That is one of the takes I've ever read. There is a reason gambling is so tightly regulated worldwide, and it's certainly not because governments hate easy vice tax revenue. Gambling debt destroys family units, increases poverty rates (most notably for the children of gambling addicts -- the consequences are not localised only to the person making the bad decisions), and increases violent crime rates. Gambling is massively detrimental to society. There can be arguments in allowing people to do things that are detrimental to society in the name of freedom, but it's not a great thing to pretend those detriments don't exist at all.

> Scamming of gambling addicts is tragic but not detrimental to society.

This isn't true.

  each 10 per cent increase in gambling expenditure in NSW results in more than

    4,500 additional assaults
    2,800 additional home break-ins
    1,300 additional break and enter (non-dwelling) offences
    1,400 additional motor vehicle thefts
    2,300 additional stealing from motor vehicle thefts
    3,800 additional fraud offences each year

> Stock market integrity is important because of their function in the economy

Some might argue that people - including gambling addicts, and those impacted by their addiction - might possibly be more important than one of many possible financial mechanisms for free enterprise.

You are ignoring the point of TFA. Kalshi & Polymarkets provide a marketplace to monetise political decision-making, a.k.a corruption. This is definitely detrimental to society.

>Scamming of gambling addicts is tragic but not detrimental to society.

It certainly is at scale.

Just so we're clear on the standards of solidarity here, someone murdering your entire family would be tragic but not detrimental to society. How much should society do to prevent that from happening?

Depends on how many of those gambling addicts there are.

If a huge enough portion of the population try to solve the statue quo of their economic problems by betting all on red, that's not gonna be great for society, including those who don't gamble.

The gambling industry itself is a net drain on society.

What is the societal benefit provided by it?

Until people are making money and affecting the world. Let's say that you're someone close to Trump and you have betted a very large sum that Trump should take a certain action. Are you going to try to make him take that action even if at that point it turns out to be the worst decision for the country and the world?

Except when "gambling adicts" end up as a cover for money laundering and funneling cash to people to buy influence.

> Scamming of gambling addicts is tragic but not detrimental to society.

I used to believe that. With the legalization of all the sports betting and how fast it can drain a gambler which can then affect the gambler's family, I'm now pretty much on the other side of the fence.

Just like we banned public smoking because of the effects of secondhand smoke, I'm pretty convinced that the secondary effects of gambling means it needs to go back to being banned. I don't see an obvious way to legislate gambling to prevent the auxiliary victims. It doesn't help that getting maximum profit as a bookie means being part of a group of the scummiest people on the planet who will stoop to anything to drain people of their money as fast as possible.