1. What good consequences? Lottery winners are more likely to declare bankruptcy after their win, and are no happier than they were before. It's blatant false

1. What good consequences? Lottery winners are more likely to declare bankruptcy after their win, and are no happier than they were before. It's blatant false advertising. The ads even show winners utilizing fake (CGI) technology that doesn't exist. I don't see how this is even legal, except that it's produced by the state. Drug companies are required to list every possible side effect, but lotteries can just make up anything, and ignore any possible downsides. 2. Lottery proceeds are used as an excuse for removing other sources of funding for those things. I've never heard of a case where a public good was better funded after the creation of a lottery. And the people buying lottery tickets tend to be those least able to afford it -- it's a regressive tax. 3. Yes, if you ignore the lotto advertising, the public health announcement is a good use of billboard space. It takes on a completely different meaning, though, in the context of "Ignore statistics and just think about having fun!" 4. The column seems to be about people gambling away their money on risky ventures that will not pay off. Do you not agree that this describes the state lottery?