[mayneack]

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.

[superfrank]

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.

[techdmn]

This is both one of my pet peeves and a thing that legislators seem to love: Somebody does a thing that is already illegal, but in a slightly novel way. Perfectly valid statute exists to prosecute, but legislators want to be seen as doing something, so they pass another law to make the already criminal action more specifically criminal.

Arguably bans on cellphone use while driving are a good example. It's not that it isn't bad, it's that distracted driving already carries a hefty fine without being specific as to the mode of distraction. So does causing an accident, which presumably is the harm we're actually trying to avoid.

[yccs27]

Making laws more explicit in important cases is valuable because it reduces uncertainty about legal interpretation. Using your example of cellphone use, under distracted driving laws the prosecution would have to prove that the specific case of cellphone use was distracting enough to be a safety hazard. With the more specific ban on cellphones, that is no longer an obstacle.

[lelandfe]

> 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"

[jeltz]

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.