I really would like to understand your point of view on this...

I really would like to understand your point of view on this issue, as it probably represents all those who share it. To summarise (and I hope this isn't being simplistic): if you ban a bad thing, the bad consequences of it will stop.

I do see the logic, so it's not that I'm questioning. It has worked for many things. Ban slavery and slavery stops. Ban tobacco, or tobacco advertising, and fewer people will smoke. Ban hate speech and you reduce the incidence of hate speech. In these kinds of cases where the target of the ban is clearly wrong, it makes sense to impose bans.

What I don't get is the idea of banning gambling because some people are addicts. This is the kind of issue, along with other "social vice" type issues, where I can't see how a ban is necessary or useful or right (on a "moral" level).

Some people (probably many) are problem drinkers, yet there is no call for Prohibition. Some people lose an awful lot of their money on the stock market or at horse races, yet there is no call to ban those institutions. Some people spend lots of money buying sex, but there's no call to go back to the days when prostitution was illegal. These so-called social vices – sex, gambling, alcohol – are always the chief culprits for so-called "moralists", who seem to share the same disdain of them as religious bodies always have. Curiously, religious folk through the ages have been labelled as wowsers for doing so, while today's ESG-focussed folk are seen as protecting society and are thus "good".

So really, I'm interested in why you think "stopping Aristocrat and closing the cause of the problem" is a good (moral) thing to do. I'd like to understand your reasoning behind it.