There are also many financial and social costs that come with the lottery. To begin with, lottery revenue is not a sound source of funding for the state. Studies have shown that lottery ticket sales drop in states after a brief honeymoon period in which sales are high. Consequently, the programs that expect to receive this revenue, end up having to cut their budgets. Proponents of the lottery often cite the case of Georgia's HOPE scholarship to support how lotteries can be beneficial. HOPE scholarships were created to be financed through the Georgia lottery to provide free tuition to Georgia students. However, a study conducted by William Anderson and reported by the Oklahoma Council for Public Affairs, found that Georgia lottery earnings peaked many years ago. Because Georgia made a commitment to fund these scholarships, they must now dip into the general revenue fund to add more money for the scholarships. This takes away from other programs and agencies that are funded by taxpayers. It would seem that from the experiences of Georgia and many other states, while the lottery may provide additional money to begin with, people will soon tire of playing, placing certain programs in dire funding straits.
Lotteries are also dangerous to society. Numerous studies have shown that lotteries target those who can least afford to play. A study published in the scholarly journal Public Fiance Review showed that the Texas lottery targets those who are poor. Even more startling is that this study found that minorities are targeted by the lottery. African-Americas and Hispanics play the lottery more frequently and heavily than other groups. The lottery now makes Oklahoma government a predatory government. So much for government helping people. The Bible exhorts us to care for the poor and needy (Proverbs 14:21, 14:31, 22:16). Supporting an industry that so clearly targets the poor goes against Scripture, and is just plain wrong.
Gambling is also addictive. Researchers studied the lottery in the United Kingdom and found that when average spending on gambling was doubled by the introduction of a national lottery, there was a four-fold increase in the proportion of households where gambling expenditure was excessive. The researchers also noted that in North America, pathological gambling has risen with the increase in state lotteries. Pathological and problem gamblers are more likely to be on welfare, declare bankruptcy, or be arrested. The Gambling Impact and Behavior Study estimates that gamblers cost the United States $5 billion per year in various programs and creditor losses. This does not take into account the familial costs when divorces or other family disruptions occur because of the strain addiction places on the family. This should be a stark warning to all Oklahomans when they think of supporting the lottery.
Oklahomans and Christians should consider the information above when formulating their opinion of the lottery. The violation of biblical principles is something that all Christians must seriously contemplate. Furthermore, Christians and non-Christians alike should be concerned with the financial strain, and social costs that the lottery will bring to the state. We should put what is best for all Oklahomans ahead of our own entertainment and potential financial reward.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
What about smoking and drinking?
Too many studies to count have revealed that tobacco and alcohol companies target those who should not be spending money on frivolities - meaning the poor. Yet in spite of the health risks involved with both, the citizens of this country continue to smoke and drink - spending hundreds of dollars a year on the stuff. The argument from an "immorality" viewpoint doesn't really sway me:
I think that people should have the right to smoke and drink - they should also be free to be responsible about it. As an intelligent person, I realize that smoking is hazardous and that I should never do it. Still, my parents and many of my friends previously smoked and derived pleasure from the experience. They should be free to engage in the practice, but I will continue to tell them that they are making a stupid decision.
Alcohol is something with which I have no problem - except when the person drinks to excess. Alcohol is something that is commonplace in our society, yet how many Americans have a proclivity to alcoholism? Should we impose across-the-board restrictions on alcohol (Prohibition II)? Of course not - most people will not become addicted, so there is no need to make the majority suffer because of the problems of the few.
This, in my opinion, does away with the "gambling addiction" argument as well. Why should the majority of society do away with any form of gambling because there are a few people out there who have a proclivity to addiction? Those few should seek counselling and avoid the practice - just as the few with alcoholism in their family should do the same.
The more restrictions you put on Americans, the more you run the risk of stripping people of basic freedoms. Anything is immoral when done in excess - and the human experience is all about avoiding excess.
