How about evidence based policy? We've seen what happens with drug prohibition and we've seen what happens with gambling prohibition. The former leads to an extensive underworld and tons of negative consequences but the latter wasn't nearly as bad.
What were the downsides of the prohibition on sports gambling? How many fewer people lost their savings to a blackmarket bookie versus the number of people who lose money now on the easily accessible mobile apps? I struggle to think of any net-negative effects of the prohibition on gambling - all the negative effects of gambling get worse when it's legalized.
The state can of course, claim that no one should be gambling on sports anyways, so its not a problem that people lose access, just as it can with any other vice. People who have no interest in sports gambling would of course, not care either way.
If there is no value assigned to having the freedom, in and of itself, then of course, banning anything becomes trivial.
I think under this criteria, as long as we can have an "effective" ban (ie: no black markets are created) on anything that is not healthy for people to participate in, it would be worth banning.
So basically, anything that is unhealthy, but not yet banned, is only allowed because the state cannot yet find an effective way to ban it.
That doesn’t mean that corporations should have the freedom to exploit society for profit while being a total net-negative. Enabling a vice in the name of "freedom" isn’t a virtue.
A little black market gambling is completely fine as long as the bookie is the one committing crimes and not their customers.