I notice another comment already explained, so I'll just borrow it:

> It taught them gambling pays, and makes them more likely to lose money in the future.

By definition gambling is losing money in long terms (otherwise it's investing, not gambling). A disabled is less likely to recover after a financial disaster.

So if their net worth only goes up for the rest of their lives, you would consider them to have successfully invested, rather than gambled?

Seems to me your definition is a bit lacking.

Obviously because reinforcing what is most likely a psychological addiction is not a good thing, especially amongst a population who in other legal contexts cannot typically give informed consent?

Frankly you come off as purposefully obtuse for the sake of arguing.

My uncle is a triple amputee war vet with a Stanford degree and I’m not sure how he would take to your removal of his agency via accusations of inability to consent or safely gamble

There are two kinds of disabilities, mental and physical. I live alongside people with the former every day, and have my whole life. So while I admit I made an assumption, you failed to be specific.

For the next time you cherry pick anecdotes to try and support some outlandish position, I suggest you at least be specific while doing so. Unless of course that lack of specificity was intentional and this was meant to be a “gotcha”.