Actually, that's not quite true, Brian - America had lotteries in the colonies when we were still colonies. They helped fund the Revolutionary War. Now, I agree with you that a long history or storied past does not make them right. But, I would just like to point out that the lottery is not new. Actually, though, your point about history might be helpful on the argument anyway. The colonial lotteries were not kept around because the colonists recognized that they were not a good thing to keep around. Alcohol and tobacco, on the other hand, (while, as you, not legitimizing the use of either) have only had, in this country anyway, a brief disrepute as far as the popular opinion goes (Prohibition).
point, set, match to you - you are right about Oklahoma.
How in the world is the historical presence/absence of something a valid argument about whether that thing is good/evil? Just because something is relatively new (either in one place or in all places) does not automatically make it "ungood."
The polio vaccine - new. The airplane - new. The Internet - new (kudos to Mr. Gore). Suspension bridges - new. Good gravy, too many things to count are relatively new to this world, and a lot of those things are way newer than lotteries.
Justin, as I'm sure you realize, my above argument against the lottery has very little to do with it being 'new' or 'old'. It has more to do with it having fallen out of favor (or, the persons administering it realizing that it is not a good idea). Or, in the case of alcohol or tobacco, not necessarily with the use of those being old, but more with the use of those being accepted (again, not legitimizing either) throughout their long existence. If the lottery is old and disfavored, I think it says a lot more about it than if it is new and favored. You make a fair point, but I just thought I'd clarify :). Incidentally, only 'new' gravy is good, fyi.
Justin,
Good points. Just a few comments from me.
Would you support a government brand of cigarettes and alcohol? Only the government would be allowed to sell these products and would then rack in the royalities. This is what the lottery is, a government instituted and administered program that is inherently designed to target those who are poor.
The lottery by design must have those who are addicted. It is not a racket that would be able to operate without addiction.
You said: "Why should the majority of society do away with any form of gambling because there are a few people out there who have a proclivity to addiction?" Have you looked at the statistics? It is not just a "few people" who are addicted, and the emotional and financial catastrophes that are created because of this addiction affect us all.
Maybe those of us who oppose the lottery are a minority, but we are a minority who believe that government should not prey on people. We are a minority who believe it is NOT right to teach children that it is just fine to prey and profit upon those who have a problem.
But I oppose the lottery for more than just the moral reasons. I think it is a fiscally terrible public policy. As I've already written, it is an unstable source of revenue. I would much rather fund education (or ANY program for that matter) by first reforming the system and then using taxes.
So, I oppose the lottery on both moral and good governance grounds.
Incidentally, you must think that drugs should be legalized?
Legalize drugs: Oh good heavens, no! Perish the thought, I would oppose it till the day I die.
As for government-brand cigarettes and alcohol, the equivalent already exists in several states in the form of the Alcoholic Beverage Commission (ABC). My best example is in Virginia, where all of the liquor stores are state-owned and operated. Presumably the state is required to initially purchase the alcohol from the name-brand companies, but all of the profits are made by the State. Just a side point, really.
Are you really "addicted" to the lottery if you buy a ticket every time the lottery is drawn? In other words, if you spend two dollars twice a week on the lottery drawings, you have lost about $4.00. Would you really consider that person addicted to the game? I'll admit that the lottery purposely targets those who fall into this category - the "regulars." Most of the people who play the lottery fall into this category - one or two dollars every drawing. Are they "addicted," in the immoral sense that you are referring to? Even if we are talking about the "scratch-off" games for which you can buy as many tickets as you want, the majority of people who play those types of games are only purchasing a few tickets a week.
Honestly, I don't think that you can call this an "addiction" anymore than you can call it immoral. For example, is the person who goes out each Friday at Happy Hour and has two beers "addicted" to alcohol? That man spends about $5.00, which is more than the average lottery-guy, per week. Yet, I would be willing to hazard a guess that no one would consider him "addicted" to alcohol. The alcohol industry, however, deliberately targets the "regular consumers."
