Add to this the fact that lottery winners are usually no better off a few years after winning and I can't see any reason why the state should sponsor them.
Add to this the fact that lottery winners are usually no better off a few years after winning and I can't see any reason why the state should sponsor them.
In the absence of state lotteries, people with gambling problems would just find another way to gamble that supports organized crime rather than the state.
In NL we just had a huge scandal with the legal lottery being essentially a rigged game with far less chance of paying out than they would have you believe. (This does not affect me because I've never put a red cent towards a lottery but I can see how those that felt that the state could be trusted in this respect feel more than a little let down).
Of course they would have to be regulated, the mob will just do whatever they want.
In California the mob "numbers racket" had a better payout (as a percentage of ticket sales) than the state lottery does.
I thought the common plan was to shift other sources of funding for what ever the lottery is meant for. Money is fungible so the end result is basically the same, but they technically are allowed to claim the lottery money is going to where it is supposed to. Lawmakers just never mention that for every dollar the lottery makes, they take a dollar out of the normal budget allocation and put it somewhere else.
[0]http://www.texaspolicy.com/blog/detail/tracking-the-distribu...