Idaho Lottery at $300 million....

[djm]

Seems a very expensive cookie. I'm a muff ... er .. muffin man, myself.

djm

[djm]

I threaten no-one, and have no desire to hurt anyone. Where did you get such a strange idea?

djm

[Jack]

I threaten no-one, and have no desire to hurt anyone. Where did you get such a strange idea?

djm

I didn't.

[Whistlin'Dixie]

It would be really hypocritical of me to criticize the lottory as the revenues of the GA state lottory have paid my tuition for the past three and a half years and will next semester too, but I see the problems with it.

The really sad thing about this scholarship I'm on is that it actually helps kids in richer areas more than poor kids because rich kids get a better education, better grades, and are more likely to go to college and keep the B average needed to keep the scholarship.

I'm not rich, but I'm damn lucky.

I can agree with Sam, but I am not saying anything against the GA lottery, for it paid "IN FULL" my Biology degree, enabling me to get to where I am now. I am grateful.

It funded preschool for my two youngest, as well. In fact, not just an extra 10 bucks per child either. There was an enormous surplus of supplies for the kids in our school district, extra $$ to employ teacher aides, fund field trips, get buses, etc. And isn't PEACH funded by the GA lottery as well? (Not sure)

The GA lottery at least gives folks the HOPE that if they work hard, they can achieve their goals. ANYONE. It would be much worse if one worked really hard to make the grade to get into an institute of higher learning, and then not be able to afford to go at all. I have a hard time believing that if anyone tries, they can't maintain a B average (flame away) ~ I did it as a geographically single mom of 4 small boys, without too much difficulty. And that's after being out of school for over 20 years. And in Georgia, if you don't quite make it one semester or quarter, but you do earn B average the next, the grant is reinstituted.

Say what you will about the lottery, people are people, and will do with their money/resources what they will.
A person at my work was recently approached in a local supermarket by someone with foodstamps just the other night. Wanted to sell them to her 2 for 1 for cash. Who knows what he intended to buy? So it isn't just about the lottery.

And people do win.
I guess if I "only" won half of 300 mill, and paid 50% tax on the remainder, I wouldn't be too darn sad.

M

[I.D.10-t]

300million? I will not buy a ticket until it means something! One billion or nothing. Who can live on something less?

[RonKiley]

All of life is a test. Gambling and tobacco are the IQ test.

Ron

[djm]

I didn't.

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

djm

[Random notes]

I think the morality issues are a little misplaced. Poor judgement is not corrected by removing all opportunites to exercise poor judgement. Poor judgement is the product of poor education as well as psych issues, like impulse control etc.*

For most of us, gambling is entertainment. Yesterday, the KY Powerball was up to 200+ mill. I know that the odds of winning are pretty much the same whether I play or not, but for a measly $5 I got to fantasize about having all my debts paid, my future insured and buying all my friends on C&F a pint of their favorite.

Well, I didn't win. (I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!) So I will go to work tomorrow, get physically ill when it comes to bill-paying time, worry about my retirement fund and invite all my friends on C&F to think a kind thought for me when they raise a glass on their dime.

But the fantasy was fun while it lasted.

Roger

*To put it another way, good judgement is the product of experience. Experience is the product of poor judgement.

[Whistlin'Dixie]

Thank you, Roger. I agree.

M

Raising a glass with all the millions of other losers....

[djm]

Raising a glass with all the millions of other losers....

I guess that leaves me out. I'm not a loser. I'm a winner-in-waiting.

djm

[izzarina]

I think the morality issues are a little misplaced.

Just for the record, I wasn't trying to make this a moral issue (in my response to Cran). The last time it hit $210 million here in Ohio, I actually bought a ticket. From what I understand, the lottery is at least attempted to be used for good. Although I do know people who have a "problem" and spend enormous amounts of money on scratch off tickets as well as the regular ones. In many of these cases, I tend to think there is more to it than just poor judgment.

[Random notes]

Although I do know people who have a "problem" and spend enormous amounts of money on scratch off tickets as well as the regular ones. In many of these cases, I tend to think there is more to it than just poor judgment.

Sorry - I meant to be concise, not flip.

IMHO, there are underlying issues with respect to compulsive (addictive) gambling which manifests as "poor judgement". Of course, any discussion of addictions opens up the question of personal responsibility Here in KY, there are billboards for Gamblers Anonymous but the advertising is nowhere near the scale of lottery advertising. Still, it is not the responsibility of the state to outlaw the actions of consenting and informed adults simply because they might be self-destructive; it is the responsibility of the state to provide its citizens with the means act on the basis of informed consent and to provide options (other than imprisonment) for individuals who become trapped in addictive, self-destructive behaviors and want help in getting out. IMHO.

