Pros And Cons Of Alabama's Lottery System

“The Lottery” is a short story by Shirley Jackson, first published on June 26, 1948. The story was initially met with negative critical reception due to its violent nature and portrayal of the potentially dangerous nature of human society. It was even banned in some countries. However, “The Lottery” is now widely accepted as a classic American short story and is used in classrooms throughout the country.

The lottery offers a wonderful opportunity to possibly win millions of dollars. While this might seems amazing, it might not be as wonderful as imagined. In fact, maybe even the opposite might true as stated by numerous studies and research done since the 1970s.

The concept of the lottery is the same throughout every state, people have money and are interested in “playing the odds”; the revenue from these people is then divided and used to benefit organizations of the state’s choice. Exactly where the money goes to is what differs from state to state. Some states put all the revenue from the lottery into one trust fund that is allocated for a more broad and generalized group. Other states target specific programs such as, preserving natural parks or assisting the educational system with additional funds. The State of Alabama does not have a lottery and its locals are the ones missing out. Due to the lack of the lottery in Alabama, those who choose to play the lottery must travel out of the state, which means their money goes to other state’s lotteries benefiting that states programs and ultimately its residents. By keeping the peoples money in the state a lottery will open an endless amount of opportunities to better state supported programs and the state as a whole.

The lottery in this country is a big past time for Americans. It gives hope to the hopeless and disappointment to a multitude of participants. A quick view of statistical information regarding the lottery shows that out of all people who take part in this country wide phenomenon, each individual person has a 1 in 175,223,510 chance of hitting the jackpot (AmericanStatisticalAssociation.org). The author of “Against The Odds and Against the Common Good”, argues that the state lotteries are “urging people to gamble”. Gloria Jimenez, of whom is the author of “Against The Odds and Against the Common Good”, creates assumptions that support her stance on her argument. Jimenez also uses the viewpoint from people who disagree with her logic, by stating various counter statements that contradict her stance. To fully understand Jimenez, we have to view the different factors of her stance on why states should not be urging people to gamble, assumptions that she makes to support her stance and countering views of people who don’t necessarily agree with her argument.

The Texas Lottery negatively impacts the people that play the lottery and the programs that are supposed to benefit from the proceeds. Because of the big dream of winning, the lottery has taken a toll on Texans. “People believe that the Texas Lottery is their only chance to strike it rich” (Buckland, 2010). There is not near enough money going towards the Texas Education

To what extent is the lottery beneficial to the North Carolina education system? What is a lottery? A lottery is used to raise money for the government and for people to win big money prizes. The North Carolina Education Lottery is a government-run organization that funds various education programs and school systems in North Carolina. If one hundred percent of lottery money went to education, it would only cover nineteen percent of the state’s total expenses for schools. The lottery is not beneficial to education in North Carolina if schools struggle to gain instructional supplies, and if the government has to cut spending for school funding levels to barely make it over the national average.

The Texas Lottery Commission is a fairly new entity in Texas that was established only 25 years ago. In history, Texas is known for its conservative values and policies, disregarding immoral practices such as gambling. In 1991, the Texas Legislature introduced an idea that could help change how Texas creates revenue to fund Texas education. The idea introduced was the establishment of a state Lottery, a form of gambling. Representatives introduced House Bill 54 to the House to establish a lottery system. It is later decided that Texans must vote to approve this new lottery. The citizens of Texas voted on this bill and the bill passed by a two-to-one margin. House Bill 54 is known at the Lottery Act of 1991. With the creation of the statewide

In her essay “Against the Odds, and Against the Common Good,” Gloria Jimenez asserts that states should not promote and advertize gambling. Jimenez lists many clever lottery slogans that are deceivingly interpreted. She also argues that these slogans advertise the advantages of gambling and playing the lottery because the money supposedly goes to things such as education and social service. Jimenez explains some arguments in favor of state-run lotteries, such as free participation and the creation of jobs, but argues that they are not relevant to the problem. She briefly touches on a statistic claiming that low income individuals are more likely to spend money on lottery tickets than their opposite, higher income

Robert, governmental funding can be seesaws up and down. I wonder what you meant by public or representative of federal government of several variances. Robert, your statement says in of millions and millions dollars generated by willing citizens. The lottery is a gambling system just like faith. We were allowing the lottery to achieve some success stories but there have been unusual effects. Robert, have you ever research on how the lottery was started and why. The economic issues happen in our government would have the funds not be able to release. The winner or winners have faith trust the system by playing a dollar and a dream. Yes, the sinful nature causes gambling to question our belief and faith.

As was the case with the first wave of lottery activity, controversy began surrounding this national lottery activity, eventually leading to its banning by the Federal government. In 1890, the operators of the Louisiana lottery bribed various state officials with offers of up to $100,000 to renew the Serpent's charter. The rather flagrant method that officials of the lottery employed to ensure that the Serpent's charter would be renewed was reported throughout the country. Various state legislatures passed resolutions calling on Congress and President Harrison to stop this lottery. President Harrison urged Congress to pass legislation to curb all lottery activity. In late 1890, Congress banned the use of federal mails for lottery sales and

The author than fails to tell the source of this experiment so the reader of her essay is left wondering if it is even valid evidence from a reliable source. These viewpoints are better placed with a thesis that reads, “States should no longer be in the business of the state lottery.” The evidence she brings at that point covers most of her essay and I do not find them addressing the issue of “the states should not be in the business of urging people to gamble” (Jiménez 116-119).

Facts: States were looking at the lottery as an opportunity to raise their total revenue in hope to fund expensive work projects. While some states viewed the lottery as an asset, the other side viewed the lottery as harmful to families, the poor, and to public morals. The dispute led to the Federal Lottery Act of 1895, which was enacted by Congress to prohibit the buying and selling of lottery tickets across state lines. Charles Champion proceeds to ignore the Federal Lottery Act and is indicted by U.S. Marshall Ames for attempting to smuggle tickets of the Pan-American Lottery Company, from Texas to California. Champion believes his indictment is unconstitutional, claiming the Commerce Clause does not have power

To support her side of the argument and to answer these counterarguments Jimenez share a few statistics. She tells us that the New York Times reported in 2002, that the state-run lotteries brought in a revenue of $20 billion dollars, and that this is only 4% of the states income. She also tells us about one study in a report from the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy that shows people who earned $10,000 a year bought almost three times as many lottery tickets than those who made $50,000 or more a year. This shows us that more poor people buy lotto tickets, so more poor people are paying the taxes that benefit education and social services.

Here authors exploit the Massachusetts’ lottery winners in the mid-eighties. The size of the prize won in the lottery is random for someone who wins a prize, so researchers were able to compare recipients of different prize amounts to measure the impact of lottery cash transfers of different sizes on labor market outcomes, consumption, and savings behavior.

And then there is the state lottery. The New Yorker magazine estimated that the chances of winning an average lottery is about 12 million to 1. Some things are