue from it. i don't think it's a danger to people because they can already spending their money on all sorts of things and they can gamble in person if they really want to. so make it legal. >> keith what do you think of this idea that online gambling is really here to stay, and whether we regulate it or push it underground? >> i think a lot of gambling proponents always put out this argument of inevitability, and

while i think there will always been an illegal underground gambling economy as there has always been an innel underground sports economy, but that doesn't mean that legalization is the best place to go. the national council is neutral on whether the net or any other form of gambling should be legalized. but if you look at las vegas, they legalized das knows in the 30s, but it was not until 2005 that they devoted the first funds to deal with gambling addiction. so legalization regulation does not automatically lead to reduced risk or better social

protections, it can -- >> i think one thing we can all agree on is there should be money going towards treatment -- >> that is something i want to get into a little later in the woe, but vin, we have been talking about the negative social consequences of on-line gambling, but give us some of the positives. not financial upsides, but social positives. what do you see them as? >> there is a lot of upside about online gambling from a social standpoint, and from the business of a casino -- >> not from the financial point. i'm really curious as to what the social benefit is. articulated. >> the social benefit is pretty simple. take the game of poker. poker is a game that takes a lot of skill to play. there is a lot of strategic thinks involved and

decision-making involved and it really forces you to think your way through the game. when you are dealing with poker players you are dealing with smart savvy players, and it's a very social game. places like the two plus two forums where people are socializing over this thing. this isn't people gambling in a black hole. >> senator lincoln to you worry that the states are being seduced by these big-dollar figures? that they are so focused on the financial upside that they may not be giving the same look at the social down side? >> absolutely. and i think you have to look at the downside. what if the three of us wanted to into in the makeup room and play online poker with the other two guys and we decide to rig it?

law enforcement has told us that there is a danger to be able to launder money. they have great concerns and do not feel they have the capacity to be able to monitor -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> and here -- here is why. in terms of rigging the game -- the online poker software out there is proven. it has been proven all over the world. you can't collude that easily in online poker -- >> well, that's not what law [ overlapping speakers ] >> we have seen online operators going lou the brick and mortar casinos like mgm, those are the same ones that are worried about money laundering on the online side of things. >> okay. we have to hit a break. i promise we'll pick this back

up where we left off, but can the same thing that is said about vegas, what happens in vegas, stays in vegas, can that >> every sunday night al jazeera america presents the best documentaries. a historic election >> we have 47% of our people who pay no income taxes... >> we take you behind the scenes >> i'm rick santorum, i'm running for president... >> no barriers... >> i intend to be the nominee that defeats barack obama >> no restrictions... >> i think we're catching on... >> no filters... >> my guess is they won't be voting for me... >> al jazeera america presents caucus

check >> welcome back, we are talking about whether the federal government should lift a ban on online gambling. before the break we asked if you think it's possible to regulate online gambling. >> we have plenty from the community on this: and a prominent online poker player saying:

>> finally: >> is it possible to effectively regulate online gambling? >> it seems like there's countries in europe and seeds of good states. we are optimistic that you can use the technology for good and evil, if you will. you know, we have a set of internet standards based on best practices from overseas. it's unfortunate that none of the jurisdictions fully adopted the standards. you can do close - you can do it pretty well. we know you can do it better sometimes than you can do with existing lotteries or casinos.

if some of the existing bricks and more tar followed the standards online, we would be better off. >> i'm curious at the top of the show that we mentioned there's $2.6 billion going out in illegal online gambling, orange mating in the u.s. if that can't be controlled, how - what guarantees are there that any other form of online gambling can be controlled. >> that's really what you want out of all of this with the regulations. you want to keep the money in the country. you don't want to go to offshore places, but where you get the regulations where you need to protect the consumer. you want to issue online gaming and make sure games are fair. the way you do that is through regulating. if you go to italy, spain,

france, they have successful regimes that have done well by it. it's a matter of putting it to the u.s. to make sure that you keep the regulation in house. >> maybe you are not connecting apples with apples. are you proving the regulating of it. >> it can be regulated. it's not an issue, whether you choose to reg awe late it. it makes sense to regulate it. it's an important point to know that i think there'll always be an illegal black market out there somehow. the question is not whether or not legalization is to eliminate illegal gambling, it's what a twitter follower said. if it is legalized there's a chance fewer will go offshore. that's a concern. >> take us behind the scenes congressionally. what is going on now between

