Arkansas Blog

Wondering how proponents of the Ark lottery feel about the data coming out of Oregon. Over the last 3 years 10% of those playing the Oregon Lottery accounted for 53% of the losses; about $375 million.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/11/oregon_lottery_addicted_to_big.html

Well, Z, I can't prove it but I bet some where around 10 or 15 per cent of those playing the stock market account for 53 percent of the uppity millions lost.

Nice comparison. Wonder if its true. Are the wagers of the wealthy safer than those of the poor?

Zar,
Maybe I'm just thick, but I don't understand how anybody's supposed to "feel" about that statistic. Some people who play the lotto play and lose more than others who play the lotto. Seems simple enough. And makes sense. I know people who go to casinos and refuse to lose more than $20. Others have considerably higher limits. Some people invest more in the stock market, as Cato said. Some spend more on expensive wine and dinners, going to the movies, bowling, sex toys, Rogaine, and cute little sweaters for their dogs. Just a question of choice regarding what people spend for entertainment, as far as I can determine.

For Cato and any other risk takers...
CLICKY

It was a sloppy game but Saints pulled off #9..............WHO DAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RickBaber,
My brother likes casinos. I find them boring and the entertainment value equal to dropping dollars into a hole in my yard. When my brother and I talk about it, his comment is that you must consider them as entertainment. If you go to the movies, you are going to spend x dollars and you don't expect to get more money back than you spend. Same in casinos. You are going to lose on average, just select the games that stretch the money the longest.

I'm with CBB. To me, the entertainment value of casinos is limited to the free liquor.

couldnt be better, I agree with you. Might as well throw perfectly good money out the window, if you're anything like me.

just this afternoon my 20-y/o neighbor came over to ask me to check his powerball ticket online. He SAID he never expected to win but his high spirits said something different. He was right, though -- he didn't win anything. we looked at pictures of the winners, but we are still poor. Go figure.

He just aint got no power balls, and thats how it goes. maybe they meant FLOUR BALLS??? Except I dont see why anyone would want to win flour balls. Powe balls, maybe, but flour balls of any sort can be made at home, right?

Rick, perhaps its my thickness but it seemed to me the point of the article and data was that the lottery revenue source was not particularly egalitarian. Please pardon my use of the term "feel" for a request of an opinion about a majority of monies coming from a minority of participants.

jazzy, you are showing your age. Kay Starr. Old song.

Gambling? I have no interests in casinos. Don't care for dog races. I spend five dollars a week on lottery tickets, in case my granddaughter and grandson can get a scholarship. Have yet to play the powerball but intend to. I do play the ponies but I am a .50, one and two dollar bettor. My daughter had a birthday yesterday and I slipped in her card five dollars worth of lottery tickets.

My point: I don't condemn anyone for their gambling for I view it all harmless UNLESS it is abused. But I say the same about food, alcohol, sex, stock market or.......listening to Kay Starr.

This is one of the many reasons why I adore gay men....clicky.

(Come on homophobes, even you have to admit it was entertaining).

............but on the other hand if we didn't live with hope/faith it would be hard to get out
of bed every morning. I had hope and faith that Santa and all his reindeer were going to land
smack dab in middle of our roof and they always did. I've never bought a ticket, yet, mainly
because I don't know how to play....perhaps if I find out I might drop a few bucks. If I ever
won a big jackpot it would go to needy family members, maybe for one way tickets to Canada.

Well, Zar, maybe we're not so thick then. I understood THAT point - but I don't think there was ever anybody (at least, not me) arguing that the lotto revenue was egalitarian. It is based upon the whims and habits of individuals, who, by definition, are all different. The fact that a few people support it, being that they do so of their own free will, doesn't necessarily make it a bad (or good) thing. It is simply a fact, like 2+2=4. (gimme a minute to check my math) Yeah. That's right.

Well, at least here's one more prediction of the lottery that seems to hold up as true for the present, with 74,000 problem gamblers in Oregon, a state with a population of 3,790,060 then 2% of the population, men, women and children are problem gamblers.

For a cheery note, since we don't have video poker . . . yet; we may expect our numbers of problem gamblers to be less than 57,000. So conservatively, because " . . . the law setting up the lottery mandates that at least $200,000 in unclaimed prize money go the state Department of Health each year for treatment of gambling addiction and education about compulsive gambling disorder. . . ." Then the legislature has allotted a magnanimous and munifucent $4.00 per person per year for treatment.

But of course, Arkansans being Arkansans, we won't have the problems other states do . . . will we?

