The Scoop: Anti-lottery camp is not convincing
I’ve never been a huge lottery supporter so this column shouldn’t be confused with pro-lottery rhetoric.
I have, however, listened to both sides of the issue and find the main argument presented by lottery opponents to be condescending and inaccurate.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this statement from the anti-lottery camp: “We’ve got to vote against the lottery because a lottery would cripple the poor. You would have single mothers walking past the baby food to spend all their money on lottery tickets.”
For starters, this is the most unfounded piece of information I’ve ever heard. I have yet to stumble upon one study which indicates mothers are more likely to let their children go hungry in states which have a lottery.
What does this argument say about poor, or lower-income, people? It’s basically saying poor people are stupid. They are so stupid, in fact, they would buy lottery tickets instead of providing food for their family. Therefore, so the argument goes, it’s our duty to save these poor people from their own stupidity because they aren’t smart enough to live their life without our supervision.
Gee, what a caring society we are. That’s not to mention the fact I’ve never heard of a person actually buying so many lottery tickets they couldn’t provide for their own basic needs. Drugs and alcohol, yes. Lottery tickets, no.
And I don’t say this because I’m a lottery supporter. Since I don’t believe there’s any chance I would ever hit the jackpot, the only thing a lottery would do for me is: 1) take my money, and 2) contribute to someone else’s fortune. That’s why I don’t find the idea of playing the lottery particularly thrilling.
As for people other than poor people who would play a Tennessee lottery, what about middle-income families – with two car payments and credit card debt up to their ears. These might be families who are living comfortably, complete with cell phone and SUV, but are still living paycheck to paycheck without much margin for error.
Is it OK if these middle-income people play the lottery? Or are they also not smart enough to know how to handle their money?
It’s not right for the anti-lottery campaign to try and dictate how people spend their money. Last time I checked, people in this country were allowed to spend their own money how they pleased.
I can only hope the rest of my expenditures wouldn’t suddenly have to meet with someone else’s approval. I could really use a new dress shirt – that is if it’s OK with the anti-lottery people. But a $20 dress shirt from JCPenney might constitute a disproportionate amount of my clothing budget and therefore should not be allowed because I need to buy more baby food.
Since this is a free country, I am free to spend my money however I wish. If I want to buy 1,000 lottery tickets, then that’s my business. It might not be the best financial move, but people do ill-advised things with their money all the time.
How many folks have bought new cars only to discover they can’t afford the payments? How many people have filed for personal bankruptcy? If I were to guess, I’d say at least 25 percent of all Americans have done one of the above – and that’s only a guess.
Now how many people have sacrificed their financial stability by purchasing lottery tickets? How many hungry folks have been forced to choose between a lottery ticket and a warm meal and picked the lottery ticket? My guess is not many.
I say all this not as a lottery supporter, but as someone who is offended by the anti-lottery stance. If the main argument against the lottery insults my intelligence and tries to take away my freedom to spend my money as I wish, chances are it’s not going to get my vote.
(James Clark is editor of the Standard. He can be reached at 473-2191 or by e-mail at [email protected].)