NC finally gets in on the game.

Brooklynite · Post by **Brooklynite** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:36 pm

Lawmakers pass lottery bill in North Carolina, last East Coast state without a numbers game
Wednesday April 06, 2005
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) The North Carolina House voted narrowly Wednesday to establish a lottery in the last state on the East Coast without one.

The bill, approved 61-59, would dedicate profits to education, including school construction and scholarships.

The measure now goes to the Senate, which favored a lottery in the past but has not voted on the issue in a dozen years. Democratic Gov. Mike Easley has been pushing a lottery for education from the time he took office in 2001.

Past lottery proposals had been blocked in the House, but supporters finally persuaded enough lawmakers worried about education funding and a projected $1 billion state spending shortfall this coming budget year to join their side.

``I'm not so passionate about a lottery, but I am passionate about education,'' Rep. Alma Adams said.

Opponents said a lottery will create addicted gamblers, harm the poor and fail to generate the profits expected.

``I think is a sad day in North Carolina,'' said state Rep. John Sauls, a pastor.

Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Welcome to the 20 th century North Carolina! The lottery is bull anyways. I mean the chances of winning anything substantial is minute. What I never understood about the lottery is why it's age restricted. I mean playing the lottery may be a waste of money but it's not dangerous. The strange thing is that the money from the lottery is going to fun the schools, but the students are not allowed to participate in it.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1936, old post ID:28227

sintekk · Post by **sintekk** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 6:33 pm

The age thing sorta confuses me too, I can understand why they might not want anyone below 21 in a casino, but I think that anyone with the money to purchase a scratch and win ticket should be able too.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1936, old post ID:28232

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:15 pm

Oh yes, what a wonderful lesson to be teaching our young people. Why even worry about education and hard work if so much money is just a ticket away. Well, maybe not that ticket, must be the next one, nope, not that one either, must keep trying, after all, I can always get more money from Dad.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1936, old post ID:28265

manadren · Post by **manadren** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:31 pm

Lottery tickets were fun when I was too young to buy them myself [my dad bought me one every now and again] But when I got old enough to buy them myself I just had no interest.

Gambling in any form can become dangerous, so I can see why there's an age limit. But to anyone who is old enough to have the slightest clue what the odds are - and you don't have to be 18 to know that - shouldn't have too much of a problem. There are those who become addicted to the lottery and gambling, but there are those who become addicted to all sorts of things that you'll never get carded for. You can look at just about anything and see how it could corrupt someone. You can look at anything and see how it cold teach a child bad habits. Parents should try less to shield their kids and more to teach them, only the latter helps anyone over the course of a lifetime, but that's just my opinion.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1936, old post ID:28276

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:03 pm

manadren wrote: Parents should try less to shield their kids and more to teach them, only the latter helps anyone over the course of a lifetime, but that's just my opinion.

It's not a bad opinion. Shielding has its uses, but if it is done without teaching, it's not as effective.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1936, old post ID:28290

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:34 pm

Bookworm wrote:
manadren wrote: Parents should try less to shield their kids and more to teach them, only the latter helps anyone over the course of a lifetime, but that's just my opinion.

It's not a bad opinion. Shielding has its uses, but if it is done without teaching, it's not as effective.

My thoughts have always been you only shield when it cannot be taken into proper context. Hopefully, a parent is on the ball and exposure is not an issue, for they have been taught how this situation fits into reality, but certainly to be able to control the exposure is to control the raising of your children; children being one of the greatest variables on the planet(maturing being so variable).

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1936, old post ID:29566

Brooklynite · Post by **Brooklynite** » Mon May 02, 2005 5:52 am

Bookworm wrote: Oh yes, what a wonderful lesson to be teaching our young people. Why even worry about education and hard work if so much money is just a ticket away. Well, maybe not that ticket, must be the next one, nope, not that one either, must keep trying, after all, I can always get more money from Dad.

Wouldn't their parents ask what they need the money for?

I don't see any adults quitting their jobs because they can play the lottery. How is it any different with youth? Do you think children are going to be dropping out of school because they suddenly have a minute opportunity to win the lottery? I doubt it.

You may be interested to know that British Columbia until recently had no age for buying lottery tickets. Only recently did they establish an age at 19. They did this despite the fact that youth had only slightly more of a problem with gambling then adults.

Now FYI the reason for the 21 gambling age is because casinos are associated with the availability of alcohol. So since the drinking age is 21, the gambling age is 21 as well.

There are plenty of things that kids can legally waste their money on which are more addictive then lottery tickets, such as coffee, chocolate, video games.

If youth can't buy lottery tickets they'll just gamble illegally. In my high school there was plenty of gambling going on. We gambled on handball, basketball, card games etc… Oh and we gambled with more than just a $1. More like $20. So no matter how much you think you can stop youth from engaging in certain activities, they will always find ways to get around the laws. Prohibiting something just makes it all the more attractive. This is called the forbidden fruit effect.

My position is that people should have the right to spend their money however they want. It is none of the government’s business how people wish to spend their money as long as they are buying product that can physically harm them. So if a 16 year old who has a part time job wants to go to a casino and blow all his money on gambling that's his business. I don't care. Let the chips fall where they will. They'll soon learn that gambling takes a backseat to leading a successful and productive life.

People should learn about responsible gambling before they turn 18 or 21. This is how people learn, best by actual experience. If one completely abstains from purchasing lottery tickets until they turn eighteen, they will be more likely to become an addict because gambling is new to them, and they haven't learned how to gamble responsibly.
It is people such as yourself who prevent youth from maturing properly by limiting their experience and stifling their growth.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1936, old post ID:29701

Bookworm · Post by **Bookworm** » Mon May 02, 2005 9:38 am

Brooklynite wrote: You may be interested to know that British Columbia until recently had no age for buying lottery tickets. Only recently did they establish an age at 19. They did this despite the fact that youth had only slightly more of a problem with gambling then adults.

Perhaps they did it BECAUSE youth had slightly more of a problem with gambling than adults.

Brooklynite wrote: If youth can't buy lottery tickets they'll just gamble illegally. In my high school there was plenty of gambling going on. We gambled on handball, basketball, card games etc… Oh and we gambled with more than just a $1. More like $20. So no matter how much you think you can stop youth from engaging in certain activities, they will always find ways to get around the laws. Prohibiting something just makes it all the more attractive. This is called the forbidden fruit effect.

Perhaps with this reasoning, we should have no laws at all. If we prohibit something, people will just do it.

Brooklynite wrote:
People should learn about responsible gambling before they turn 18 or 21. This is how people learn, best by actual experience. If one completely abstains from purchasing lottery tickets until they turn eighteen, they will be more likely to become an addict because gambling is new to them, and they haven't learned how to gamble responsibly.
It is people such as yourself who prevent youth from maturing properly by limiting their experience and stifling their growth.

If someone is more likely to become an addict when gambling is new to them, why wouldn't this apply when they start at 12. Are they more likely to have the maturity to not go overboard with it at 12 or at 18? I say that it is perfectly appropriate for a parent to limit their child's experience to certain things until they have the maturity to understand why those things have been limited. Maturity has to come first before experience becomes useful.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1936, old post ID:29707