I've always been opposed to all public gambling (though I don't see a problem with, say, a low-ante poker game between friends). Gambling, like drugs and alcohol, carries inherent addiction potential. Some people's neurochemistry makes them especially susceptible to addiction. You can argue that most drinkers are not alcoholics and most …
I've always been opposed to all public gambling (though I don't see a problem with, say, a low-ante poker game between friends). Gambling, like drugs and alcohol, carries inherent addiction potential. Some people's neurochemistry makes them especially susceptible to addiction. You can argue that most drinkers are not alcoholics and most gamblers are not addicts, but that does not address the actual problem. Flip it around the other way: The vast majority of alcohol sold in the US is purchased by alcoholics, and the vast majority of money wagered is lost by people with a gambling problem. The alcohol industry promotes alcoholism because it knows it could not be profitable if everyone drank responsibly. Likewise, the gambling industry promotes addiction because that is how it makes its profit.
I was raised United Methodist. The UMC has always taken a strong and vocal stance against gambling. (Whenever a gambling initiative is on the ballot, the UMC outspends all other gambling opponents combined to combat it.) So, I was conscious of the social ills of problem gambling a long time ago. One of my pastors was raised in poverty after his father gambled away the family's wealth. Another example: My cousin's second wife, who worked in a Louisiana casino, got hooked on gambling and stole $100 their daughter had won in a talent competition to gamble with. The marriage didn't last much longer after that.
State-sponsored lotteries are not profitable, on net, for state governments. State gambling revenue is not sufficient to pay for the social ills that result from gambling. But wealthy gambling interests can always find politicians willing to take their money in exchange for selling out their citizens.
I've always been opposed to all public gambling (though I don't see a problem with, say, a low-ante poker game between friends). Gambling, like drugs and alcohol, carries inherent addiction potential. Some people's neurochemistry makes them especially susceptible to addiction. You can argue that most drinkers are not alcoholics and most gamblers are not addicts, but that does not address the actual problem. Flip it around the other way: The vast majority of alcohol sold in the US is purchased by alcoholics, and the vast majority of money wagered is lost by people with a gambling problem. The alcohol industry promotes alcoholism because it knows it could not be profitable if everyone drank responsibly. Likewise, the gambling industry promotes addiction because that is how it makes its profit.
I was raised United Methodist. The UMC has always taken a strong and vocal stance against gambling. (Whenever a gambling initiative is on the ballot, the UMC outspends all other gambling opponents combined to combat it.) So, I was conscious of the social ills of problem gambling a long time ago. One of my pastors was raised in poverty after his father gambled away the family's wealth. Another example: My cousin's second wife, who worked in a Louisiana casino, got hooked on gambling and stole $100 their daughter had won in a talent competition to gamble with. The marriage didn't last much longer after that.
State-sponsored lotteries are not profitable, on net, for state governments. State gambling revenue is not sufficient to pay for the social ills that result from gambling. But wealthy gambling interests can always find politicians willing to take their money in exchange for selling out their citizens.