Comment by mayneack
7 hours ago
Arguing over implementation details is a pretty common thing for laws to do. Maybe it would weaken the logical consistency of their laws, but that's not really a thing that matters.
Why do states allow hunting some animals and not others? Why do states distinguish between different forms of income to tax? It's all implementation details.
I wasn't saying we shouldn't debate the implementation details. I just think they should be separate arguments.
It's like if someone killed my dog with 3d printed gun and so everyone started talking about banning or regulating 3d printers. It's like, yes, debating 3d printer regulation is probably a worthwhile debate to have, but regardless of where we end up on that it doesn't change the fact that that person killed my dog.
We should be having a debate as to whether there are certain things that are off limits to bet on, but regardless of where that debate goes, if a state has banned sports betting, it should be banned regardless of the platform.
> any state that allows sports betting is going to struggle to argue a case to ban prediction markets because you're essentially arguing over implementation details
I think their point was that your "going to struggle to argue a case" belief does not logically follow from a need to argue "over implementation details"
I don't see why it even would weaken the logical consistency. Just because a state allows gambling does not mean they need to allow anyone to open a casino or betting site. You still need to apply for a licence and follow local regulations. If the prediction markets make sure to follow the regulations they should obviously be granted a licence to operate.