> to ban something we must be able to construct an argument that does not hinge on morality. For example, theft is bad because it deprives you of your possessions. No need to invoke morality.

Ok, I'll bite. Why is it bad to deprive you of your possessions?

And given that the house always wins, is it not depriving the gamblers of their possessions?

Gambling creates addicts, and addicts are more likely to act in desperation. They might steal or kill themselves and are less productive members of society. I bet societies with lots of addicts are much less likely to thrive because they carry a ton of dead weight. Thus we should ban or at least curb gambling because it hurts us all in general.

Which human law does not ultimately hinge on morality?

To deeply simplify - why do we ban things?

I'd say, because we as a group decide they are "bad".

Not sure how you can remove moral judgments from any discussion of banning

That literally is a type of morality, utilitarianism. Kantian deontology is not the only form of morality structure there is.

[dead]