Even that is debatable. In just about every state, when they added a lottery "that funds eduction", they reduced the state contribution to the education budget by exactly the amount that was being added by the lottery. So while technically yes it goes to education, in reality it does not.
Lotteries are my prime example when I want to highlight that humans don't act rationally
What if $5 per week for the rest of their life doesn't impact an individual's standard of living, but $10 million would drastically improve it?
Does it then make (more) sense to participate?
But if you get some other value out of it you place at least $5/wk utility on, sure. Maybe you get more utility out if it than a movie a month, or whatever.
Already maxing my ROTH and 401K so I figure it's like $80 a year well spent to entertain the phantasy.
I don't think most people even consider the odds when playing the lottery.
OTOH, people pay for the dream of winning the lottery, which has some value, adicts withstanding.
Insurance on the face of it is irrational -- insurance companies make money, therefore buying insurance is paying a premium above what the expected reimbursement is over the lifetime of the insurance. It's a reverse lottery; the expected outlays exceed the expected returns.
What you pay the premium for in insurance is to reduce downside variance.
What you pay the premium for in a lottery is to increase the upside variance.