Increasing Lottery Payouts and the Psychology of Gambling

Governor Easley is continuing his efforts to have the General Assembly change the lottery formula so that more winnings are paid out. His rationale is that the more winners and the bigger the payouts the more people will play the lottery...all for the sake of generating more money for our public schools. He obviously is concerned that North Carolinians have not been as willing to spend their hard earned money on lottery scratch off games as anticipated and revenue generated is falling millions short of the overly optimistic projections used to sell the lottery.

What the Governor's press releases don't say is that the gaming industry utilizes the impact of winning those low dollar scratch off games as a means to induce people to play more and spend more. While most don't end up with a gambling addiction, the purpose and concept behind the Governor's push for more and bigger winnings is to, in essence, create a greater desire among players to keep spending and keep playing...the fundamental concept of addictive behavior.

Now this observation is not something I dreamed up. It actually comes from a speaker I heard at a recent legal education program talking about substance abuse and gambling addiction. This speaker was a highly credentialed professional in the field. When asked about the use of the small scratch off winning as a means to induce increased sales, she answered in the affirmative that it was being pushed for that very reason. The statement she made that most caught my attention was that the gaming industry knows more about addictive behavior than all the psychologists in the state collectively.

While I hope that the lawsuit challenging the unconstitutional way that the lottery was passed is successful, I understand that there is substantial public support for the lottery. But doesn't it seem not only inappropriate but down right wrong, for our state government to be pushing for this change when professionals in the field of addictive behavior would substantiate why it's being done. We need to generate revenue for public education but surely this isn't the way to do it.