Unfortunately, there's not a livable version of society where we "ban" gambling. Doing so just pushes it underground, and therefore inevitably into the hands of some kind of organized crime. I imagine the best compromise would be to create a state monopoly and make it easily (but not universally) available, while also trying to push some social stigma against it. Unfortunately for harmful vices like this, the anglosphere (and I assume a lot of other places) tends to oscillate between prohibition and hands-off marketism.

We are seeing similar with sports betting and marijuana in the US. Less than ten years ago, these were major crimes basically everywhere. Now, in large swaths of the country, you can't drive a mile without seeing a billboard for one or the other. Making them illegal again is not the answer, but we don't seem to have a standard way of shading things like this in any meaningful way.

(By the way, I'm not against people smoking a little weed or betting on football, but plenty of people do get momentum with both and it can have harmful effects for them. I believe the industries pushing both behaviors are in large part profiting off this small group of heavy "users". )

Vice has a cost. Anti-vice has a cost. There is no such thing as a free lunch and you're going to pay the piper somewhere. While I'm not a gambler myself, the "Just don't do $vice$" moral argument just never works on it's own.

You could say the same about alcohol but banning that also didn't work out.