The lottery is a game of chance where you can win a prize by drawing lots. It is popular among people who want to avoid paying taxes and for charitable causes. Most states run lotteries. Only six do not: Alabama, Alaska, Hawaii, Mississippi, Utah, and Nevada.

State governments promote the idea of the lottery as a way to get tax dollars for programs without raising taxes, and many voters buy into this argument. But a closer look at the lottery shows that it is a regressive source of revenue. Its players are disproportionately low-income, less educated, nonwhite, and male. And their playing is irrational, because the odds of winning are really bad.

What makes the lottery a regressive source of revenue is that the lottery is an enterprise that develops extensive specific constituencies: convenience store operators (who buy all the tickets); lottery suppliers (whose executives are big donors to state political campaigns); teachers (in states where a portion of lottery revenues go to education); and, of course, state legislators. These groups tend to take over the policymaking of the lottery, stifling debate about its overall desirability and the problem of compulsive gambling.

I’ve talked to lottery players, people who have been at it for years, spending $50 or $100 a week. The conversations always start the same: They try to convince you that their spending is not irrational, and then they tell you a story about how much money they have lost in the past. It’s hard to argue with these stories, but they are not persuasive arguments about the lottery’s value.