Actually I have looked into it quite a bit. As a former elected official, I had access to all the materials collected on the subject by both sides of the question. There is no non-anecdotal evidence to support an argument that lottery tickets are purchased by the "poor" (whatever that means) in outsized numbers. Furthermore, there is substantial evidence to suggest that among those of modest means, every dollar spent on a lottery ticket is a dollar not spent on cigarettes and beer.
All that aside, though, the argument itself is dumb because it promotes the "poor as victims" sham. It implies that the poor are unable to take care of themselves and need someone to adopt them and prevent them from doing dumb things to themselves. It is also a class warfare argument.
Now if you want to argue that the lottery is a tax on stupidity, I'll have to go along with you on that one.
>There is no non-anecdotal evidence to support an argument that lottery tickets are purchased by the "poor" (whatever that means) in outsized numbers.<
The evidence I gave you was not anecdotal.The state has compared the zip codes of players to demographic info including utilization of the Hope scolarship.
>All that aside, though, the argument itself is dumb because it promotes the "poor as victims" sham. It implies that the poor are unable to take care of themselves and need someone to adopt them and prevent them from doing dumb things to themselves. It is also a class warfare argument.<
Actually your argument is one for justification of exploiting the poor.Their is a major difference in choosing whether to help the poor and choosing to exploit their weekness.That is what the Lottery does.