Bars pull lottery plug (No Smoking Law Persuades Bar Owners To Fight Back!)

Clymer News Network ^ | 6/25/03

[Recovering_Democrat]

ALBANY, New York (Reuters) - Still steamed over a looming smoking ban, some New York bar and restaurant owners hit the state where it hurts -- in the pocketbook.

They unplugged the lottery machines in their establishments.

This week's coordinated cutting off of Quick Draw Lottery machines is costing the state $1 million in lost revenue, according to Scott Wexler, head of the Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association, which represents more than 3,000 bars and eateries across the state.

[Recovering_Democrat]

I hope they keep them off.

[knarf]

Curiouser and curiouser.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Yes, on general principle I don't agree with the smoking ban. But the disappearance of many establishments where smoking, drinking, and gambling are the main activities, can only be good for society. I find the thought of free citizens choosing to spend their free time standing around in bars, drunk, smoking, and pumping their money into government-run lottery machines, absolutely appalling.

[Banjoguy]

...and who is forcing them to do this?
...and who's business is it to control how one spends money and free time?
I find it curious that your characterization of persons who spend time in these establishments is that: 1) they are drunk 2) they are pumping money into lottery ticket machines. This is a skewed assessment to be sure.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Well, lots of people in bars are drunk. And if the state is lost $1 million in revenue in one week, from the now unplugged lottery machines, then the bar patrons must have been pumping money into the machines when they were plugged in. I don't propose "controlling" these people, but I do think they are idiots. And I'd like to see government-sponsored gambling outlawed, since it is clearly destructive, and the governments involved routinely mislead their constituents about where the proceeds go. If people insist on wasting their money gambling, it should be a private enterprise.

[bimbo]

But the disappearance of many establishments where smoking, drinking, and gambling are the main activities, can only be good for society. I find the thought of free citizens choosing to spend their free time standing around in bars, drunk, smoking, and pumping their money into government-run lottery machines, absolutely appalling.

So ... someone appointed you as society’s arbiter on what people can do? Consider that what you find appalling might be meaningless to your neighbor.

[AndyJackson]

"Government Shrinker"

HA!

[ovrtaxt]

Well, at least your logic is consistent. Consistently opposed to freedom, but consistent.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Neat how you left out the first line of my post when quoting me. And I didn't say I or anyone else should be empowered to stop these people from behaving stupidly, any more than they should be empowered to stop me from saying I think they're stupid. I DO object the government enticing people into handing over their money to government-run gambling schemes.

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

Well, lots of people in bars are drunk.

Really? As a habitue of such establishments lots of people are in bars having a drink and socializing.

[GovernmentShrinker]

How am I opposed to freedom? I said I didn't agree with the smoking ban, and I didn't propose banning drinking or gambling. You seem to have a problem with my freedom to express my opinion of other people's behavior.

[don-o]

I find the thought of free citizens choosing to spend their free time standing around in bars, drunk, smoking, and pumping their money into government-run lottery machines, absolutely appalling.

I find the thought of free citizens choosing to spend their free time sitting in front of a television set in their homes, with their mouths agape, except when they are chewing whatever junk food they rely on for nutrition, absolutely appalling

[ovrtaxt]

Yes, on general principle I don't agree with the smoking ban. But the disappearance of many establishments where smoking, drinking, and gambling are the main activities, can only be good for society. I find the thought of free citizens choosing to spend their free time standing around in bars, drunk, smoking, and pumping their money into government-run lottery machines, absolutely appalling.

Your full quote above. You're right, my kneejerk assumption was wrong. I just can't stand government control freaks of any stripe, and conservatives are the most seductive about it, because the 'cause' is usually right. The methods, however...

That being said, I think it's hilarious that the bar owners have unplugged the machines! Good for them.

[grania]

Yes, on general principle I don't agree with the smoking ban. But the disappearance of many establishments where smoking, drinking, and gambling are the main activities, can only be good for society. I find the thought of free citizens choosing to spend their free time standing around in bars, drunk, smoking, and pumping their money into government-run lottery machines, absolutely appalling.

Uhhhh...."government shrinker"....it's neither your business not the business of a government that actually lived by the Constitution what people and establishments do, unless it affects you. Follow the prinicple that a person's right to swing their arm stops at your face.

"Don't criticize what you don't understand" Bob Dylan said that.

It's good to hear that you don't agree with the bans on general principle. But judging people who engage in things you disapprove of is what got us in this nanny-government mess to begin with.

[GovernmentShrinker]

Yes, as a GovernmentShrinker, I applaud the the bar owners for unplugging the government gambling machines -- I just wish they'd KEEP them unplugged. What really ought to piss freedom-loving people off is the many states that have laws authorizing government-sponsored and/or regulated gambling, while prohibiting many or all forms of privately run gambling.

[GovernmentShrinker]

No, free citizens judging other free citizens (which is different from interfering with their activities) is not what got us the nanny state. Government judging and interfering in citizens' lives, and voters allowing that to continue, is what got us the nanny state. I don't buy the idea that we should become a "values-free" society, where no one expresses disapproval of what anyone else does, on the theory that we mustn't be "judgemental".

[GovernmentShrinker]

Me too, and I don't mind their hearing that I find it appalling. But naturally I do not propose that I should be allowed to enter their living rooms, turn off the idiotic shows they're watching, and rip their junk food out of their hands. I'll say what I think, and if they happen to hear it, they can choose whether or not to seriously consider and/or act on my advice.

[grumple]

Speaking of the Lottery...for a good book read pick up David Baldacci's "The Winner". It's a fiction thriller mystery of a trailer park gal who wins the lottery. Baldacci, however, portrays the lottery selection process as a big Government profit machine that preys on not so intelligent poor people who become all starry-eyed over winning. These poor people are purposefully chosen, and the lottery itself is rigged. Purposefully chosen because they know nothing about investments and usually wind up declaring bankruptcy over taxes and other issues that allow the government to swoop in soon after they won. I highly recommend it as an excellent read. It really puts a feasible scenario to the lottery process. Although fiction, you wind up wondering if it's truer than the truth.

[metesky]

I bet you don't dare exercise your freedom of speech by walking into a crowded bar and loudly announcing that the patrons are a bunch of drunken, stupid gamblers.

By the way, I agree that the Great GodGuv has no business in the gaming biz, with the exception of seeing that the proprietors are running an honest game.

[gridlock]

Here's a free tip that will make you a zillion dollars.

Take a good look at any scratch-off card on any government run lottery. Every sigle one of them is deceptive. They give the appearance of being random, but they obviously are not.

For example, one game is based on a blackjack game. If you beat the dealers score, you win the prize. You get four hands for a dollar, and you can win up to $10,000 dollars.

Of course, there is no way in the world this game can be random. If it were, 15 out of 16 cards would be winners on at least one line. The trick is that the state prints out a certain number of winners and distributes them at random. But nowhere on the card is this fact printed. Nowhere on the card or at the location of sale are odds of winning shown. The only indication of how likely it is that you might win are the games themselves, which appear to be easy winners.

So the state is engaging in a deceptive marketing practice, enticing people into gampling money by giving a false impression of the odds of winning. Furthermore, they will continue to sell a line of tickets even after all of the large prizes are already gone, but all the tickets still say "win up to $10,000", even when it is clearly impossible to do so.

So what we have here, boys and girls, is the Mother of all Class Action Lawsuits. The first lawyer who certifies a class and goes after a state for this is going to make more money than you can even imagine.