Massachusetts congressman Barney Frank recently announced his retirement at the end of his current term. It’s too bad, because Frank was not only on the right side of the debate on online poker, having proposed multiple bills to legalize and regulate it, he was there for the right reasons. Since the existing legislation targets “games of chance,” much of the debate has focused on whether poker is, in fact, a game of chance or a game of skill. The question is foolish and has no answer: poker involves a lot of chance and a lot of skill. Much like the wrangling over the Second Amendment and gun rights, the debate often bogged down in semantics, when we should really be talking about what is the best policy for our country. Frank understood that the crux of the issue is both simpler and far more central to our democracy: “I don’t think we should ban poker or anything else that’s voluntary and doesn’t hurt anyone else… Adults should be allowed to do on the internet what they prefer to do… I’m for as much freedom for people [as possible] as long as they’re not harming others.” Dead on. What’s perplexing is who’s against poker, and why?