Gambling and Public Lotteries

[IceSpear]

Allow them. Gambling and lotteries are a form of entertainment, and it is a person's choice whether or not they want to do it. If a person loses all their money because they made bad decisions, its on them.

This. The infantilization of the "poors" among many on the left is quite disturbing. Apparently they can't be trusted to buy a lottery ticket or a large soft drink because those are such unwise decisions and they must be protected by the nanny state.

Also, I don't understand how anyone could favor banning the lottery while also supporting legalizing marijuana. So poor people can be trusted to smoke a doobie but not buy a $1 lottery ticket?

[IceSpear]

Allow them. Gambling and lotteries are a form of entertainment, and it is a person's choice whether or not they want to do it. If a person loses all their money because they made bad decisions, its on them.

This. The infantilization of the "poors" among many on the left is quite disturbing. Apparently they can't be trusted to buy a lottery ticket or a large soft drink because those are such unwise decisions and they must be protected by the nanny state.

Being against government lotteries is not a "nanny state" position. Lotteries are the government taking advantage of people who often gamble for their own benefit, including creating and sustaining gambling addictions. Why should the government make money off of that?

That's much better than private companies making money off of it. And "gambling addiction" is even less scientific than "marijuana addiction." Meaning, they are "addicted" because they find it fun, unlike a physiological dependence with hard drugs.

[IceSpear]

Allow them. Gambling and lotteries are a form of entertainment, and it is a person's choice whether or not they want to do it. If a person loses all their money because they made bad decisions, its on them.

This. The infantilization of the "poors" among many on the left is quite disturbing. Apparently they can't be trusted to buy a lottery ticket or a large soft drink because those are such unwise decisions and they must be protected by the nanny state.

Academic research supports the idea that people under stress make worse decisions.

So are we banning fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, having kids, etc. unless you have proof of above average income?

Not to mention what constitues as a "bad decision" is entirely arbitary...I guess the poors should only be permitted to work and sleep?

[IceSpear]

Allow them. Gambling and lotteries are a form of entertainment, and it is a person's choice whether or not they want to do it. If a person loses all their money because they made bad decisions, its on them.

This. The infantilization of the "poors" among many on the left is quite disturbing. Apparently they can't be trusted to buy a lottery ticket or a large soft drink because those are such unwise decisions and they must be protected by the nanny state.

Being against government lotteries is not a "nanny state" position. Lotteries are the government taking advantage of people who often gamble for their own benefit, including creating and sustaining gambling addictions. Why should the government make money off of that?

That's much better than private companies making money off of it. And "gambling addiction" is even less scientific than "marijuana addiction." Meaning, they are "addicted" because they find it fun, unlike a physiological dependence with hard drugs.

I dispute that. A government that is supposed to look out for the poor and depends on gambling revenues is in a conflict of interest position.

Let's take Georgia for example. Georgia finances a large scholarship fund through a state owned lottery. Now suppose gambling becomes a larger and larger blight on our society.

If gambling was run privately, increased regulation would be less of an issue. There's an outcry over the addiction, people lobby and eventually some sort of restriction is passed. But in Georgia's situation, the lottery finances a popular social program.

Restricting lotteries would anger swing voting suburbanites while the victims of this blight are largely poor and don't to vote. Therefore politicians wouldn't do anything about the situation. Indeed, increased gambling revenues would allow for expansion of the scholarship, so there's an incentive to encourage gambling, which of course is what happens in real life.

The poor spend money they can't afford to finance programs for the middle class, while the state produces glitzy marketing campaigns and acts disturbingly like a drug pusher. So, no I don't think letting the state profit from vice is a good idea.

That's a great example, actually. I'd much rather have lottery profits funding a scholarship as opposed to lining the pockets of some billionaire CEO. And since when are scholarships only for the middle class? It sounds like it would help the poor as well.

[IceSpear]

In principle, I agree that lotteries are a regressive tax on poor people that hurts society. 

However, I wonder whether allowing legal private lotteries would actually in practice improve the situation.  What if private lotteries were more unscrupulous and scammed people?  Maybe you create laws regulating the lotteries.  But, then the government has to spend money regulating, investigating and overseeing this private lottery system, and the government has to find ways to raise the revenue that the lottery created.  Plus, the lottery proceeds would just go to a private company.  So, maybe you end up with paradoxically more government bureaucracy, the same regressive wealth effect, but with the beneficiaries being a private company and not the taxpayer and higher taxes.  That might not be worth taking a moral stand about fleecing poor people.

This nails it, I think.  Banning public lotteries will just throw away government revenue and give it to private companies. Meanwhile, instead of the revenue going to funding government programs for seniors or scholarships for students, it will be used to fund a billionaire CEO's 9th private jet.

[IceSpear]

In principle, I agree that lotteries are a regressive tax on poor people that hurts society. 

However, I wonder whether allowing legal private lotteries would actually in practice improve the situation.  What if private lotteries were more unscrupulous and scammed people?  Maybe you create laws regulating the lotteries.  But, then the government has to spend money regulating, investigating and overseeing this private lottery system, and the government has to find ways to raise the revenue that the lottery created.  Plus, the lottery proceeds would just go to a private company.  So, maybe you end up with paradoxically more government bureaucracy, the same regressive wealth effect, but with the beneficiaries being a private company and not the taxpayer and higher taxes.  That might not be worth taking a moral stand about fleecing poor people.

This nails it, I think.  Banning public lotteries will just throw away government revenue and give it to private companies. Meanwhile, instead of the revenue going to funding government programs for seniors or scholarships for students, it will be used to fund a billionaire CEO's 9th private jet.

I realize that my position here probably sounds very Moderate Hero, but I would like to keep public lotteries but slash their marketing budgets- thereby preserving their legitimate purpose as a way to keep this unavoidable activity out of more exploitative hands, and making a few bucks for gov't programs on the side, but toning down the more problematic "pusher" aspect.  I don't know if there's anyone else here who also finds that to be a least-bad compromise.

Yeah, that sounds like a good solution to me.

[IceSpear]

Also, I don't understand how anyone could favor banning the lottery while also supporting legalizing marijuana. So poor people can be trusted to smoke a doobie but not buy a $1 lottery ticket?

This is stunningly poor reasoning.

Not really. Someone who thought both of those things apparently thinks lottery tickets are more harmful to people than a recreational drug. Which is more likely, gambling addiction or marijuana addiction? I use "addictive" loosely of course, since neither is addictive in the physiological sense.