Why doesn't Utah have a Lottery?

[PearlWatson]

Interesting history of Lotteries in America:

American Lotteries

After the first English lottery approved by King James I in 1612 that granted the Virginia Company of London the right to raise money and therefore found the original settlement, lotteries in the colonies continued to be popular. In fact lotteries played a significant role in the financing of building and improving the colonies. Records show that over 200 lotteries were permitted between 1744 and the American Revolution, these played a vital role in the funding of roads, libraries, churches, colleges, bridges, and other public works. Princeton, Columbia University, and the University of Pennsylvania began by being financed by lotteries. Lotteries also played a part in supporting the war efforts during the French and Indian Wars and the American Revolution. Rare lottery tickets with George Washington's signature can still be found and are worth about $15,000 today.

Alexander Hamilton wrote that " Everybody...will be willing to hazard a trifling sum for the chance of considerable gain...and would prefer a small chance of winning a great deal to a great chance of winning little." while the Continental Congress employed lotteries to aid in the war effort. The lotteries were especially useful in raising funds as taxation was a sensitive issue among the colonists, unfortunately this practice also led to the belief that lotteries were/ are a form of hidden tax.

Although lotteries continued to be popular after the Revolution, by the late 19th century they became known for mismanagement and scandals and started to be banned in many states. The Louisiana State Lottery (1868-1892) became the most notorious state lottery and was known as the "Golden Octopus" as it reached into every American home. The Louisiana lottery especially was a breeding ground of corruption having bribed the legislators into a fraudulent deal, during a time when other states were viewing lotteries and gambling with suspicion. In July of 1890 President Harrison sent a message to Congress insisting that "severe and effective legislation" be enacted against lotteries. Congress agreed and banned US mails from carrying lottery tickets almost immediately and in 1892 upheld a law to put a complete halt to all lotteries in the US by 1900.

https://www.historyoflottery.com/american_lotteries.html

 

[The Thriller]

Are there any studies that have been done to prove that gambling negatively effects the "poor?" Why?

I've read a little bit about gambling addiction...

Then again, can't one become addicted to anything? I know of plenty of people that seem addicted to Call of Duty and Halo....

One way to increase revenue would be to accept more toxic waste into the state. Anyone for that?

 

[Stoked]

Am I correct in assuming that all of the people in this thread who would like to have the lottery also would like to legalize gambling/have casinos in Utah? That seems to be the pattern from the posts I've read.

More specifically: If there is anyone who wants to have the lottery but who DOESN'T want to otherwise legalize gambling, could you please post your reasons why? I'm genuinely interested to find out if/why people separate the lottery and other forms of gambling in their minds.

I guess if there is anyone who wants to legalize gambling but who doesn't want a state lottery, I'd like to hear your reasons as well.

For me there are several different aspects to the lottery v. casinos. The lottery is some guy dropping a couple bucks at a gas station. Lottery does not bring real tourism to the state/area. Especially if all the states around you have the lottery. No reason to come to Utah.

Casinos on the other hand are much rarer. That attracts large amounts of tourism. For an example see Las Vegas.

 

[franklin]

1: Yes, I would remove any and all asbestos from any school that has it right now. Whether it's hidden under carpet or not, I would get rid of it.

Being afraid of something that doesn't actually hurt you is an irrational fear. You should probably read up on the asbestos [non] situation instead of simplifying down to asbestos = scary.

There is an asbestos abatement program in place. If there were an actual problem like you have assumed then those looking after this program would get the money to fix the problem. Nobody wants kids getting sick or dying from asbestos related conditions.

FYI, friable asbestos is the big problem and it has been all but removed.

2: I have no idea how hot schools were 50 years ago. I know a lot of them are hot as hell today and that's all I care about.

I was asking because you made the claim earlier to prove your point that schools are hotter today due to running technology.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Being afraid of something that doesn't actually hurt you is an irrational fear. You should probably read up on the asbestos [non] situation instead of simplifying down to asbestos = scary.

