There are plenty of lousy, miserable, misguided whims out there. Then, every so often, you come across a notion so wrong-headed that it qualifies as phenomenally bad. 

Or, in words the marketing whizzes at the Colorado Lottery might understand, let’s call this a mega-bad idea. 

The proposal in question, recently adopted by the Lottery Commission, allows for the online sale of lottery tickets, as well as the use of credit cards for purchases. 

What in the world could go wrong with such conveniences? Well, how much time do you have and how much space am I allotted? 

For starters, it ought to be possible to stipulate that playing the lottery is a fool’s bet. Last I looked, it is still a free country and if you want to gamble away your hard-earned money, it is your right to do so. 

But gamblers, or “players” or “dreamers” or “good timers” in lottery parlance, would be far better off going to a casino or engaging the omnipresent online sports apps or even doing business with the neighborhood bookie than participating in the government-run lottery. That is unless giving your money away is your idea of fun and amusement. 

Consider the numbers. At a Vegas casino, the house take is typically in the range of 8 to 9%. That means that 91 to 92% of everything wagered – whether by pulling the slots or playing games or sports betting – is returned in the form of winnings. 

On sports betting apps, the payout is closer to 94% with the house keeping around 6% as its edge or “vig.” For those, like me, who learned this term from watching too many episodes of The Sopranos,” it comes from the word, “vigorish.” 

One might assume that the lottery’s figures are quite similar. That assumption would be wrong. Or mega-wrong, if you prefer. 

In line with most other states, the Colorado Lottery pays out roughly 65% in the form of winnings, while keeping 35%. When government gets involved in its beneficence, the house edge comes to more than one-third of revenues. 

For sure, over more than 40 years, the Colorado Lottery has distributed proceeds to some very worthwhile programs. Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) has been atop that list, receiving some $1.4 billion in such funds since its inception. 

Still, that begs the question of whether government should be funding critical undertakings by exploiting human weakness and fueling illusory fantasies of getting rich quick. 

From the perspective of the lottery player, there can be no doubt that they are making a bad bet with the odds stacked overwhelmingly against them. Truth-in-advertising would dictate that lottery officials refer to those who plays their games not as “dreamers” but as “suckers.” 

Now, the Colorado Lottery in its single-minded pursuit of sales has opened the door to online purchases and credit card transactions. 

Americans already carry excessive debt. It’s a national pastime. Lower-income households, already financially vulnerable and in many cases burdened by debt, buy a disproportionate share of lottery tickets. 

If there is such a thing as a regressive game, the lottery is it. Studies show that every 10% decrease in median household income correlates to a 4% increase in lottery spending. Lottery retailers are disproportionately located in impoverished neighborhoods. 

Where is the public policy wisdom or just the human decency in making it easy for those on society’s economic margins to sink further into debt in chasing that elusive big payday? How is that going to work out? 

Combining America’s twin addictions of debt and screen time, and following the lead of FanDuel and DraftKings, the lottery will now facilitate online play from the comfort of your basement.   

I get all of the arguments about free will, individual agency and people making their own adult choices. As a general rule, I err on the side of personal autonomy. But it is possible – in fact, it is quite rational – to hold such views and still find this government enticement to be confused and mistaken. 

Simply put, government should not be in the business of promoting bad habits, accelerating downward financial spirals and capitalizing on the distress of its citizens. 

Before the commission did all that, 25 members of the legislature, including most of its leaders, banded together to question the move on grounds of both substance and legal authority. 

Let us hope that our elected representatives step in next January to overturn these new rules and substitute foresight for the Lottery Commission’s extreme case of near-sightedness. Personal dead ends do not make for much of a jackpot. 

# # # # # 

Eric Sondermann is a Colorado-based independent political commentator. He writes regularly for Colorado Politics and the Gazette newspapers. Reach him at EWS@EricSondermann.com and follow @EricSondermann