In which numbered tickets are sold and prizes awarded by drawing lots. Lotteries have a long history, dating back to the Old Testament and the Roman emperors’ giving away property and slaves by chance. They also played a central role in the development of America, where many early colonists used them to finance their businesses and the construction of churches and other public buildings. But today, most states don’t run them, and those that do face a tricky balancing act. In this week’s Highline, Les Cohen explores the thorny issues surrounding state-sponsored gambling.
In the seventeenth century, lottery play exploded in Europe and then spread to the American colonies, where they were popular despite strict Protestant prohibitions against gambling. Those prohibitions were less about morality than about money: The new nation needed lots of cash to finance everything from building its institutions to paying for the Revolutionary War, and lottery proceeds were often the only way that could happen without raising taxes or cutting public services.
As a form of gambling, the lottery was unusual in that the higher the jackpots got, the more people wanted to play. That’s because the potential prize was a “get-out-of-jail-free card,” as Alexander Hamilton put it in 1791, that granted a ticket holder immunity from arrest (except for murder and treason).
The idea of winning big money by chance was an appealing one. But the odds of winning are incredibly low—you’re more likely to find true love or be struck by lightning than win the Powerball or Mega Millions. And though lottery profits swell state coffers, the cost to players is real: Studies show that buying a single ticket can add up to thousands of dollars in foregone savings.
Moreover, the winners are not always what you’d expect. The story of Abraham Shakespeare, a lottery winner who shot his wife and then himself after taking home the $31 million prize, is just one of many such examples. Jeffrey Dampier, another millionaire who blew the money on cocaine and a luxury boat, was kidnapped and killed by his brother-in-law; Urooj Khan, who won a $1 million prize, died after consuming cyanide.
These dangers can be hard for state lawmakers to ignore, as they search for budget solutions that won’t enrage their anti-tax electorates. But as Cohen points out, lottery advocates argue that if people are going to gamble anyway, the government might as well pocket the profits and pay for things like better schools in the urban neighborhoods where a large percentage of lottery players live. That’s a dangerous argument to make, especially given that a good chunk of lottery revenue comes from those who are most addicted to playing the game. And if those super-users suddenly stop buying tickets, the states’ financial health could take a serious hit. For that reason, some states are now trying to limit how much they can spend on the lottery. Click through to read Cohen’s full piece.