Isn't that what everyone used to say about smoking back in the day?

There is an asbestos abatement program in place. If there were an actual problem like you have assumed then those looking after this program would get the money to fix the problem. Nobody wants kids getting sick or dying from asbestos related conditions.

FYI, friable asbestos is the big problem and it has been all but removed.

There is dangerous asbestos in schools right now. It has been supposedly "made safe" by painting over it and covering it up. But that is not and will never be as good a solution as removing it entirely.

I was asking because you made the claim earlier to prove your point that schools are hotter today due to running technology.

Are you denying that adding several hundred TVs and computers to a building that did not have them previously will raise the temperature?

Again, I don't care. I know plenty of schools are hot as hell today. Period. Whether they are hotter than they were 100 years ago or not is not important to me.

 

[franklin]

Isn't that what everyone used to say about smoking back in the day?

Zing! How many JNHP's would that score you on MSNBC?

There is dangerous asbestos in schools right now. It has been supposedly "made safe" by painting over it and covering it up. But that is not and will never be as good a solution as removing it entirely.

You keep claiming that bogey man is in the closet and I'm waiting for specific examples. Again, which specific asbestos management plans do you have an issue with? Why are the professionals wrong and you right?

And you don't paint over cottage cheese...

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

The church has a lot of influence in Utah because (as Nate pointed out) many legislative positions are held by Mormons. They, just like anyone else, are going to do what they do according to their beliefs, and it is completely unreasonable to expect otherwise.

The implication that the State government is some sort of puppet of the LDS church is laughable. If this was the case, I'd imagine all the "fun" stuff (you know - alcohol, tobacco, R rated movies, bikinis, etc...) would be flat-out against the rules (think about how many "dry" counties there are in the United States - there are hundreds, in case you're wondering).

If your idea of separation of church and state is that anyone in an administrative position must divorce themselves from their beliefs, you need to study up a bit.

This is true . . . to an extent. The big difference, and which makes your reply only partially correct, is that other religious folks to not necessarily belong to a sect that elevates obedience to authority as one of its highest moral virtues.

If you honestly believe that the LDS Church does not consistently emphasize obedience to ecclesiastical authority and that this does not influence how its members think and act beyond what would be the case with other believers not belonging to an authoritative sect, then it is YOU who needs to study up a bit--or more precisely put, you need to sharpen your observation and reasoning skills.

By the way, I'm not suggesting that they are necessarily puppets (the Utah Compact made that clear), but they can act very puppet-like, particularly (again as the contrast to the Utah Compact shows) when statements/pronouncements by LDS leaders reinforce their pre-existing prejudices.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Zing! How many JNHP's would that score you on MSNBC?

Hey you're the one here "lobbying" for a big government to protect us from ourselves, and raising taxes to pay for it. I'm here advocating for a free market solution.

You keep claiming that bogey man is in the closet and I'm waiting for specific examples. Again, which specific asbestos management plans do you have an issue with? Why are the professionals wrong and you right?

And you don't paint over cottage cheese...

I have an issue with any plan that leaves asbestos in the schools. Why leave it at all if we can remove it?

Oh, I get it. Your stance is "Lets just leave the asbestos in the schools. It's not that dangerous. And we don't need air conditioners either. Let them sweat it out. That way we can restrict the people from having a lottery because we won't have to pay for any improvements."

Look, I want a lottery either way. I'm just pointing out some good the money could do. If you don't want to improve the schools, then fine. Just give the profits from the lottery to me and leave the schools alone. Is that better for you?

 

[colton]

Oh, I get it. Your stance is "Lets just leave the asbestos in the schools. It's not that dangerous. And we don't need air conditioners either. Let them sweat it out. That way we can restrict the people from having a lottery because we won't have to pay for any improvements."

And then people who feel that way will probably also wonder why Utah can't attract the best teachers.

