The Lottery: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

I was actually thinking outside of slots. A lot of gambling practices are still illegal like sports betting in most of America. Such illegal gambling often leads to some sort of organized crime around providing loans and the actual gambling service itself. But I was also thinking of alcohol prohibition in the 1920's and the current drug prohibition. The black markets that these events created are not that dissimilar from the one around gambling and the core cause is the same. I do think that eliminating the profit incentive is something that could work. The profit from gambling is cited as a redeeming quality, however, as a reason for legalized gambling to exist. The overwhelming idea, at least in the US, is that if people are going to have a vice (or fun, depending on your perspective), their activities should be taxed so that others (corporations and the government mainly) can profit from them. Perhaps if the money actually went to fund schools and other things that benefit society, I could get behind this viewpoint, but regardless of the claims of governments that have legal gambling, it doesn't. This John Oliver segment about it is pretty interesting: [this video]

This is good news and bad news. The funding for schools will be a boon to education in the state, and that's certainly not bad. However, I expect will almost certainly lead to decreased education funding from other revenue sources, and ultimately place education footing on less solid ground for years to come. It was brilliant PR move to earmark the tax revenue for education, there's no doubt about that. It's very hard to argue with such things, and many other states have opted to dedicate certain "sin taxes" to select public works. For example, earmarking some funds for veterans affairs out of state lottery tickets as my state (Iowa) does, or education as many more states do. On the surface, this seems like a brilliant way to justify revenue collection for what many citizens would consider unseemly or undignified. It is an effective sales pitch to say to a voter, "You may disagree with marijuana legalization, but it will bring in $50 million dollars to state schools." The problem is that budgets will adjust to incorporate this earmark for future years. That is, education budgets are likely to reflect this revenue for future years. That's precisely what has happened in so many states where state lottery revenues have been earmarked for education and other noble causes. John Oliver's Last Week Tonight had an excellent take on a similar topic: the "sin tax" of state lottery tickets. See here: [this video] It is wonderful that marijuana taxes are going to a good cause. It is dangerous

I think we are in agreement this is all legal, and are just disagreeing about the meaning of 'restricted'. Your usage is in legal terms, whereas I'm talking about what was advertised. > The didn't just decide to spend specific dollars on one cause that had been collected under a guise of a different cause. Actually, in the case of the lottery, there are examples of this. See the part at 12:24 - [this video] Perhaps one can say it was legal and not restricted money. Regardless, it is definitely odd how the state advertises that lottery money goes to education, and meanwhile corporate tax money disappears from the education budget. The point is not legality, it is ethics.

The reasoning behind why lotteries can be damaging to the socioeconomically disadvantaged is similar to that of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. It offers an escape and "hope", as some have put it for the lottery, but there is almost an infinitesimally small chance that something good will come out of it. The problem with this is not people playing the lottery in general (even if it is objectively throwing away money). I've even bought into the office pool a few times more as "social insurance" than anything else. The problem IS that the lottery takes advantage of those who need that marginal dollar the most under the pretense of funding state education, which, according to John Oliver, doesn't even seem to be true[1]. [1] [this video]