In general, it really does reduce the prevalence of something to ban it or nearly so. To take examples that both the American left and right hate to think about: - Banning abortion really does make it harder to get one. - Banning handgun sales really do make those harder to get as well.

(And yes, I am using the word "ban" as shorthand for "extremely tight/onerous regulations in red and blue states, respectively".)

This isn't alcohol with it's obvious deleterious effects. This is gambling, where the activity is hidden like cancer, until it grows into devastation to entire families.

> its much better to regulate vices then prohibition

And applied to gambling, this seems like an conjured argument, so oft repeated it has morphed into a platitude. I'm not aware of research that indicate that having the state safeguard gambling improves society in a quantifiable way - the lowest possible bar of "much better".

The gross proliferation of gambling ads certainly feels far removed from any notion of watching out for society's well being.

Sure. Say I agree with you.

The whole article's complaint isn't about the legality of sports gambling. It's about the prevalence of advertising. Of course the author doesn't like it, period, but once the billions started rolling in the politicians got out of the way.

I'm sure this will be inflammatory, but's not meant to be. It's like having separate smoking areas in bars/restaurants vs everybody smokes anywhere they want.

Gambling has been through the roof in really bad hopeless times. It has various names - but the Hail Mary effecgt stuck with me: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11390859/

But i do not see, what the meta-narrative wrapped around the problem adds to the conversation. What do all these moralin negators add to the conversation? Just step back, be a example and remain virtuous while the rest of the world follows "First comes the feast, then the morals?"

This is such a discourse decay, we used to have analysis, a whole pyramid of needs- and a culture with a dedication to keeping the machine that gives us the luxus of morals at any costs. Now instead of guarding civilizations and the machine that keeps it going, we get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellant, for whom their virtuous self-important abstinence from the decay, makes them blue blooded, nobles even.

> its much better to regulate vices then prohibition

One way to regulate a vice is to completely ban advertising it.

Another is to make it inconvenient to access - offline only, away from schools, places of worship, commercial areas, or other places people congregate.

Is gambling human nature? I have no urge to gamble, especially since I know the odds nor am not someone willing to take advantage of others on the other side.

Do people who have actually had to earn and deserve what they have gamble?

Accessibility and advertising does directly increase the mount of gambling people do. Meanwhile prohibition can actually reduce it.

A lot of things are "human nature" that nobody wants to have broadcast on TV. I appreciate her for having principles and drawing the line somewhere.

[citation needed]

So is murder psychopathy and enslavement, you want to regulate that?