 

[franklin]

Hey you're the one here "lobbying" for a big government to protect us from ourselves, and raising taxes to pay for it. I'm here advocating for a free market solution.

I have an issue with any plan that leaves asbestos in the schools. Why leave it at all if we can remove it?

Oh, I get it. Your stance is "Lets just leave the asbestos in the schools. It's not that dangerous. And we don't need air conditioners either. Let them sweat it out. That way we can restrict the people from having a lottery because we won't have to pay for any improvements."

Look, I want a lottery either way. I'm just pointing out some good the money could do. If you don't want to improve the schools, then fine. Just give the profits from the lottery to me and leave the schools alone. Is that better for you?

Your comments are as stupid as saying we should remove the mountains because dirt in small sizes is hazardous to health. But what do the specialists know eh? Friable and fixed asbestos is the same thing because Salty believes it because he thinks it's a good fear mongering tool to get his agenda accomplished.

We might as well become mystics and formulate policy based on ancient myths.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Your comments are as stupid as saying we should remove the mountains because dirt in small sizes is hazardous to health. But what do the specialists know eh? Friable and fixed asbestos is the same thing because Salty believes it because he thinks it's a good fear mongering tool to get his agenda accomplished.

We might as well become mystics and formulate policy based on ancient myths.

Again, forget about the schools. Just give me the profits form the lottery. Some morons don't want to improve our schools, fine by me. We still need a lottery though because this is America and we shouldn't have big governments protecting us from ourselves.

There are plenty of things to spend lottery money on. You don't want to remove asbestos? Fine, upgrade all the old *** computers in the schools, make them earthquake safe, get rid of the books and use tablets instead, upgrade the dry erase boards to touch screen monitors, put cameras in every classroom that parents can log into at any time to check on their kids (and teachers), expand the schools so kids aren't sitting in trailers at over crowded schools.

There is a long list of things that money could go to. You don't have to pretend asbestos is the ONLY thing we could possibly spend it on.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You missed my "even if it is a self-selected opt-in" comment. And there were virtual quotes around the word "tax". ;-)

My point still goes: if raising revenue for the government is the goal, then doing it through gambling is not the best way. In fact, it's a truly stupid way because (moral objections to gambling aside) it preferentially hits the poorest and least educated elements of society.

I know it's conventional wisdom that the lottery is akin to a regressive tax, but is there actual empirical data to support this? I'm not disputing it--it makes intuitive sense, but conventional wisdom and intuition are frequently wrong.

Would your opinion change if the lottery earnings were used disproportionately to support schools in low-income areas? School funding is a perpetual problem in low-income areas (urban and rural), and a common (let's assume true) complaint is that higher income school districts fare better under the current allocation system than lower income school districts.

I am generally opposed to regressive taxation, and tend to accept that lower income/less educated tend to disproportionately invest in lottery tickets (subject to empirical verification), but even then, I'm not sure I agree that a lottery is a 'stupid' way to fund schools. I'd like to see how it scores in other areas, such as efficiency, effectiveness, etc. It if scores well, it may be enough to compensate for its seemingly low score in 'equity.'

For what it's worth, I was in the Marriott Center back in the 70s (or maybe early 80s) when, I think Spencer Kimball, (but not sure) condemned the lottery in a talk (I can't recall if it was live, in person or projected from Salt Lake). That pretty much sealed the fate of the lottery in Utah. Anyone who claims that the opposition to the lottery here is Utah is not fundamentally religious in nature is, I think, wrong. (Not addressing this to you but to others in general.)

I know this sounds fishy, I don't remember the date or the circumstances of the talk, but I distinctly remember the buzz this speech caused. So feel free to disregard my memory. Maybe someone else remembers.

 

[franklin]

Again, forget about the schools. Just give me the profits form the lottery. Some morons don't want to improve our schools, fine by me. We still need a lottery though because this is America and we shouldn't have big governments protecting us from ourselves.

