Yet he sells cigarettes and beer. Both addictive substances.
I was thinking the same thing. It's fine to take a moral stand, but if he thinks alcohol and tobacco are causing less damage than lottery tickets then he's a fool.
For the record, I'm not opposed to any of them.
And yet he eventually sold his business and retired because he adamantly refused to put any video slot machines in his pub -- and was losing customers over it. I never understood how someone in that kind of business could take a moral stand on something like gambling, but I think I eventually figured it out. I suspect he wasn't opposed to gambling on truly "moral" grounds, but on the grounds that it represents a serious violation of the basic work ethic that had driven his ancestors to settle out there and earn a living the hard way. In his mind, the notion that you can get something without working for it is probably the most destructive force in the world today.
I noticed that too. He can do what he wants, and I'll support him completely, but he should hang up the "look how superior I am" facade. And I say this as someone who thinks "Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearems" would be a great concept for a convenience store.
Neither of which are sold by the government are they? I'm against the lottery on a moral standpoint and choose not to play. I smoked for 10+ years and just up and quit one day a few months back. Even drink a beer now and again. If a private industry without government 'supervision' started up a lottery tomorrow that's their business. However when the lottery is a government sponsored grab for even more money, yes I'm against it from a moral standpoint.