As you are no doubt aware, if you're evaluating if a thing is good or bad you have to consider its net effect, not a couple isolated examples. This is just a "smoking feels good and well I didn't get lung cancer" argument.

My uncle plays at the Mirage, so excess profits benefit a forgotten community (the Seminole tribe) that was historically and brutally marginalized by the privileged ‘society’ whose net effect you are considering.

The lottery proceeds fund public schools.

As with all things: if you ignore all the downsides, yes, the upsides look good.

> The lottery proceeds fund public schools.

Because a corresponding amount of general budget funds were diverted away from schools, the inference is untrue.

Darn can’t get anything right. Just tell me who to vote for so I can get back to my shows

The uncle that won $10,000? So that little tidbit wasn't good after all, he was stealing money from a historically marginalized community. And the lotto winner was similarly taking money from public schools.

Someone in Las Vegas last month lost $10,000. For the last 7 years someone has religiously purchased lottery tickets, never winning. Was gambling good for them?

See, we can all play this shit game.

Yes. It taught them gambling pays, and makes them more likely to lose money in the future.

> Was gambling bad for them?

Yes, without doubt.

> who is disabled

Even worse.

How do you think it was bad for them, if you don't know them? And, why are disabled winners 'even worse'?

I notice another comment already explained, so I'll just borrow it:

> It taught them gambling pays, and makes them more likely to lose money in the future.

By definition gambling is losing money in long terms (otherwise it's investing, not gambling). A disabled is less likely to recover after a financial disaster.

So if their net worth only goes up for the rest of their lives, you would consider them to have successfully invested, rather than gambled?

Seems to me your definition is a bit lacking.

Obviously because reinforcing what is most likely a psychological addiction is not a good thing, especially amongst a population who in other legal contexts cannot typically give informed consent?

Frankly you come off as purposefully obtuse for the sake of arguing.

My uncle is a triple amputee war vet with a Stanford degree and I’m not sure how he would take to your removal of his agency via accusations of inability to consent or safely gamble

There are two kinds of disabilities, mental and physical. I live alongside people with the former every day, and have my whole life. So while I admit I made an assumption, you failed to be specific.

For the next time you cherry pick anecdotes to try and support some outlandish position, I suggest you at least be specific while doing so. Unless of course that lack of specificity was intentional and this was meant to be a “gotcha”.

Exceptions don't make it good for the majority of society. Those exceptions are also what keeps people hooked, chasing a carrot until their bank account is empty.

How much has your uncle lost gambling, in his life?

How much has your cousin spent on lottery tickets, in her life?