"If it's going to be made legal, it needs to be justified" is troubling - it's supposed to work the other direction: unless justified, it should be _legal_. I agree with your sentiment that there should have been a deeper public debate here, but banning gambling seems obviously unconstitutional, regardless of how I feel about it personally.

> If it's going to be made legal, it needs to be justified, rather than there needing to be justification for making it illegal.

Huh, why?

> It was banned most everywhere, then with no public debate on the subject, much less consensus, all of a sudden it was legal and in your face wherever you went.

They didn't change any laws, did they? So it was as legal earlier as it is now, isn't it? It's just that someone found the right loophole that was always there.

I recall plenty of debate. Maryland voters voted to legalize gambling because politicians said the funds would go to education. It was a ballot initiative that won a majority vote.

But I guess all the states in the union aren't as well governed as Maryland.

Here's the justification; it's my money and I'll spend it how I like