I am fully supportive of that.
Unless it's not-for-profit or single use (e.g. lottery revenue going to schools), then it's a regressive tax on people who don't understand probability.
What they didn't tell us is it wasn't additional funds to existing budgets, but they would pilfer the existing budget and replace it with lottery proceeds.
Lying, smarmy politicians. You'd figure we'd learn by now.
This is precisely why I support lotteries etc.
Impressive karma btw.
I could see an argument in favor of them if:
* Sellers were obligated to disclose the odds of winning the jackpot at the time of purchase punishable to the same extent as underage liquor sales
* The state was required to render, upon request, financial consultation at the burden of the state to winners whose consultation can, at the winner's discretion, be recorded and later reviewed to understand the advice rendered and its context with respect to the winner's financial situation and risk profile
That is more than a little heavy handed, if not a downright Draconian economic policy.