4 ms·

But many states that ban gambling already have lotteries, so the two aren't as clearly linked as you think. Plus, stating the governments 'promote the vice' is

But many states that ban gambling already have lotteries, so the two aren't as clearly linked as you think. Plus, stating the governments 'promote the vice' is a big stretch, governments don't promote the lotteries, the companies that run them do. As for taxation on cigarettes, why should all the money go to treating smokers? It's fantastic that there is extra cash to go to other causes. You cite the UK government but you'd be hard-pressed to find evidence that they are promoting smoking, indeed the laws on smoking advertising keep getting tougher and tougher. I suspect that you've just got an axe to grind against governments in general.

jessaustin 11y ago
But many states that ban gambling already have lotteries, so the two aren't as clearly linked as you think. This is a non sequitur. Banning lottery competitors certainly would be "promoting" the lottery.
- joosters 11y ago
  For lotteries in particular, it's a little unclear. The lottery-playing public seem to love gigantic jackpots (just see all the press when a jackpot grows obscenely large. Why would a small-time player buy more tickets to win $100 million, but not bother to buy a ticket to win $1 million? But still they do...) , and the more lottery companies out there, the more distributed the money becomes, leading to smaller jackpots and thus fewer players. So the difference between licensing one lottery and several might not be much. (I wonder if any has done studies on this? There must be some 'optimal' (for tax revenue) number of lotteries for a jurisdiction)
sandworm101 11y ago
I think you missed my point. If the purpose of increased taxation on vices like cigarettes is to dissuade people from a particular activity, that goal is missed once the taxation become a profitable venture. The government becomes reliant on the vice and risks switching into a promotional mode. Raising money to treat smokers is all well and good, but I'd rather see fewer people smoking. If a government becomes reliant to the tax revenue it risks becoming as addicted to cigarette use as the people it was once trying to stop smoking. Such traps are what separates vice from other pleasurable activities.
- joosters 11y ago
  But I haven't seen (and you haven't shown) any real evidence of governments promoting these vices. I do get your point, there's clearly a conflict of interest here, and I too would prefer people to stop smoking rather than countries making money from it. I reckon that actually the only real limiting factors involved are that if government taxes something like cigarettes too much, then the black market steps in and more people buy untaxed products, cutting the tax revenues. In fact I suspect that's already happening in some countries (black market cigarettes are big in the UK, for instance. There are occasional busts of lorries packed full of untold millions of them, and anecdotally, most people seem to know of someone who sells them). Perhaps (speculation time) this actually keeps governments from even considering promoting vices like smoking? The current balance of taxes and government controls on advertising vs the black market means that there's marginal benefits to increasing demand, and current taxations are 'optimal' ?
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    Really? I cannot turn on the TV or radio without hearing an ad for government-owned gambling. Just look at this: http://www.bclc.com/ http://www.bclc.com/ And here is their twitter feed: https://twitter.com/bclc https://twitter.com/bclc That's the British Columbia Lottery corporation, the crown-owned business with a monopoly on gambling in my province. They buy ads, sell tickets, license betting venues, and even run their own online casino (playnow.com). BC is not unique among states/provinces in this regard. How can one not describe this as governments promoting gambling?
    - joosters 11y ago
      It's a company who has the license to run a lottery. Of course they advertise! Now in this case, the company is owned by the crown, but would you expect any different if it was owned by non-government money? I'm still not sure why you think that the government is acting differently here.
smileysteve 11y ago
> Plus, stating the governments 'promote the vice' is a big stretch, governments don't promote the lotteries, the companies that run them do. Where do the companies that run them get the revenue and authority to promote them? Just because the states outsource the management doesn't mean that they are absolved of all of the effects.

jessaustin 11y ago

But many states that ban gambling already have lotteries, so the two aren't as clearly linked as you think. This is a non sequitur. Banning lottery competitors certainly would be "promoting" the lottery.

joosters 11y ago
For lotteries in particular, it's a little unclear. The lottery-playing public seem to love gigantic jackpots (just see all the press when a jackpot grows obscenely large. Why would a small-time player buy more tickets to win $100 million, but not bother to buy a ticket to win $1 million? But still they do...) , and the more lottery companies out there, the more distributed the money becomes, leading to smaller jackpots and thus fewer players. So the difference between licensing one lottery and several might not be much. (I wonder if any has done studies on this? There must be some 'optimal' (for tax revenue) number of lotteries for a jurisdiction)

sandworm101 11y ago

I think you missed my point. If the purpose of increased taxation on vices like cigarettes is to dissuade people from a particular activity, that goal is missed once the taxation become a profitable venture. The government becomes reliant on the vice and risks switching into a promotional mode. Raising money to treat smokers is all well and good, but I'd rather see fewer people smoking. If a government becomes reliant to the tax revenue it risks becoming as addicted to cigarette use as the people it was once trying to stop smoking. Such traps are what separates vice from other pleasurable activities.

joosters 11y ago
But I haven't seen (and you haven't shown) any real evidence of governments promoting these vices. I do get your point, there's clearly a conflict of interest here, and I too would prefer people to stop smoking rather than countries making money from it. I reckon that actually the only real limiting factors involved are that if government taxes something like cigarettes too much, then the black market steps in and more people buy untaxed products, cutting the tax revenues. In fact I suspect that's already happening in some countries (black market cigarettes are big in the UK, for instance. There are occasional busts of lorries packed full of untold millions of them, and anecdotally, most people seem to know of someone who sells them). Perhaps (speculation time) this actually keeps governments from even considering promoting vices like smoking? The current balance of taxes and government controls on advertising vs the black market means that there's marginal benefits to increasing demand, and current taxations are 'optimal' ?
- sandworm101 11y ago
  Really? I cannot turn on the TV or radio without hearing an ad for government-owned gambling. Just look at this: http://www.bclc.com/ http://www.bclc.com/ And here is their twitter feed: https://twitter.com/bclc https://twitter.com/bclc That's the British Columbia Lottery corporation, the crown-owned business with a monopoly on gambling in my province. They buy ads, sell tickets, license betting venues, and even run their own online casino (playnow.com). BC is not unique among states/provinces in this regard. How can one not describe this as governments promoting gambling?
  - joosters 11y ago
    It's a company who has the license to run a lottery. Of course they advertise! Now in this case, the company is owned by the crown, but would you expect any different if it was owned by non-government money? I'm still not sure why you think that the government is acting differently here.

smileysteve 11y ago

> Plus, stating the governments 'promote the vice' is a big stretch, governments don't promote the lotteries, the companies that run them do. Where do the companies that run them get the revenue and authority to promote them? Just because the states outsource the management doesn't mean that they are absolved of all of the effects.