Whether or not gambling is damaging to society shouldn't be a philosophical or moral debate. And IMO "popular opinion" surveys should carry zero weight.
There are many places where gambling has been fully legal for decades. We should be able to look at data to make conclusions about whether something is good or bad.
(I do, however, wish people would shine a spotlight on scratch off tickets... mainly because the odds are so terrible compared to how they're advertised -- if it weren't state-sponsored, I don't think private companies would be able to get away with running ads for lottery tickets that pay out so incredibly poorly)
Gambling has been legal in those place, often limited in space, and/or in advertisements. In my country, betting is fully legal, but gambling ads can't be showed on TV to people under 18 (or is it 16?) since at least 2000. The law didn't target internet advertisement until more recently though.
And to be honest, i think lootboxes and "gambling" with fake (but real. but fake) money like on Roblox is worse.
[edit[ But it is absolutely a _moral_ debate. That's basically the only debate that is relevant.
How is it anything but a moral debate? The definition of "good" and "bad" are completely subjective and based on personal perspective, experience, and preferences.
On top of that, we don't have the granulatity of data you seem to think we do that would allow anyone to definitively determine that legalized gambling is the cause of any specific characteristic of a nation, state, or locality.
There are many places where gambling has been fully legal for decades. We should be able to look at data to make conclusions about whether something is good or bad.
(I do, however, wish people would shine a spotlight on scratch off tickets... mainly because the odds are so terrible compared to how they're advertised -- if it weren't state-sponsored, I don't think private companies would be able to get away with running ads for lottery tickets that pay out so incredibly poorly)