lobbying interests and members of congress. >> people are trying to begin the debate. some will argue that the regulations abroad are not as good as they'd like to think that they are. many members of congress are trying to get their arms around thou they do regulate it. they are trying to listen to the propon et cetera and those that are frightened to death about what can happen to the economy. the debt that can be increased because of people that were gambling online, and what it could do to children. what will prevent children. law enforcement tells us that the equipment, the technology to be able to provide the geolocation, and the age is not there. we know that. we don't sell cigarettes online. >> if you look at what is happening in new jersey, there's

thousands upon thousands who have not been able to because they live too close to the pennsylvania boarder or new jersey border, and there's not a case of underage gambling. technology has proven. the u.s. had online gambling for years. none of these issues have been brought up. it doesn't work completely, it's not working to the extent that we can be confident that we are not going to exploit. children will not exploit online gambling, and you are not going to be able to gamble from a state like texas or whatever in new jersey. they don't feel confident that the technology is there to be able to give us the ashurpss that that is not going to happen and people - let's face it, i don't know. kids know how to duke parents on the internet better than anyone.

they know and have learned technology better. >> it's a parenting issue. parents shouldn't be... >> hang on, we need to get community into the show. >> maybe kids are finding it elsewhere. maybe there's an older navy. >> we need your thoughts. we have a lot of people talking about whether the government has a role in this. we have jacob who says: >> the question is what is this line to legislate morality and looking out for the welfare of people. >> i don't think they are legislating morality. we are acting for a time out, a moratorium, go back to where everybody knew and instituted and were comfortable with the rulings of the law and let's have a debate about whether we are capable of doing this

correctly. is the federal government the appropriate place for this to be regulated, is this the state government. we have not had that discussion. congress has not. nor has the public. >> that's where we were before 2011. >> and on that note we'll take a break and we right back. news channel that brings you live news at the top of every hour >> here are the headlines at this hour breaking news... sports... business... weather... live news...every hour, on the hour only on al jazeera america

while you were asleep news was happening.

♪ i'm joshua faust i'm a writer, and i'm in "the stream." >> we come back, we're talking about the future of online gambling in the u.s. keith 47 states allow some form of gambling. over the next few years we could see other states also adopt online gambling, so there's a good chance americans will be dealing with this issue even if congress doesn't. what do you think needs to happen in advance to limit the social down side? >> states and companies both

have not done the best job of encouraging their customers to develop a culture of responsible gaming. and as vin noted the racing industry has been doing it online for about a decade now. so i would argue most americans have access to online gambling that is legal, much as well as illegal online gambling on the internet. but i think we have done a terrible job preparing for the impact. the u.s. government gets about $7 billion a year from the tax on winnings, and not a penny of that go into prevention or treatment of gambling addiction nor do most states. because i think you are right. i think it's here to stay, and i think it is going to keep happening, states are simply too desperate for money to leave the internet unchecked.

they will pursue every nook and cranny what they see as painless revenue money, what we see is a tax on some of those who are gambling addicts. >> senator sheldon aldenson's casinos do extremely well. if he had an anemic bottom line would he be in support of this. because his competers need it. if that was the case for him this? >> i don't know, you would have to ask him. i started in on many of these issues. i sponsored a bill when i was in the senate. i had a bill that was child -- children's internet safety bill. i just worry about our children and the internet brings wonderful knowledge to them, but

it also has dangers, and i think we really have to be considerate of that, understand that, and as a nation we have to embrace. that's not to say it won't happen eventually, but it's really important. and vin is right, there is a huge need for parental involvement. but we have to think about how will it change our culture, our socializing, and how is it going to change our economy? because there are those circumstances where kids get ahold of credit cards, they are in college, there's a whole -- you know, who knows. but i just think it's something that is important for us to talk about before it just takes off and goes. >> i agree with the senator. this is an important discussion to be have. but i think it's important that the discussions be rooted in facts. and i know the senator and i

have a disagreement on this, but this technology is really proven. there haven't been any reported instances of underage gambling. i see nor underage gamblers when i walk into a brick and mortar casino. it's much harder for someone to get online and gamble at this point than to go to a brick and mortar casino. >> i know you are saying that is the known, but we don't know the unknown. i think there is still a large unknown there, and i think law enforcemented tells us it is that. >> on that note, we're out of time. thank you all for joining us. until next time, we'll see you online at

check check >> days after devastated - devastated after days of intense shelling by government force, damascus lies in ruins. hello, the other top stories on al jazeera - bangladesh swears in a new parliament without a single member of the opposition party. >> the president under pressure to step down. >> and it's a