Ummm what happens when you apply your argument to allowing them to spend it on alcohol or cigarettes or a car or a thousand other things? This is a flawed argument my friend. No one group has a right to enforce their social, moral, economic or other ideology on another group based on what the enforcing group thinks is "right". That's a slippery slope with extra grease on it.

I guess it's hard for some people to relate to a large portion of any future savings being 'invested' in lottery tickets ("the money just goes towards your college education either way!") and spent on cigarettes -- not that hard at all when it's been your reality.

Well then the government should create laws allowing it to dictate what you can spend your money on if you make less than $X per year. You know, to prevent social consequences.

In your line of reasoning, should we perhaps also introduce mandatory drug testing for people with low income, and prohibit them from buying alcohol and cigarettes? Surely, these purchases have more social consequences than lottery tickets.

This concept of "social consequences" is essentially a flipped framing of a situation to incorporate an implicit utility function of whomever is using the term.

If a person or group of people does not act in a way that benefits you, they still have not harmed you. It simply means they have not chosen to conform to your expectations.

Different methods of governing can basically all boil down to a simple balance scale:

On one side you have the rights of the individual and on the other side you have the rights of the community.

Some people tend to lean the scale toward individual rights and others toward community rights.

Smaller government tends to handle the balance by staying out of the way until it's necessary that they step in. Bigger government tends to handle the balance by marking clear (or blurry) lines and moving them when necessary.