Do you even remember that at first, when the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was introduced, it was compared to the Prohibition Era? Meanwhile, the Poker Prohibition has been enforced, aggressively so, but (almost) a year later is still on the table. In fact - it is on many tables, including editorial desks, Capitol Hill, even on podiums at Presidential debates.

Another opinion was expressed this week, joining editorials from a number of American publications. The latest was authored and signed by New Jersey Representatives Steve Israel (Democrat) and Pete King (Republican). It appeared in the New York Post. The cross-party, high profile partnership on the issue raises the validity of some of the arguments.

These include a call to tax the business, not ban it, for the economic value of doing so. It also calls for the Treasury Department, responsible for enforcing the Act, to keep itself focused on its more important tasks (investigating counterfeit money, tracking terrorist financing, protecting the President) and not invest its energies in yet another task.

Concern of gamblers' safety is also a valid and even powerful argument. Americans are still able to gamble online, and are surely going to continue doing so, only now they lack the protection that a regulating body (i.e. the government) could provide them with.

Israel and King are supporters of the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act (IGREA). It is a large framework for a future of gambling, regulated and taxed to everyone's satisfaction.

So is a change in the making? What is clear at the moment is that the issue is still on many powerful people's minds and on powerful newspaper's pages.