As a practicing Catholic, I figured I'd start up a nice argument here

I don't believe anyone thinks playing the odd game of poker - cash games or tourneys - whether you consider it to "gambling" or not, to be too horrendous of a thing, as long as you are playing within limits that you can afford (e.g., the man who can afford to lose $10/wk playing poker isn't playing $50 buy-ins every night).  The game is a good way to bond with friends (in the case of home games), or at the very least offers some good excitement with a group of random people who you've never met before (in the case of vacation trips to a casino, or if you sign up for a public SnG or MTT online).  It's a one time game; in the grand scheme of things, even if you end up a big winner, the players who's money you take are losing a negligible amount.

Likewise, playing professionally through tournaments doesn't seem to be too unethical, as a large field of players are contributing to the prize pools you are hoping to win.  You are playing against tourists and amateurs, who put up a one-time $100 (or $1k, or however much) tournament fee, and because there are so many buy-ins, there is potential to win a lot from little investment.  Likewise, these tourists and amateurs, are able to obtain one night's (or more) entertainment, for a fixed amount.

However, playing cash games professionally is where things turn around.  While cash game pros will win money from tourists and amateurs who want to say they've played one round with Kid Poker (and then move on after one game), you will also win a considerable sum from addicts and whatnot who play stakes about their level on a regular basis.  Is it ethically wrong to take these people's money?

On PokerStars right now, the highest stakes active NLHE cash game is $25/50, where three tables are open.  The same 6 players are playing on each table.  The chip stacks:

aejones: 6682,9971*
DerekJC9954: 5075,6544,5468
Himan33:1225,2372*
kingsofcards:5346,5423,5697
skier_5:8940,11158,11320
x JD KILLERx:5250,8784,6114

*Only playing two of the three tables

Now, while it's possible Himan bought in for the minimum (500), I find it very unlikely.  Likewise, I don't believe skier_5 has bought in for 10000 on both tables.

It is very possible that these two players are simply experiencing variance right now - himan on the low end, skier_5 on the high end - however, it is also possible that skier is taking money from the inexperienced himan, who for one reason or another just can't step down a level or two.  Is taking this (large amount of) money from a player like this, on a regular basis, ethically unjust?

And..discuss (or just say I'm one of those who's trying to ban online poker because of a moral standpoint, I don't care )