"Emotional and financial catastrophes?" Are you referring to full-fledged gambling addiction, the psychological disorder? I agree that a gambling addiction causes serious problems, but I will strongly contest that the majority of people who play the lottery are acting on a diagnosable case of "gambling addiction." As I said, most of the people who play fall into the "regular, yet reasonable players" group (no more than $3.00 on each drawing). That falls well short of a gambling addiction. Such people are found in areas where slot-machines and gambling halls are legal - which is why you don't see any billboards advertising for "gambling addiction hotlines" in states that only have a lottery. I will admit that some people who play the lottery probably fall into the "gambling addiction" category - but they are the exception, not the rule.
One preliminary comment:
I am only addressing the "immorality" arguments right now. We can get to the fiscal issues after we have treated these arguments first. Just to organize our highly interesting debate. I'm enjoying this!
Justin,
A few statistics from the Gambling Impact and Behavior study. http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/new/gamb-fin.htm
Lotteries and casinos (we now have both on Oklahoma) are the most common forms of gambling.
There are an estimated 2 ½ million pathological gamblers and another 3 million people could be considered problem gamblers (hardly a “few”). By the way, I’m not going to list the definition of gambling addiction due to space, but it is based on the American Psychological Association’s DSM-IV and is a little more than buying a few lottery tickets each month.
15 million people are at risk of becoming problem gamblers, and 148 million are low-risk gamblers.
Pathological and problem gamblers, who comprise about 2.5 percent of adults, probably account for 15 percent of casino, lottery, and pari-mutuel receipts from the gamblers who are represented in the surveys.
Pathological and problem gamblers in the United States cost society approximately
$5 billion per year and an additional $40 billion in lifetime costs for productivity reductions, social services, and creditor losses. However, these calculations are inadequate to capture the intrafamilial costs of divorce and family disruption associated with problem and pathological gambling.
Consider these troubling facts relating to youth and gambling:
Youths 16 and 17 years old gamble less than adults and differently from adults…especially betting on card games and sports and buying instant lottery tickets.
Adjusting for the smaller amounts of money at stake, the rates of pathological and problem gambling among 16 and 17 year olds are similar to those for adults, and the rate of at-risk gambling is about double the adult rate.
My final piece of evidence on this comes from a study in the United Kingdom published in the journal Addiction the two scholars found that, “the single distribution theory applies to gambling behaviour. The increase in average gambling expenditure associated with the introduction of a national lottery in the United Kingdom has led to a pronounced increase in the prevalence of excessive gambling, especially in low-income households. This is likely to increase the prevalence of gambling disorders and to exacerbate social inequalities.”
And there are gambling addiction hotlines in states with lotteries. In fact, Oklahoma lottery law requires one, and a portion of lottery proceeds go to fund this center. And you can bet it will be in high demand.
It is fascinating to contemplate the very different perspectives that each of you bring up and argue with regards to the lottery. Putting all questions of morality, or even good governance aside (while exceedingly good points, both), here is just my one thought:
While I would like to live in the world God intended at creation, the one where His creatures wisely use the gift of free will and the good sense that He gave us, reality stands that I don't. From the Tree of Good and Evil on, people made bad choices.
Now it seems that the thing that sets apart vices like smoking, drinking, gambling , and eating fruit foul enough to give the world original sin =) is not only the effect that they have on the person who engages in these activities, but the effect that it has on others. I think this often needs to be something considered when establishing whether or not we should allow people to exercise their free will (as previously mentioned), or put some controls in place for those who cannot do it for themselves.
The argument against seat belt laws has been made many times. "But it's only affecting me if I don't buckle up." Bull. If you're not buckled up when you're in an accident, you're not going to stay in your seat; leaving your seat significantly lowers your chances of controlling the wheel of the car, placing me, an innocent passer-by, in a great deal more risk, etc. Therefore, because you place me at risk by your refusal to buckle up, it's no longer something I wish to be left to your supposedly "good judgement." (For those of you who don't buckle up out there, I'm sorry, but seriously think about it.) If you're going to drink in excess it affects me, if you're going to smoke around me, it affects me and eventually my insurance rates. Likewise, if you are going to spend all of your money on your obsession with "hitting it lucky" one fine night at the local 7-11, then this affects me too. You'll end up on food stamps, or maybe you'll just end up filing Bancrupcy because you're in over your head (because as previously stated we know those who frequently purchase have very little, if any, disposable income to begin with--I've worked "sub-prime" credit card collections; these people put lottery tickets on their $200 credit limit credit cards). Either way it affects me through the economy. Call me silly, but I'd rather there be laws prohibiting that particular lack of discretion.