Oops ". . . munificent . . ." can't even spell!

"The fact that a few people support it, being that they do so of their own free will, doesn't necessarily make it a bad (or good) thing." Posted by RickBaber

Rick, I can easily think of things that folks could also do of their own free will that WOULD be a bad thing- for example, driving on the wrong side of the road. Free will, right? Bad, right? Or jumping from the top of a tall building anywhere. Free will, right? Bad, right? Or believing the Chamber of Commerce and rich folks are really lobbying Congress on behalf of poor and middle class people. Free will, right? Bad (ignorant), right? Or reading any of LargeAss, beau/mike/strangelove or Catfish Eater's posts. Free will, right? Bad, right?

I rest my case.

Oh Zara,

There aren't any anti-smoking threads so I assume you have a new cause? How predictable and consistent you are, Zara. You're the self-appointed policeman for ALL vices.

I'm not much of a fan of the lottery, personally, because that's not my cup of tea (though I've purchased some tickets). I relish smoking, drinking and ILLEGALLY gambling on a few college football games. And let me tell you, Zara, I derive a great deal of enjoyment from doing just that.

If a minority of folks lose the majority of the money on a LEGAL lottery that benefits others, I'm all for it. It's something they obviously enjoy or they wouldn't be buying more tickets.

But you, Zara, don't want to see anybody enjoying anything. You've written tomes on this blog about smoking and now you're dipping your toe in the lottery. What's next? Banning birthday cakes at kids' parties because the icing is fattening?

the_floyd,
This afternoon I saw the flare-up between you and NormaBates on another thread. Don't take it personally. I think she means well.
Norma, you totally missed floyd's point and also presented azfamily in a bad light. (Can you admit you made a mistake?)
Have a great week everybody!
Kizzy

Rick,

I consider 2% of the total population having a gambling addiction to be a bad thing. Please note, I do not make an assumption about what caused(s) the gambling addiction only that two per cent of the total population addicted to gambling is bad.

Interesting activity at my office. Twelve people, and I am not one of them, have formed a "combine." Each person contributes $5 every week. One person, in rotation, takes the $60 and buys Powerball tickets. If they should win, the pot will be split equally 12 ways. They put it all in writing with signatures. Oh well, I guess it is a step up from the office football sheet.

Look, I've witnessed guys at the bottom of the income ladder slowly raise their hands when the fundie preacher was asking for more than his usual 10% for guilt relief. If people are willing to put money in the plate for a shot on life everlasting while ABSOLUTELY NO evidence exists to say it will ever happen then how can we find any additional foolishness in gambling?

Maybe that's why preachers don't like gambling. It's no more than competition. The repentant has a 50% chance of his/her sins being washed away and finding a magical kingdom in the heavens but the payoff only happens when you face the most dreaded thing humans face. But with lottos you need not give up your life to find a life. You just give up say $5 week. Sounds like a better deal to me, I get to enjoy my rewards while I know I can enjoy them instead of paying 10% all my working years and only then maybe I have a 50% chance.

I'm just wondering why the Heaven-Bound folks don't just take really high paying dangerous jobs and leave the rest up to You-Know-Who?

.

Changing subjects------in case you never stop shaking your head about this kind of stuff.....click on Cato.

Loved the you tube Sister..laughed out loud, those guys were quite full of themselves, obviously having a good time!

Did you go hear C. Harris on Thursday at UALR??

Australian PM Rudd apologizes for this human tragedy. Click on Cato

Sure, kizzy!

Uh, what exactly was my mistake? What "point" of the_floyd's did I miss? How did I present azfamily.com in a "bad light?"

I just quoted both their statements directly, then pointed out that what they said wasn't true and I don't appreciate being lied to.

Kizzy, honey, you haven't SEEN an apology until you've seen Norma Bates apologize.

So please set me straight about my "mistake" then stay tuned for the mother of all apologies.

cato, the comment by chubbychaser is telling.

Yeah, so I noticed, kizzy. But only two out of five agreed with his comments. Now who on this forum do you think could possibly be those two? *grin*

Nanc,

I forgot all about that...did you go? I do miss True Blood but am happily filling my Sunday nights with Brothers & Sisters. IMO, it's the best drama on network TV.

And Norma, Kizzy is trying to make peace in our little dysfunctional sandbox. Retract the claws and pounce on the_floyd if he shows.

And to you, the_floyd...what does your name mean? Makes me want to change my handle to the_Sistertoldja...or, the_Sister_toldja. I don't understand the underscore.

