And I’m saying there’s no evidence for that. Illegal gambling arrest rates haven’t significantly changed since before Kalshi and Polymarket existed, so there’s no reason to believe that banning them would change that. Combined with other states’ examples wherein banning gambling outright didn’t cause significant social harms (e.g. organized crime), and I think the burden’s on you to show why CA is special and would suffer from a gambling ban.
Like, are there some gamblers who, if it were made illegal, would do it illegally in harmful ways? Yes! Are there enough such people that the social harms of banning gambling would be significant? I don’t think the data bears that out. This isn’t prohibition; this is something that has already been widely proscribed by law in the past without serious negative consequences (other than missed opportunities for riches on the part of the gambling companies that pushed to relax those prohibitions over the last decade).
>The legislature shall never grant any divorce. Lotteries shall be prohibited except as specifically authorized upon the affirmative vote of sixty percent of the members of each house of the legislature or, notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, by referendum or initiative approved by a sixty percent affirmative vote of the electors voting thereon. [AMENDMENT 56, 1971 Senate Joint Resolution No. 5, p 1828. Approved November 7, 1972.]
>NOTES:
Original text — Art. 2 Section 24 LOTTERIES AND DIVORCE — The legislature shall never authorize any lottery or grant any divorce.