There are plenty of things to spend lottery money on. You don't want to remove asbestos? Fine, upgrade all the old *** computers in the schools, make them earthquake safe, get rid of the books and use tablets instead, upgrade the dry erase boards to touch screen monitors, put cameras in every classroom that parents can log into at any time to check on their kids (and teachers), expand the schools so kids aren't sitting in trailers at over crowded schools.

There is a long list of things that money could go to. You don't have to pretend asbestos is the ONLY thing we could possibly spend it on.

Have you seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDy2xWpZWVc

 

[Gameface]

Hey everyone! When I posted a link earlier it was to a report from 2004. There are more recent reports that I should have been aware of but was not. I also did not post the entire report and in doing so left out a portion that indicated that the situation described in the outdated report was changing and would likely no longer exist in the near future (now).

It has been brought to my attention in a series of PMs that this is a very serious situation, so I would like to defuse it if at all possible.

I hope I have not mislead anyone. That was not my intention. I will be more careful when providing links in the future. I hope some of you can find it in your hearts to forgive me. I stand humbled before you.

 

[Stoked]

Hey everyone! When I posted a link earlier it was to a report from 2004. There are more recent reports that I should have been aware of but was not. I also did not post the entire report and in doing so left out a portion that indicated that the situation described in the outdated report was changing and would likely no longer exist in the near future (now).

It has been brought to my attention in a series of PMs that this is a very serious situation, so I would like to defuse it if at all possible.

I hope I have not mislead anyone. That was not my intention. I will be more careful when providing links in the future. I hope some of you can find it in your hearts to forgive me. I stand humbled before you.

****'em. I like you.

 

[bigb]

I stand humbled before you.

It's about ****ing time!

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

As someone who has lived next to casinos for a large portion of life, they do help the community economically a ton, or at least they seem too. They create a ton of jobs and bring in a lot of out of state business. The negatives are all social considerations, but if someone is dumb enough to waste all of their money at a casino, chances are they are dumb enough to waste it without a casino (IMO).

 

[Nate505]

Am I correct in assuming that all of the people in this thread who would like to have the lottery also would like to legalize gambling/have casinos in Utah? That seems to be the pattern from the posts I've read.

More specifically: If there is anyone who wants to have the lottery but who DOESN'T want to otherwise legalize gambling, could you please post your reasons why? I'm genuinely interested to find out if/why people separate the lottery and other forms of gambling in their minds.

I guess if there is anyone who wants to legalize gambling but who doesn't want a state lottery, I'd like to hear your reasons as well.

I'm curious as well, though I'm in favor of most sorts of legalized gambling anywhere.

 

[Bronco70]

This is true . . . to an extent. The big difference, and which makes your reply only partially correct, is that other religious folks to not necessarily belong to a sect that elevates obedience to authority as one of its highest moral virtues.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to this line of reasoning, but you aren't covering any new ground here.

If you honestly believe that the LDS Church does not consistently emphasize obedience to ecclesiastical authority and that this does not influence how its members think and act beyond what would be the case with other believers not belonging to an authoritative sect, then it is YOU who needs to study up a bit--or more precisely put, you need to sharpen your observation and reasoning skills.

I do not deny the church's influence at all. But everyone is influenced by their culture, regardless of what it is. And I would not expect anyone to compartmentalize their belief system.

...it is YOU who needs to study up a bit--or more precisely put, you need to sharpen your observation and reasoning skills.

Because I don't see things the way you see them, right? Got it.

 

[Nate505]

You missed my "even if it is a self-selected opt-in" comment. And there were virtual quotes around the word "tax". ;-)

My point still goes: if raising revenue for the government is the goal, then doing it through gambling is not the best way. In fact, it's a truly stupid way because (moral objections to gambling aside) it preferentially hits the poorest and least educated elements of society.

To use my favorite double negative, I don't disagree. I'm a bigger advocate of legal gambling from a libertarian free will perspective myself.