Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

JackRiddler

(24,979 posts)
24. Many voluntary behaviors are subject to restrictions on advertising...
Sat Jan 28, 2012, 02:37 PM
Jan 2012

because they are considered objectively damaging to the person engaging in them. There is no TV advertising for smoking. It is understood perfectly well in the social sciences (and by the experts working in governments) that although a behavior is voluntary, promoting it by advertising results in more people doing it, and thus the advertiser bears a responsibility. Cigarette makers were forced to pay enormous penalties for their historic practices to promote smoking, although smoking was always a voluntary behavior. They were accused of misleading people; it didn't matter that people "should have been smarter" about it. It mattered that promoting an image of smoking as something cool encouraged people to do it, just as images of lottery winners having great lives encourage people to play the lottery. The state supposedly exists to serve the interests of the people, not to fool them into wasting their money (and thus contributing in many cases to their impoverishment). If an alcoholic has stayed sober for two years, and a friend visits with a bottle of vodka and tries to convince them to get drunk, is the friend not responsible simply because it's still the drinker's choice?

No one should buy lottery tickets, on government aid or otherwise. former9thward Jan 2012 #1
I agree. surrealAmerican Jan 2012 #25
Yup, that was my first thought too. Raine Jan 2012 #49
A better question... etherealtruth Jan 2012 #2
If you read the whole OP you'll see you are misinterpreting. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #12
I agreed with the OP ... etherealtruth Jan 2012 #17
Why not? It's just feeding the money back to the state. HOWEVER... HopeHoops Jan 2012 #3
Some would argue that is discrimination. cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #4
(that's essentially what I was saying) HopeHoops Jan 2012 #5
The lottery is not a tax on the mathematically challenged Hippo_Tron Jan 2012 #40
A tax on stupidity, in other words. Johnny Rico Jan 2012 #42
NO, addiction and stupidity are two entirely different things Hippo_Tron Jan 2012 #43
I wasn't trying to single out the lottery. Johnny Rico Jan 2012 #46
While it's probably a bad idea for them to buy MineralMan Jan 2012 #6
This isn't about giving up freedom of choice just because you're poor customerserviceguy Jan 2012 #39
I get a Social Securty payment every month. MineralMan Jan 2012 #52
That's different customerserviceguy Jan 2012 #53
We should also ban them from paying for entertainment, alcohol, tobacco killbotfactory Jan 2012 #7
You should read the OP before making such a big speech - see post 12 JackRiddler Jan 2012 #14
Does your list of gamblers include the big banks who have been malaise Jan 2012 #8
Nothing in the OP suggests any restriction cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #10
The lottery is essentially a "voluntary tax" with an incentive hughee99 Jan 2012 #9
The lottery is a scam and the state shouldn't be advertising it. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #19
It is completely voluntary, just like any other product that is advertised. hughee99 Jan 2012 #20
The government should be good for everyone cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #23
It would be really shitty hughee99 Jan 2012 #27
Many voluntary behaviors are subject to restrictions on advertising... JackRiddler Jan 2012 #24
Unlike cigarettes and alcohol, the lottery's only hughee99 Jan 2012 #29
You seem disinclined to consider the government as cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #30
If I'm not mistaken, right now, the government allows hughee99 Jan 2012 #32
Your justified critique of other government ripoffs is completely irrelevant here. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #35
You have argued that the government has an obligation hughee99 Jan 2012 #36
You can't always justify something because it makes money for a "good" thing. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #31
I have no issue with printing the actual odds and payouts on billboards the size of the Superdome hughee99 Jan 2012 #34
Please consider the opportunity argument. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #37
It's a valid argument, but based on your argument so far hughee99 Jan 2012 #41
I think the lottery is a legitimate means of preventing private numbers games... JackRiddler Jan 2012 #55
I think perhaps I'm not saturated with the level of marketing that you are. hughee99 Jan 2012 #56
The difference between New York and what you describe in MA is exponential. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #57
Define "government aid" as used in your question. dixiegrrrrl Jan 2012 #11
Doesn't matter. The thread title is just a rhetorical hook for a critique of the lottery. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #16
Matters to me, thank you, and I would like the OP to answer. dixiegrrrrl Jan 2012 #21
But it does matter. lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #45
The defintion is irrelevant cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #22
Yes (nt) bigwillq Jan 2012 #13
Hell yes! Bluerthanblue Jan 2012 #15
Mine goes to hookers, beer, smokes, so I got no complaints The Straight Story Jan 2012 #18
No one knows who buys the tickets since EC Jan 2012 #26
You could always read the OP... cthulu2016 Jan 2012 #28
I know who buys tickets. JackRiddler Jan 2012 #33
*Should* they be buying lotto tickets? Proles Jan 2012 #38
It depends. Why do you as a citizen, provide aid to poor people? lumberjack_jeff Jan 2012 #44
A middle class friend of mine plays the lottery a couple times per week Nikia Jan 2012 #47
Should those on government aid be allowed to breathe? Autumn Jan 2012 #48
The only people who should buy lottery tickets are those who enjoy playing the lottery. ZombieHorde Jan 2012 #50
Here's an idea: ProSense Jan 2012 #51
Why does anyone answer and legitimize the right-wing scumfucks who invent these memes? n/t backscatter712 Jan 2012 #54
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Should those on governmen...»Reply #24