Medford mail tribune., November 17, 1963, Image 36

How Readers Voted on
The first Family Weekly Special Poll resulted
in a landslide, with ballots running more than 2 to 1
in favor of state-operated sweepstakes!
By JERRY KLEIN
Here's one sure bet: if the readers
of family weekly had their way,
state governments would soon be oper
ating legal lotteries.
On August 25, this magazine published the
article, "Legalized Lotteries Good or Bad?" It
described how New Hampshire earlier this year
had enacted a law to set up a state sweepstakes.
Accompanying the article was a ballot through
which readers from coast to coast could vote on
the controversial question of whether legalized
lotteries should be authorized as an alternative
to increased state or local taxes.
The result of the poll was a landslide! More
than 72 percent of family weekly readers who
voted said they were in favor of such state-operated
lotteries.
The tally: 3.9G3 in favor, 1,506 opposed.
The votes poured in from all sections of the
country, but an extraordinary number came from
the West and Southwest. Many citizens in those
areas made clear their resentment that nearby
Nevada's state-sanctioned gambling siphons off
money that otherwise might find good use in the
voters' home states.
The comments expressed by voters on both
sides of the question reflected a deep and genu
ine concern about the issue and its various as
pects: political, financial, moral, and social.
To sum up some of the arguments of the pro
lottery majority: a state-operated lottery would
provide a rich source of funds for schools and
social-welfare programs without adding to the
present tax load; state operation would insure
proper controls over gambling and curb the in
trusion of "gangster" elements; legal gambling
would give state governments millions of dollars
now wagered abroad, particularly in Mexico and
in the Irish Sweepstakes.
"It seems to be a painless way of paying
taxes," said John Welch of Tulelak, Calif. He also
noted : "A person isn't forced to join in playing
as (he is) in paying . . ."
Legalized lotteries "would cut out racketeers
and benefit all the people within the state," ac
cording to a Trenton, N. J., man who added: "I
think the question should be put before the pub
lic to vote on."
A Reno, Nev., woman wrote: "Gambling has
always been part of civilization and always will
be. It hasn't hurt our state but has provided a
living for many people and supported schools,
colleges, and churches. Besides, it's more fun
than taxes!"
J. F. Hess, a justice of the peace in Salisbury,
N. C, put it this way: "The public will gamble
one way or another. Give 'em what they want
and let 'em live normally . . . yes, let's have it,
the sooner the better."
All of life is a risk, many voters declared by
way of asserting that gambling isn't inherently
evil. "If people ffnd it morally wrong, then they
must also object to raising funds by means of
tobacco, alcohol, and racing taxes," said a man
in Villa Grove, 111.
Many of those voting in favor of state lotter
ies recognized that the issue has ethical over
tones. They contended, however, that there is
nothing fundamentally wrong with a govern
ment making it legally possible to bet provided
the individual is free to decide whether it would
be wrong for him to participate.
"You are not compelled to buy lottery tickets,"
said Leonard L. Wickland, Jr., of Wenatchee,
Wash. "If it is against your moral principles,
don't participate."
The question of betting being immoral was
described as "nonsense" by Carl G. Suosso, of
Manchester, N. H. "I've never been to a race
track," he added, "but I'll buy a lottery ticket."
"There is no moral issue here," declared a man
in Franklin Park, N. J.. And across the country
he was echoed by a woman in Carmel, Calif.,
who felt that "the moral issue is not significant
ly involved."
On the opposite side of the issue are the many
Americans who feel that encouraging gambling
would be a serious mistake. Here are the prin
cipal reasons they gave:
It is morally wrong; it weakens character and
leads to other forms of wrongdoing; its political
and social cost would override the taxes it might
yield; it is no real answer to the basic need of
cutting the cost of government.
"The end does not justify the means," declared
a Canton, Ohio, minister, the Rev. Gordon H.
Roloff. "A legalized lottery is basically a moral
crime ... it corrupts society and government."
Several residents of New Hampshire itself
went on the record in family weekly's poll as
being opposed to their state's newly adopted lot
tery. Among them were Mr. and Mrs. Charles
W. H. Witcomb of Hampton, N. H., who called
the idea "a shabby hoax" that would increase
"public apathy" and worsen the crime rate.
According to J. Lewis Schanbacher of Ko
komo, Ind., a state lottery would: "1. increase
poverty; 2. produce revenue from those least able
to pay; 3. destroy thrift and impair savings;
4. stimulate other forms of gambling; 5. put
government in extra-jurisdictional function; 6.
tempt politicians to use it as a political tool . . ."
Some of the most touching comments came
from readers whose own childhood had been
embittered by gambling. "We needed the money
for food," a. Corona del Mar, Calif., man recalled
sadly. "My father's gambling ruined our lives
and eventually broke up our home," wrote a
woman in Waterloo, Iowa.
Mrs. Glen Tinkle of Marion, Ind., said, "Tax
money that might be gained could never repay
the loss in happiness that lotteries cause."
"America was not built on easy chances, but
by hard work with just compensation," declared
Arthur H. Falter of Niagara Falls, N. Y. "To
give the stamp of legitimacy to gambling would
be to drive yet another nail into the coffin of all
that has made our country great."
Roy Mayhew of Bowling Green, Ky., said, "The
seeking of the easy buck must be decreased in
our society, not enlarged."
And, finally, Dr. and Mrs. Alan Benner of
Claremont, Calif., suggested: "It is better to
lower taxes by the honest, responsible applica
tion of tax monies than to rely on gambling to
cover up luxurious pork barreling and dishonest
manipulation of public funds.
"Let's fight for decent, careful expenditure
instead of crooked gambling."
4 Family Wnkly, NoMmtwr 17, 1 96 J