[slapresta]

> It's like discussing guns with people who will never use them.

You mean that it also creates a toxic culture which disproportionally hurts poor people and minorities? Agreed!

> lotteries are great sources of revenue (better than state corporate income taxes? Holy cow!)

They're only so because the US has this inmensely powerful anti-tax culture and lobbies. Plus, lotteries take money from the poor, which means they're aggravating the very problems we use taxes to solve.

> they are low-health-risk (someone may need treatment for gambling addiction but it never hurts their lungs or livers)

Mental health issues are health issues. Gambling addiction is not a low health risk.

> Just don't come crying to me when the state comes for your income and property taxes to make up the difference...

They should! They should come for my income and for my property taxes, and even more so for the income and property taxes of those who are richer than me. Taking money from the poor to fund the services that poor people need is obviously counter-productive.

[rm_-rf_slash]

Face it: you or anyone else isn't gonna get poor people to stop playing the lottery any more than corporations are gonna stop getting cozy tax breaks, or getting people who make decent money to campaign for it to be taxed more.

So the question I ask is: what is an acceptable compromise? Without a lottery, how much tax revenue are you going to need to make up the difference? How high can taxes be raised before people and corporations decide to move to the next state over, or even leave the country?

Taxes, lotteries, vices, addictions, weapons, they'll always be a part of our society and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking things we don't like can simply be deleted. So, where do you draw the lines, and where do you compromise?