Here are a couple of items worth noting for those who believe adults should be free to dispose of their disposable income as they please and that government shouldn't interfere unnecessarily with what people choose to do in the privacy of their own Web browsers.

First, in an announcement that was muffled by the commercial din of Black Friday, Uncle Sam has backed off for at least six months on enforcing a criminally misguided crackdown on transactions between credit-card companies and the users of Internet poker sites and online casinos.

In the meantime, brick-and-mortar casino owners in California have taken a new swing at convincing lawmakers there that allowing, regulating and taxing online poker sites would provide that perpetually cash-strapped state with a measure of financial relief. It would also provide a U.S.-based alternative for the estimated 1 million Californians who currently play poker on sites that operate and generate their profits abroad.

(2010's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries)

The California initiative is likely a non-starter without that six-month enforcement reprieve becoming a permanent commutation.

That legislative effort is being led by U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a longtime proponent of Internet freedom. From a story in this morning's Boston Globe:

"I urged them to do it and I was very pleased,'' the Newton Democrat said of the (enforcement) delay. "It gives us a chance.''

You won't find the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee at a poker table or roulette wheel, as Frank doesn't gamble. But he said he does not want the government telling people what to do with their own money.

Frank has established himself as a friend of the online gambling industry by seeking to overturn a 2006 law that will make it illegal for US credit card companies to process charges from Internet gambling sites.

The law, intended to cut off the life blood of the $16-billion-a-year online gambling industry, was scheduled to take effect Dec. 1. But last week, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department pushed back the effective date until June to give Frank and other gambling supporters time to draft a bill to set up a system to regulate and collect taxes from legal online gaming.

The reprieve was announced the day after Thanksgiving, at which time Frank issued a press release saying: "This will give us a chance to act in an unhurried manner on my legislation to undo this regulatory excess by the Bush administration and to undo this ill-advised law."

As for what's happening in California, here's what the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday:

With the state bracing for billions of dollars in budget shortfalls, a group of casinos is offering California leaders a stake in a new pot of money if they allow Internet poker sites to set up business in the state.

A consortium including the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the Commerce Casino plans to take the idea to the state Legislature next month. The two would be among the gambling interests seeking to operate poker websites if the proposal were approved.

Proponents estimate the state could reap $250 million a year from such an arrangement. And while government revenue is by no means the best reason for legalizing, regulating and taxing online gambling, $250 million a year will fund a lot of teachers, police officers and firefighters.

But the principle is far more important here. And, as regular readers know, this issue is a personal one, too.

Unlike Frank, I do play poker (although I've never played online). Last Monday, I drove from my home in Massachusetts to a casino in Connecticut to play in a Texas Hold 'Em poker tournament. Friday evening, I played poker with a group of friends, a group that has been doing so for 12 years now.

We're not criminals. The government should not treat us as criminals.