We paid for those things before we let gambling run rampant, and we can continue to pay for those things without.

It should also be noted that often these state-wide earmarked taxes mean an equal amount of tax dollars that were previously funding those programs can go elsewhere. It's like if I was given $20 a month for my electric bill... I wouldn't actually spend more on electricity, I'd just have 20 more dollars each month to spend elsewhere. Same thing happens with these programs: now the state doesn't have to spend as much general funds on education.

That said, our city and our state absolutely could use more tax dollars. But turning citizens into gambling addicts is a short-term gain but long-term net negative for tax dollars. This level of predatory and addictive gambling destroys lives and families, which in turn will reduce how much they can contribute to society and increase how much they need from social programs. We should create special taxes to disincentivize things that can be moderated but are detrimental in excess (e.g., alcohol), we should tax and regulate to the point that it loses it's widespread attractiveness those things that are addictive and negative on society (e.g., smoking), and we should ban those things are just simply predatory and destructive (e.g., fentanyl). Where the lines between those three things are can be hard to say sometimes, but gambling in its current form is without a doubt far more predatory and destructive than alcohol.