The OKLAHOMA LOTTERY: Who Wins? Who Loses?

[JACkory]

Well, Oklahoma voters gave the thumbs up for the Lottery and it's been a week since the thing went into effect. The result so far? Long lines at the check-out counters in convenience stores and much confusion as to the difference between the Lottery's scratch-off cards and the kind that have been legal and available for years now.
The Lottery was successful because the money made is earmarked for education, but do you think it's going to be worth it in the long run?
I'd like to know your opinions.
Thank you.

[chrisfan]

I don't think any lottery is worth it in the long run, for anything but the fun that it can bring to the people who participate ... at least those who can afford to participate. Most (if not all) lotteries say the money is for education. They did that in Ohio. But in Ohio, the money is limited as to what it can be used for - capital expenses only. So when schools have problems with operating budgets, they can't touch the lottery money, and tax payers don't understand why they need more money "since they have the lottery money". In addition, after the operating expenses, lotteries don't generate THAT much revenue.

So in addition to that, you've got the problem of politicians who kick back and say "We've got the lottery now, so we've solved the problem". It does NOT solve the problem, it just gives them a few years off from trying to solve it.

I have no problem morally with lotteries. I just don't think they reap the benefits that people trying to sell them to voters claim they do.

[JACkory]

I do have a "moral problem" with lotteries, I voted against the Oklahoma Lottery and I think it's going to be a bad thing for the state. Back of my moral problem with 'em is a belief that Karmic havoc is wreaked by enjoying the spoils of another man's loss.
Beyond my ethical qualms, however, is the objective reality that there are gonna be a LOT of people spending money they don't really have to spend on this thing. Gambling, as we all know, can become a serious addiction, and it's the poor who are going to suffer most in the long run.
We'll just have to wait and see if the money really goes where the government says it's going. I may be pessimistic but I don't trust politicians and I somehow doubt it will.
For now I will seek out establishments that are not participating in the Lottery and patronize them.

[Dr. Drum]

Governments in Canada have relied on lotteries to supplement the tax stream since the early 70s. Add to that the casinos that several provinces partnered with the private sector on in the last 10/15 years, and the now ubiquitous VLTs, and an ever increasing level of government revenue derives from gambling. I don’t have moral problems with gambling per se but there are obvious social ills associated with it - i.e. gambling addiction - so I think it is problematic when governments become reliant on it in a big way.

Don’t know about other provinces but in Nova Scotia we’re now starting to see a real public backlash against it, particularly VLTs.

[chrisfan]

I am very skeptical of the overall acceptance of casinos being a big generator of revenue period. Without question, there are examples where it has worked - Vegas being the most obvious. But it seems that at this point, so many locales are turning to casinos as the answer to generating revenue that it is not delivering anymore. Biloxi certainly did good things for Mississippi. But Detroit brought in the casinos, and the city is still struggling a great deal.

I think one thing which is overlooked is the expense that a province, state, or municipality takes on with casinos. You have additional expenses in infrastructure and law enforcement which place demands on the government that are not there without casinos. In order for them to be a revenue generator, obviously you have to pass that threshold.

In the very beginning of opening up gambling in new areas, I think it was a revenue generator. Using Biloxi as an example, peole who were in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennesse, Georgia, Louisiana, etc who did not have the time or money to go all the way to Vegas enjoyed the novelty of being able to get to a blackjack table in Mississippi. But now, there are too many casinos in too many areas. They've all started to canabalize themselves. So I think any area that is trying to jump on that bandwagon now is missing the boat. They need to come up with a new idea instead of copying one that won't work for everyone.

[poseidon]

Used to play the lottery on occassion and might shell out a buck for a particulary large "pot." I won 4 numbers once, three several times. I think for the 4 numbers I got 70 or 80 bucks. 5 bucks for the three numbers. Have had better luck on the scratch tickets. Won 100 bucks two or three times, and lots of up to 100.

Mainly did the playing when Texas first enacted the State lottery. Haven't played in at least a year or two. Used to use my siblings and I ages as numbers (my mother gave birth to 6 of us.) Also I would use the combination of my clean date and my birthdate and years clean, and age. That was how I won the 4 numbers once on the lotto.

It's a good way for States to bring in revenue to disburse where needed.

[luke]

The casinos have worked wonders for Shreveport, which in turn has transformed all of north Louisiana for the better. Crime is down, real estate is up, the population is booming after a long decline, and the economy has grown by leaps and bounds. North Louisiana was pretty much dead in the water before Shreveport started opening the casinos up.

[poseidon]

Not just a swamp anymore eh young Luke?

[luke]

Welllll...it's not exactly up to par with pre-Katrina south Louisiana by any means. But it's certainly a more livable area.

Since the casinos came, my hometown, about 25 minutes from Shreveport, has grown dramatically. Thousands of people have moved to that part of the state, and with them comes family to work not only in the casinos but all over the place. With the booming population, the ridiculous liquor laws have been voted out parish by parish, which in turn allows more restaurants, bars, and stores to open up. Which makes towns and cities more appealing, which makes more and more people move to the area.

Just six or seven years ago, Shreveport was known only for having a crime rate near the equal of New Orleans, with a shitty economy and citizens who bolted as soon as they got the chance (citizens like me, for instance.) Now Shreveport is known around the area for its booming economy and exciting night life, which is exactly what brings in the money and keeps people in the state.

All of this came with the casinos. Best thing that ever happened to north Louisiana. I'd still never dream of moving back, though.

[chrisfan]

luke said:

The casinos have worked wonders for Shreveport, which in turn has transformed all of north Louisiana for the better. Crime is down, real estate is up, the population is booming after a long decline, and the economy has grown by leaps and bounds. North Louisiana was pretty much dead in the water before Shreveport started opening the casinos up.

That might just be the key to casinos being effective. If you're dealing with a "small town" area, the casinos can spark growth, and it's the growth that increases revenues more so than the casinos. But if you're dealing with a large city, such as Detroit, where there is not as much room for substantial growth, then you're not going to see the benefits as much.

[luke]

Can't argue there, Chrisfan. I think they're a great tool for growth, but not much else.

FWIW, I hate casinos. I think they're incredibly boring and I hate gambling. Do not see the appeal, and it blows my mind that anyone can be addicted to throwing away money, although I've known SEVERAL gambling addicts.

Until I learn to count cards or something, you won't see me in a casino. Well...except for at those big ass buffets. Oh yeah.

[poseidon]

For my 21st birthday I flew to Las Vegas and stayed at the Flamingo Hilton. Had a great time. Saw several shows: Julio Iglesias, The 5th Dimension, Siegfried & Roy. Had a great time. Drank like a fish and lost at everything except roulette. That was really the only casino experience I've ever had.

[chrisfan]

Not me! I LOVE blackjack. Love it. I enjoy cards in general as a fun way to pass the time away, doing something, but still being able to talk with friends. Blackjack is just fun because everyone at the table develops this camraderie working against the dealer, so it becomes a fun social evening.

Of course, I also don't really go into gambling as a way to make money. I want to, and I'm happy if I do, but i don't count on it. I put down the amount of money I am willing to lose that night - whatever I consider to be a fair amount to spend on an evening of entertainment. If that is gone, then I'm done. The free drinks ain't bad either.

[poseidon]

Cards are fun. Enjoy playing them without $$$ being involved. Spades, Hearts, 5 card, etc. Played Canasta when I was younger a couple times with the folks. Always enjoyed games; Monopoly, Yahtzee, Life, Battleship. Now in my adulthood love Nintendo 32/64 games; particularly the Mario Bros. and Donkey Kong series.

[JACkory]

I feel as if I know you so much better now...