> What do you mean prohibition never works?

exactly how it reads? can you point to any historical examples where it has?

> Are you really going to claim legalizing sports betting a few years ago DIDNT increase gambling in the US

No? Did not claim that at all?

> This doesn't strike me as a good faith comment

yours does strike me that way either; although mine definitely was in good faith.

> although mine definitely was in good faith

If it was in good faith, why didn't you bother addressing the point? How was gambling prohibition "not working"?

There has never been a gambling prohibition as far as I’m aware - so I won’t address an imaginary argument. Hope that helps. However, an astute reader would realize that there have been multiple other attempts at prohibiting “vices” that have failed in spectacular fashion. I trust you can do your own research here and don’t need to belabor that point.

On gambling prohibitions though - one local one I can think of is the CA gambling market. California has decided most forms of online gambling are “illegal,” (except the ones that have successfully lobbied for it), yet it is not enforced at all, only on corporate sites, which creates a massive black market that actually causes far more exposure to harm to consumers than legalization would. This isn’t a novel argument, it’s been debated for 20+ years and the results are pretty clear. I understand however people don’t seek nuance in these arguments and if your stance is “GAMBLING == BAD” I really don’t have much else to say here.