Was thefloyd taken? Was Floyd taken? Was "the'' taken?

If I ever get banned, I'm coming back as "the'', which I'll pronounce as "thee''

no, sister, i don't really give a shit about the lotto or how much fun you have. The article makes reference to the fact that gambling addicts are bearing the brunt of the funds raised for Oregon through the lottery. That seemed rare data. I should have known you'd get all bent out of shape. I most specifically have never called either gambling or nicotine addiction a vice.
One reason i try to limit myself to challenging the tobacco industry is because i prefer to speak of something about which I have a clue. Try it sometime. Good night.

"The results of the five-year study? Men exposed to high levels of BPA on the job had a much greater chance of sexual problems than men who weren't."
...
"To be sure, factory workers exposed to BPA in the study faced levels 50 times higher than those experienced by the average American male. "Because the BPA levels in this study were very high, more research needs to be done to see how low a level of BPA exposure may have effects on our reproductive system," Dr. Li said in a statement. "This study raises the question: Is there a safe level for BPA exposure, and what is that level?"

The scientists' findings appear in the journal Human Reproduction. Their work was funded by the US National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.

Update: The American Chemistry Council, a trade group, said in a statement that the study "provides interesting new information" but that its relevance to consumers is limited because they use products exposing them to "minute amounts of BPA."
[LINK]
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/11/bpa_at_work_linked_to_mens_imp.html

...

[5 Reasons to Celebrate Deer Hunting Season]

"Men love to kill things. It gives them a sense of power and accomplishment. It satisfies their natural male psychology; that same part which causes them to watch Die Hard 1, 2 3, Terminator 1, 2 3, all the James Bond movies, etc. multiple times. I firmly believe that if men were denied the opportunity to kill things at least once per year, they might lash out in other ways like wanting more ATVs, more tools, more.sex?!. Hunting proves to be a valued event year after year."
[LINK]
http://www.rangebuzz.com/content/category/events/deer-hunting-season/

Am I too late? Zis thread still alive?
Sound Policy,
The comparisons you made are, forgive the expression, ridiculous. I was referring specifically to the lottery, and not all things that people do of their own free will. But if you want to carry out the theme, I'd compare this action more to waiving with their right hand rather than their left. Free will, right? Good or bad? We report, you decide.

Doc,
Where does it say "addiction"? Does that fact that people continue to do something automatically make it an addiction? I dunno. Just axing. If that is the case, is an addiction always bad? I can think of a lot of things I do on a regular basis, come hell or high water, that I've never thought of as an addiction, but, by that definition, I guess they are. I like my eggs over medium, for example, and I like to turn the spoon upside-down when I eat ice cream. What about reading the morning paper - or tuning in and posting comments on a blog? Would elliminating the lottery in Arkansas cure the people of Oregon of this terrible affliction? Would it keep Arkansans from catching it?

"Addictions," says Joseph Frascella, director of the division of clinical neuroscience at the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), "are repetitive behaviors in the face of negative consequences, the desire to continue something you know is bad for you."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1640436,00.html

Rick, I kinda figure the thread is winding down but what intrigued me was that researchers have actually found that gambling excites the same dopamine activity that other behaviors, or substances, do in the brain. They did some MRI work at Cal Tech in 2006 that surprised a lot of folks and of course the DSM IV has criteria distinguishing gambling addiction. The point is that there are actual physiological differences between an addiction and a habit, like how you like your eggs etc.

Now what interests me is of course related to nicotine addiction and genetics. Ever wonder why some people find it easy to quit smoking and some go to their grave clutching a fag? Well an important part of that is how the body metabolizes nicotine in the liver and that enzyme is inherited.

Now Like I've said I don't really have a dog in this hunt but, if problem gambling is inherited and the government is exploiting that genetic make up to fund the bulk of whatever it is they fund w a lottery, an ethical quandary comes into play. It seems analogous to taxing redheads for no other reason than the color of their hair. This is one reason the article interested me.

A fellow at UAMS Warren Bickel just got a couple of million from NIH I believe to study what he's calling behavioral economics and meth addiction. I heard him speak a few years ago and the short of it is that addicts don't have the same concept of long term and short term rewards. You and i may contribute to an IRA for long term goals but an addict my think of a long term goals as scoring tomorrow's fix today. That's over simplified but not much. ( This comes into play w nicotine addiction and children. Kids just do not recognize long term health benefits. We were all immortal once.)

Anyway, that's a little bit about the difference between being unable to stop feeding the ponies and how you hold your ice cream spoon.

Ok, i'm outta here.