Is it ever a legitimate function of government to make losers of any of its citizens?

The constitutions of most state governments and that of the federal government affirm that it is the role of government to promote the common good and protect the general welfare of its citizens. For example, the department of education is meant to provide quality education for young citizens; the department of transportation is intended to provide the best roads and highways possible; the department of health attempts to care for general health needs and protect the citizens from infectious disease, and so forth. The function of government has been to protect and help rather than exploit and take advantage of human weakness.

A state gambling commission, designed to oversee legalized gambling activity in the state, becomes the first agency of government set up for the purpose of making losers of its citizens. The state is joining hands with the gambling predators to prey upon the citizenry, often those who can least afford it, in order to line the pockets of the gambling operators and to bring in "painless" revenue to state coffers.

When a state legalizes gambling and establishes as an agency of government a state gambling commission, it is putting its stamp of approval on an activity that has in fact been previously viewed as criminal behavior. The legalization of gambling by government undermines the work ethic and turns the mindset of its citizens to a chance or luck ethic instead.

Is it an appropriate function of government to be in competition with legitimate business?

Where the state owns and operates the lottery, the state government joins hands with the gambling advocates to compete with legitimate business. There is in any society a fixed amount of money that is available to be spent in a discretionary manner, and the creation or legalization of gambling does not create any new money. The amount of money available remains the same but the money is redistributed. Private business owners who provide helpful and needed goods and services become the losers when the state enters into competition with them, and many are driven out of business.

Is it ever appropriate for the state to advocate and promote that which is known to be hurtful to people and destructive of the institutions of society?

Gambling is known to be directly related to major problems of suicide, criminal activity, business failure, divorce, and family violence. Because the state has made legalized gambling available and is reaping significant revenue from it, it has placed itself in the position of promoting addictive and destructive behavior which has been proven to contribute to the downfall of individuals and the breakdown of families. According to a study by the National Council on Compulsive Gambling, there are an estimated nine to twelve million compulsive gamblers in the United States with approximately one million of those being teenagers. The addicted gambler may be one of the greatest detriments to the survival of a stable society. As many as fifteen other persons are negatively impacted by each addicted gambler.

Is it ever appropriate for the state to become the promoter and advocate of such questionable activities as gambling?

Almost invariably the agency of state government that is responsible for enforcement and regulation of gambling becomes instead the primary point of promotion and advocacy. Gambling tends to corrupt everything with which it comes in contact. When citizens lose the agency designed to protect it from the gambling cartels and when the agency of enforcement becomes the protector of gambling interests, the government has lost its ability to hold accountable gambling interests and places its citizens in unprotected and vulnerable positions. Historically gambling is one of the major sources of revenue for organized crime, and illegal gambling flourishes when legalized gambling provides it a cloak of respectability for its gambling activities.