For the record, Minnesota currently has a complete ban on sports betting.
We've seen a couple other states that allow sports betting go after prediction markets. Personally, I feel that any state that allows sports betting is going to struggle to argue a case to ban prediction markets because you're essentially arguing over implementation details. Even arguments that certain prediction markets are ripe for insider trading or morally wrong fall a bit flat when you realize that traditional sportsbooks let you bet on things like college basketball player props and the little league world series.
I'm still not sure Minnesota will win their case, but it feels like that detail gives them a lot better chance of winning compared to many other states.
ericmay 1 hours ago [-]
I think you could make a case in separating the two, of course opening further discussion, but because sports betting takes place in a comparatively very controlled environment I think the risk profile is pretty different versus, idk, betting that the temperate will be at or above a certain point and then someone sticks a hair dryer on the thermostat[1]. Cheating can happen in sports of course, but the risk profile and real-world impact I think is quite a bit different. Worth discussing, but I think that's an important distinction.
Separately, I believe over time that prediction markets will become the source of real world truth. Why? Because money is at stake and so validity and verification matter. It'll be interesting to see how, if this comes to fruition, how laws in states like Minnesota affect news reporting and journalism. It seems likely to me that at a certain point prediction markets will buy traditional media and news outlets to hire out the fact-finding and reporting teams to ensure ground truth, and of course to use journalism as the gateway to the market. So you read an article "China disappears random person" and then at the end you click a button and bet whether that person is alive or dead or whatever.
> I think you could make a case in separating the two, of course opening further discussion, but because sports betting takes place in a comparatively very controlled environment I think the risk profile is pretty different versus, idk, betting that the temperate will be at or above a certain point and then someone sticks a hair dryer on the thermostat[1]. Cheating can happen in sports of course, but the risk profile and real-world impact I think is quite a bit different. Worth discussing, but I think that's an important distinction.
That's kind of the point I was getting that. That's not really an argument about prediction markets, it's about what things should we be allowed to bet on.
I'm looking at FanDuel right now and I can bet on 1v1 eSports games of FIFA. The bets aren't even just who will win, but it's things like how many goals will a team score or who will score first. During the last Superbowl books were offering bets on things like what color tie the announcers would wear. I get that there's maybe a slight difference between that and betting on what words a sports announcer will say during the broadcast, but IMO, you're splitting hairs. They're both very easily to manipulate and very open to insider trading.
I think you probably agree with this, but IMO, there needs to be two separate conversations. One, are prediction markets sportsbooks by another name? Two, are there certain markets that we should not allow betting on?
Personally, I think the answer to both of those is yes, but I think if you smush them together into one conversation it makes things really messy.
XorNot 49 minutes ago [-]
> So you read an article "China disappears random person" and then at the end you click a button and bet whether that person is alive or dead or whatever.
So think really hard about what the problem with this whole concept might be...
ericmay 47 minutes ago [-]
No need, it's very obvious. I'm just stating what I think the future is likely to be, not necessarily the one that is the best.
overgard 32 minutes ago [-]
I think sports betting is a lot less harmful than prediction markets. With sports betting if someone throws a game to get a pay day, for instance, the only real consequence is on the reputation of the sport. In prediction markets, people can do all sorts of awful things to make money as insiders..
_--__--__ 25 minutes ago [-]
Most available data suggests that sports betting is much worse for the people making the bets, as it better targets people with poor impulse control. Bad bets in political markets aren't causing measurable increases in bankruptcy and domestic violence rates (https://thezvi.substack.com/p/the-online-sports-gambling-exp...).
superfrank 15 minutes ago [-]
First, over 90% of the wagers on Polymarket and Kalshi are already on sports (quoting John Oliver's Last Week Tonight on that one). Despite the headlines, Kalshi and Polymarket are mainly just sportsbooks.
Second, while yes, some of the markets available on prediction markets can push people to do awful things, there are plenty that are harmless. I'm cherry picking to make an extreme point, but I would so much rather have someone betting on what the temperature in Los Angeles is going to be tomorrow on Kalshi than betting on who will win the little league world series on DraftKings.
I support regulation saying certain things should not be allowed to be bet on, but allowing bets on morally questionable things isn't a quality unique to prediction markets.
rdataguy 50 minutes ago [-]
But I thought the Supreme Court said online sports betting was interstate commerce and out of the domain of state legislation. Or did I get that completely wrong?
bmelton 43 minutes ago [-]
The core holding was this
> "congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each state is free to act on its own."
advisedwang 20 minutes ago [-]
No, the SC said the federal government can't outright ban sports betting. The logic was that a ban interferes with states right to legalize sports betting.
(To be clear, it is still an nonsensical decision though. Congress does still have the power to regular gambling under the interstate commerce clause, just not outright ban it)
quaddoggy 56 minutes ago [-]
> Minnesota currently has a complete ban on sports betting.
Canterbury Park would like a word…
superfrank 10 minutes ago [-]
I have a website I run that is focused on sportsbetting so while I know high level what is legal where, I'm not actually in Minnesota, so I don't know every single detail especially when it comes to what's allowed in person.
My guess would be that either A) that's tribal land and there's an exemption for that in the current laws or B) they have a casino, but don't offer sports betting or C) they only allow sports betting on the property by either requiring all bets to be placed in person or the app they offer is for sportsbetting is geo-fenced to their property (which is how states like WA do it)
CPLX 53 minutes ago [-]
I mean, that's exactly why a state has the right to regulate this, historically it has been an extremely regulated activity. You can personally feel however you want, but the fact that a state does allow sports betting does not diminish this even slightly.
This has been banned for generations. It's called gambling.
Of course, we all have to sit through another round of Silicon Valley pretending they've discovered some new exciting business model that's just vice.