Now, I personally an a universal bleeder. If somebody is hurting themselves, then I care because they are hurting themselves. But, even if we don't have the desire to help those people for themselves by removing this huge stumbling block from their paths, then we should at least consider how it is affecting those who did not make the choice to spend their food budget on lottery tickets; it's not fair to them either.
Molly - I love your argument, and I have to admit, I've never thought of the analogy between gambling and wearing a seat belt. Wonderful thoughts. Thank you for putting your two cents in!
Well, it would seem that there is trouble in paradise... *chuckle*
Molly and I had a long conversation about the lottery just a few minutes ago after she informed me where she came down on the whole debate. It was enlightening, but alas - I remain unswayed. Of course, so does she. *laugh*
Basically, I posit three main points that I leave you with for tonight:
1. You cannot logically or consistently draw a distinction for purposes of this argument between gambling and alcohol. They both have "detrimental effect on society" in the same way. For this same reason, it doesn't matter whether the gambling or alcohol is state-sponsored or not - it's still immoral one way or another, and it will still have that "detrimental effect."
2. Once you admit that there is no distinction between gambling and alcohol for purposes of this train of argument, there are only two possible solutions:
a. No legislative intervention to curb or wholly stop the practices, or
b. A complete flat-ban on the practices in any form (absolutely no gambling, or a prohibition of alcohol).
My reasoning for this is simple: if it's immoral, it's immoral. Will you allow gambling/alcohol for only some, but not for others? Will you place on certain restrictions on the practices (i.e. only at a certain age). These have not solved the "detrimental effects" of the practices in the past (i.e. you still have gambling addiction and drunk-driving incidents).
3. A flat ban on both of these things would have two major problems:
a. It would be ill-advised, because of the horrendous bad effects that would crop up in relation to Black Markets.
b. It is so fundamentally unfair that it shocks my conscience. After all, you are once again harming the majority of society to benefit the minority.
As I've said, most Americans have the ability to actually drink or gamble in moderation. Why should those people have their right to enjoy the two pleasures stripped from them because of an idiotic and imprudent minority?
In the end, I agree entirely with the argument that those who become addicted to gamling and alcohol cause monumental problems for society - in money, psychological damage, etc. Still, it's just so hard for me to come to grips with the end-result of stripping a large majority of certain pleasures simply because there are those that abuse them.
Again, Justin, I ask the question, are you in favor of legalizing currently illegal drugs? Using your reasoning, you MUST be.
Nope - drugs are always immoral, no matter how seldom you use them. They will have a provable detrimental effect on a person's physiology and mental make-up even the first time they are used. The inherent risk involved with doing drugs even once means that you can never morally do them.
Gambling, alcohol, and smoking (while obviously harmful if done to excess) carry almost no risk. So long as you do the activities in moderation (as previously stated), no harm will come from them. As long as you are smart about engaging in the practices, you will be all right. Drugs, however, can never be done "smartly," for the reasons I've named above.
I am completely against legalizing drugs for these reasons, and have no problem with gambling, cigarettes, and alcohol because they are acceptable when done in moderation.
I thought to myself "smoking done in moderation carries almost no risk?" So I did a quick search, and came across this website about what happens you when you smoke. It's worth a read: http://www.chennaidarling.com/cabin/article/smoking.htm
Going back to the lottery, what you and I have here is a deadlock. ;) I say the lottery is bad public policy, you say bad public policy ought not to be restricted. Okay, we'll just settle on this: I'm right, you're wrong (isn't that how the game is played??). ;) lol...
Definitely agree:
You're wrong, I'm right. See? That felt good and we've settled the issue. *chuckle*
Post a Comment