3 ms·

> It's not so apparent to me that banning painkillers because broken legs shouldn't exist is a good idea. Not my argument. Lotteries are an irrational “opiate

by derefr 6y ago

> It's not so apparent to me that banning painkillers because broken legs shouldn't exist is a good idea. Not my argument. Lotteries are an irrational “opiate of the masses” to choose compared to other opiates of the masses. Lotteries, in practice — mostly because you can buy multiple lottery tickets per drawing, and some people really go in on that — are more negative-sum (i.e. more extractive on the part of their operators) than almost any other way to trade money for dopamine. (They’re actually worse than casinos — because casinos kick out gambling addicts, and there are only so many casinos that eventually you’ll be recognized at all of them. With lottery tickets, you can just visit every convenience store in a five-mile radius. Some people do.) It would be like if you were on the street with a broken leg, and a street drug dealer offered you the option to buy either morphine or krokodil[1] for the same price. They both do the same thing (strong analgesia, addiction) but one has far worse side-effects. Why, other than either ignorance to the costs, or the inability to rationally weigh costs and benefits, would someone choose to self-medicate with the krokodil over the morphine? [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/krokodil-the-drug-that-eats-junkies-2300787.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/krokodil-the...

beaconstudios 6y ago
If the issue is overconsumption then there are better ways to deal with that, the same way we deal with other addictions. But the core idea of lotteries is not broken in the same way that poker isn't. > Not my argument. Lotteries are an irrational “opiate of the masses” to choose compared to other opiates of the masses. Lotteries, in practice — mostly because you can buy multiple lottery tickets per drawing, and some people really go in on that — are more negative-sum (i.e. more extractive on the part of their operators) than almost any other way to trade money for dopamine. How do the people you are trying to help respond to these arguments? Are they readily convinced to go for these superior sources of dopamine? Human beings aren't utility maximising functions so often these issues are more complex than simple comparisons of utility estimates.

by derefr 6y ago

beaconstudios 6y ago

If the issue is overconsumption then there are better ways to deal with that, the same way we deal with other addictions. But the core idea of lotteries is not broken in the same way that poker isn't. > Not my argument. Lotteries are an irrational “opiate of the masses” to choose compared to other opiates of the masses. Lotteries, in practice — mostly because you can buy multiple lottery tickets per drawing, and some people really go in on that — are more negative-sum (i.e. more extractive on the part of their operators) than almost any other way to trade money for dopamine. How do the people you are trying to help respond to these arguments? Are they readily convinced to go for these superior sources of dopamine? Human beings aren't utility maximising functions so often these issues are more complex than simple comparisons of utility estimates.