The passing of Pope John Paul II has nothing, directly, to do with the momentum building in North Carolina to start a lottery. Nothing, that is, except that a goodly portion of his large legacy in this era of shifting values was to stand firmly in support of the poor and for traditional morality. The herd mentality driving the Tar Heel state toward a lottery would have been anathema to him, as it is to many of lesser moral stature.

Leaders in the state House of Representatives have voted to start a lottery. The proceeds would help schools with money for construction, pay college costs for needy students and start a fund for educational initiatives deemed worthy by the General Assembly.

Those are all honorable uses for this money, and so it seems that not supporting a lottery is simply wrong. As a father of three public school students, I know well enough the condition of our schools and how they are constantly underfunded. I know first-hand of terribly bright students who don’t get the opportunity for college because they figure out early on they won’t be able to afford it without going into debt.

Still I find myself pulled in different directions. Let me make it clear right here that if the simple act of being human makes us all imperfect, then I am more imperfect than most. I give into temptation of all sorts, including buying lottery tickets when I travel. In other words, I partake.

The point is that my ambiguity about North Carolina starting a lottery does not come from some high-browed, moralistic perch. Part of it stems from a streak of individualism that, in many ways, is a large part of being American. We are the last state on the East Coast not to have accepted a lottery as a means of raising money. All around us — South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia — are attracting North Carolinians who want to lay down their money and play the lottery. None of those state’s schools are so much better than ours that one can attribute the success to the lottery proceeds. Solving our budget woes and meeting the challenge of paying for our public schools will always be difficult, and will remain difficult even with a lottery.

There is also an element of class concerns in my questions about the lottery. It is, without doubt, a tax on the poor. A 1999 Duke study being quoted by opponents everywhere, found that high school dropouts spend an average of $700 per year on the lottery, high school graduates spend $409, those with some college spend $210 and graduates spend $178 per year. Problem gamblers, those who spend at least $1,619 per year, account for 82 percent of total lottery sales. In effect, we are saying it is OK for uneducated folks to waste much-needed money at the same time we are spending millions on social programs to ease the pains of their poverty. Doesn’t seem to make much sense.

Here’s another truth about the lottery: anyone who believes that the counties and the state won’t decrease their support for education in correlation to how much lottery money they can get is being naïve. Ask any county government or state government reporter how tight “unrestricted” cash is at all levels of government. They’ll tell you that elected leaders will undoubtedly use this cash infusion to slowly gnaw away at their support for schools. As counties are able to ease their commitment to public schools, it could contribute to a society-wide erosion of support for the mission of public schools. In many ways this is already occurring.

I’m not the only one second-guessing myself about the lottery. No, even our lawmakers who support the bill that was passed by the House seem to have similar feelings. Although they passed the measure, they tried to strike a kind of superior pose by promising North Carolinians a kinder, gentler lottery. They won’t advertise it on television, radio or in newspapers. The only ads will be at the point of sale in retail stores. And the ads must contain the odds of winning (losing?) and not be directed toward minors. The bill also says North Carolina won’t take part in the Super Lotto multi-state jackpots. We’ll do a lottery, they’re saying, but we just won’t be as gaudy and ostentatious as the rest.

Seems a bit contradictory, and the evidence suggests the state won’t raise as much money with this stripped-down game.

Oh, and by the way, a 75-cent a pack cigarette tax could raise the same $400 million or so lawmakers want to bring in with the lottery. Instead, we keep this tax embarrassingly low despite the overwhelming evidence of tobacco’s damaging impact on everyone.

I’m sure when this lottery hits the books I’ll play occasionally, but I’ll do so knowing that there are certain aspects of it that rub me the wrong way. Lotteries have been around for centuries as a way of raising money, so I probably shouldn’t be drawing any conclusions about the state support of gambling somehow to contributing to the moral decay of society as a whole. Maybe there’s more direct correlation we should make: if government needs more money, why not have the courage to raise it in the traditional way — a tax — than by supporting a lottery tax.

(Scott McLeod can be reached at info@smokymountainnews.com.)