Roger

[izzarina]

Although I do know people who have a "problem" and spend enormous amounts of money on scratch off tickets as well as the regular ones. In many of these cases, I tend to think there is more to it than just poor judgment.

Sorry - I meant to be concise, not flip.

I honestly didn't take your statement to be flip....I apologize for making it seem that I did.

Still, it is not the responsibility of the state to outlaw the actions of consenting and informed adults simply because they might be self-destructive; it is the responsibility of the state to provide its citizens with the means act on the basis of informed consent and to provide options (other than imprisonment) for individuals who become trapped in addictive, self-destructive behaviors and want help in getting out. IMHO.

Hmm....while I do agree with you that personal responsibility factors in, I do also disagree about the state's responsibility to outlaw such actions at times. For example, most people here would not disagree that the state has the absolute right to outlaw the making and selling of illegal drugs (such as Crack cocaine), to make it illegal for a person under the age of 21 (in most states) to purchase alcohol, or in the case we are discussing now, for a person under the age of 18 to purchase lottery tickets. The state does have the responsibility to protect the citizens of said state, and while I do tend to think that there are many times the state takes it too far, it is still within it's rights, as well as it's duty, to make sure that the citizens are protected. The common good is something long forgotten in this country, but it's something that needs to be considered in these cases. It is better for the common good that crack be outlawed, despite the fact that some of the people using it are informed consenting adults, just as an example.

[Random notes]

For example, most people here would not disagree that the state has the absolute right to outlaw the making and selling of illegal drugs (such as Crack cocaine), to make it illegal for a person under the age of 21 (in most states) to purchase alcohol, or in the case we are discussing now, for a person under the age of 18 to purchase lottery tickets.

Age restrictions are based on the concept of informed consent. A person's judgement clearly develops over time, and it must not be socially acceptable to permit children to make their own decisions about whether to do drugs, gamble, have sex, etc. There may be arguments about the particular age of consent and whether the law is correct in mandating that the age is the same for every individual. Personally, I am satisfied that the law must set a blanket age and that it may be set at 16, 18 or 21 for various purposes.

As for the rest of your statement, I must respectfully disagree that the state has the absolute right to criminalize any activity solely involving consenting adults. It has the right to do so only when the loss of freedom is adequately compensated by improvement in the common good.

Does incaracrating drug users actually work to the common good? As far as the user is concerned, the answer is clearly "No." I have little first hand knowledge of life inside prison, but from what I have read and heard noone comes out improved. If anything, incarceration promotes contempt for the criminal justice system and the society that put them through it.

Consider prohibition - when was the last time a liquor distributor gunned down a bar owner for doing business with someone else? Much of the damage done by illegal drugs is by dint of the fact that they are illegal. Decriminalizing drugs makes drug use and trafficking less dangerous.

I am aware that drug abuse affects both the user and the user's family; however, incarcerating the head of a household does not do the family any favor either. In the case of people in federally subsidized housing a conviction of one family member will put the rest of the family on the street. Again, I do not see how criminalizing drug use works to the common weal.

Finally the "war on drugs" has horribly distorted American foreign policy. We have caused great damage all over the world, especially in S America where we have propped up brutal and bloody dictatorships in the name of fighting drugs. And war on the poppy crop may yet cause a destabilization of Afghanistan; we all remember what happened the last time.

I am absolutely not denying the destructivenss of drugs. It is tragic to watch a family member succumb to an addiction that disfigures and destroys them and everything they could have been. Even someone who recovers never regains the life lost in the haze. I just do not accept that criminalization is the best approach. In fact, I think that the record shows that almost anything else could not be worse.

Alternatives? Counseling, treatment, education, tolerance - the money currently diverted to the criminal justice system would pay for a lot, and a lot of research besides. Of course, there would still be people lost to drugs - but how is that worse than now?

The real problems are 1)politicians need a bogeyman, and drug users fit the bill. And 2) the privatizing of prisons (an incredibly bizarre notion, but perhaps that's just me) has created powerful economic interests in maintaining the largest prison system possible. Consequently, any attempt at genuine public debate is quickly short-circuited lest these interests be threatened.

IMHO, of course.

Perhaps we should slide this over to the political forum if you would like to continue. I am pretty beat, so it is not likely that I'll be posting again tonight.

Roger

[izzarina]

Perhaps we should slide this over to the political forum if you would like to continue. I am pretty beat, so it is not likely that I'll be posting again tonight.

Roger

Nah...I really was just more musing upon what you said than trying to argue the point. I do agree with much of what you said here anyway. That's what happens to me when I post a thought in process
I am not a proponent of "big government" at all, although I do realize that it very much sounded like I was in my earlier post. Can you tell that I'm rather beat myself tonight?
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Roger. I appreciate you taking the time to write it out