Gambling for Education

GAMBLING FOR EDUCATION

" You cannot ignore the fact that there will be divorce problems, domestic abuse problems, homelessness and addiction problems if you pass this bill "(Williams). Senator J.T. "Jabo" Waggoner, of Alabama, made this statement opposing the lottery bill. At first glance, this would put fear in the predominantly protestant state of Alabama, which is in the heart of the Bible Belt, as well as surrounding states that are trying to obtain a lottery. However, these problems are prevalent in the country, without the lottery. First we'll look to Webster's Dictionary to define gambling. Webster says 1 a: to play a game for money or property b: to bet on an uncertain outcome 2: to stake something on a contingency: take a chance. (1) One might ask, why is the lottery any different from the dog tracks that currently occupy the state? Gambling is gambling right. It seems the state has already legalized gambling.

North Carolina, the largest state in the U.S. without a lottery, has fought unsuccessfully for decades to pass a lottery bill. Residents of North Carolina are sinking more than 71 million dollars per year into the lottery. They are driving to surrounding states to spend money that will have no direct benefit to their state's educational system. It is estimated, that by legalizing a state lottery, more than 300 million dollars in revenue would be generated for state education programs. For example, since passing the bill in 1992, Georgia has distributed more than 5.6 billion dollars in scholarships to more than than 600,000 students. The lottery does so by providing financial rewards for better

grades. Although these statistics show it has been successful in providing rewards, opposition to the lottery has remained steady and strong, with specific community support.

There is an organization in Tennessee named "Gambling Free Tennessee Alliance"(GTFA). Mike Williams, a staff writer for the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, paraphrased Joe Rogers, leader of the GTFA, as stating that "...the lottery...creates social problems and entices the poor to spend a disproportionate part of their income on the game" (Poe). Williams goes on to say the GTFA feels that by passing the bill it would reduce revenue on taxed items such as food, liquor, gasoline, and cigarettes. This statement is assuming that people who play the lottery are providing substantial revenue by purchasing the taxed products and that they are willing to trade them in for a lottery ticket, which is far-fetched at best. The morality of this statement is also in question. The GTFA is presuming that a persons' money would be better spent on alcohol. It would seem that a six pack of tickets would do less harm, at least physically, than a six pack of beer. The anti-lottery campaign organizations, that work so tirelessly to combat the lottery institution, are fighting an uphill battle. The lottery has already proven to be a success. If every lottery player were addicted to the point at which he/she stops paying for taxed goods, and their rent for that matter, the cycle would prove fatal for the business. Patrons would be jobless, homeless, careless, and they would be unable to keep the money flowing into the market. There would be no demand for lottery tickets if everyone were unemployed.