Actually, this is more a tale of two states, but the cities of San Francisco and Las Vegas play a big part in new legislation that has begun the process of approval in the legislature of California and Nevada. At this point, both of these bills have been approved by only the appropriate committee of each governing body, so neither may become law, but I'm placing my bets right now.

In California, a state lawmaker has introduced a bill to basically outlaw Internet betting by the residents of that wonderful, if somewhat beleaguered, state. The proposal is to make it a misdemeanor for the citizenry to patronize an Internet casino and, in a remarkable display of either ignorance or arrogance (perhaps a little of each), a provision has been included that calls for a $1000 fine or 90 days in jail for each offense if an Internet casino fails to block California residents from gambling. Now if I read this bill correctly, they are saying that an Internet casino based, in say, Antigua, is going to be fined $1000 for every account they open for a California resident. And how is California going to enforce this? Dispatch the California Navy for a little "gunboat diplomacy"? Or perhaps they'll instruct the U.S. Marine Corps to invade these other countries and collect the fines. This is a state that can't even keep all the lights lit and they are going to fine businesses located in other countries? Let's leave them for a moment and travel inland a bit to Nevada.

There, a bill has been cleared by the Judiciary Committee of the state legislature that essentially will allow most (though not all) casinos licensed by the state to establish Internet casinos. Now remember that it wasn't too long ago that most of the Nevada-based casino companies were firmly against the idea of Internet casinos, but this proposed law has changed their collective mind because it is "enabling" legislation. What that means is, that if the Nevada Gaming Commission so chooses, it may establish rules and regulations for those casinos holding "unrestricted" licenses to set up cyber-versions of their operations. The casino companies evidently like the idea of having to deal with the same regulatory body that they deal with today, so as fast as a stickman at a craps table can call "seven out", the casino industry is now in favor of this proposal. Naturally, it's the big casinos in Las Vegas that will benefit the most, should this actually becomes law.

That brings me to my tale of two cities: San Francisco and Las Vegas. I'm using San Francisco to represent California in my discussion, because it is at or near the epicenter of the dot-com meltdown that is currently spreading pain and poverty throughout the e-commerce world. If I were running a big Las Vegas-based casino operation, I naturally would want a top-notch Internet casino. Certainly I would have no problem in acquiring a turn-key casino from one of the big software providers like Cryptologic or Microgaming, but I wouldn't want to share the "action" with anyone, so I'd develop my own software. Do you think I could locate some out-of-work technology workers in the San Francisco area who could do this for me? If the Las Vegas casinos get into the Internet gambling business, it's going to be big...very big. And they will become big employers of Internet technology workers. The irony is that many of those workers will be located in a city (San Francisco) where it just might be illegal for them to participate in the very activity that pays them.

So here's my bet: The Nevada bill will pass with little, if any, opposition and will be signed into law by its Governor. The California bill will fail, but not without a lot of opposition by the dot-com community who, if they are smart, will oppose any legislation that discourages people from participating in online commerce. The Internet was meant to be a medium for the uninhibited exchange of ideas, thoughts, information and, yes, even currency, so California (and a lot of other states and the Federal government ) should butt out.