Unlicensed gypsy cabs, SROs, shift work, patent medicines, narcotics dealing, customs fraud, and smuggling already had established market entrants I guess.
Imnimo 50 minutes ago [-]
I could imagine cases where prediction markets could offer some actual insight, but in practice they seem few and far between. Most markets I've seen devolve into one or more of: betting on unimportant events (e.g. sports games), insider trading, or poorly written ambiguous resolution criteria. It's just hard for me to imagine that, on net, these markets will offer more societal good than the harm we've seen from sports betting.
kyledrake 10 minutes ago [-]
They're not going to get rid of them, they're just going to drive them underground, which will make them impossible to regulate, which will make using them less safe. I don't participate in prediction markets, but I would bet everything I own on this outcome.
VikingCoder 3 hours ago [-]
Anyone taking bets on how that ban will last?
hootz 2 hours ago [-]
Anyone taking bets on whether that bet will be available in prediction markets by the end of the week?
superfrank 1 hours ago [-]
I hope someone is. From the bill:
> EFFECTIVE DATE This section is effective August 1, 2026, and applies to crimes
committed on or after that date.
mark212 2 hours ago [-]
as the article notes, prediction markets are regulated by the CFTC as a commodities futures contract, so I'm not sure how any state law survives a federal pre-emption challenge. On the other hand, it's a little unusual to see a federal agency suing to protect its turf. Would've expected a class action by a Minnesota user of the service to bring the challenge instead.
ranger207 2 hours ago [-]
I'm curious to see how this works out, because sports betting is _not_ in the CFTC's remit, and Kalshi etc's argument that states can't regulate them because they're not technically sports betting is contrary to the spirit of the law
cortesoft 14 minutes ago [-]
> because sports betting is _not_ in the CFTC's remit
Traditionally it has not been, but the current CFTC says that 'prediction bets on sports' ARE under their purview. This has not been fully challenged in court, though.
nojito 2 hours ago [-]
There’s no “house” or “book” aspect to Kalshi. They are nothing more than contracts that are bought and sold between individuals.
tshaddox 1 hours ago [-]
Lots of types of contracts bought and sold between individuals are prohibited by law.
SoftTalker 2 hours ago [-]
How do they make money?
nojito 2 hours ago [-]
Just like other exchanges.
They charge trading fees.
dymk 1 hours ago [-]
They also place their own bets within their own market. They don't just make money on trading fees.
loeg 12 minutes ago [-]
Kalshi does not trade against its users.
hilariously 1 hours ago [-]
What about the special partners that put up bets that are basically just methods to launder the fact that there's a house?
thallium205 48 minutes ago [-]
Nevada was able to get it banned. The casino pull is huge.
> it's a little unusual to see a federal agency suing to protect its turf.
This is Don Jr's consulting fee at work.
unethical_ban 17 minutes ago [-]
This should not be downvoted and is a legitimate criticism. Trump Jr. has a "special advisory role" in both Kalshi and polymarket. It would track with this administration to deploy a rapid defense of a corruption generation market where the current president's son is getting paid off by the two main competitors in the market.
rebekkamikkoa 58 minutes ago [-]
It’s hard to pretend this isn’t at least gambling-adjacent when most people are simply betting on outcomes.
elictronic 43 minutes ago [-]
It’s easy to pretend, just really hard to convince anyone without a direct financial interest.
1899-12-30 2 hours ago [-]
*Minnesota becomes first state to ban the use of prediction markets as a loophole for sports gambling.
everdrive 3 hours ago [-]
I wonder if it can really be enforced. It's clear that prediction markets are a scourge -- there seems to be no upside whatsoever.
superfrank 1 hours ago [-]
> there seems to be no upside whatsoever
There's the same upside as pretty much all other forms of gambling. Plenty of people enjoy it and it can be used to generate tax revenue for the state.
Don't get me wrong, there's tons of harm that can come from it, but the arguments to allow them are essentially the same arguments for allowing sports betting.
kube-system 55 minutes ago [-]
This is true, however many of those arguments are weaker when applied to things for which the outcome is more consequential than the outcome of a sporting game.
superfrank 24 minutes ago [-]
Sure, but that's not really an argument to ban prediction markets, it's an argument to regulate what the public can or cannot bet on.
Most major online sportsbooks have taken bets on the US presidential election for well over a decade. I can't imagine anyone really arguing that it's okay for DraftKings to offer that market, but not okay for Polymarket to offer it.
I put it somewhere else in this thread, but there are actually two different questions that need to be answered separately. Are prediction markets just sportsbooks by another name and are there certain things that we should not allow people to gamble on.
The argument around prediction markets always seems to squish those two into one which I think does people who want regulation a disservice. I think to most people, the answer to first question (are prediction markets just sportsbooks by another name) is a pretty resounding yes. The second question has a lot more room for debate though. Even if people agree that there should be things we don't allow people to bet on, there's still plenty to argue over where we draw the line. The problem is that as long as we mush these two together, people will use the disagreement over the second question to prevent action from being taken on the first.
stock_toaster 2 hours ago [-]
> I wonder if it can really be enforced.
At the very least maybe it would make the advertising (tv, college campuses, etc) of prediction markets illegal in Minnesota?
That alone seems like a good thing.
ungreased0675 39 minutes ago [-]
Whenever I see something weird happen in a sports game, or even a lack of effort by individual players, my first thought is if sports betting was responsible.
bronson 2 hours ago [-]
No upside whatsoever? Clearly you're not an insider trader.
delichon 2 hours ago [-]
I get a lot of value from prediction markets and query for them most days. Today for the Los Angeles Mayor's race and the Kentucky 4th district Representative race. In both cases I saw a big difference between the market and the vibe on my feeds. I believe that the market emits higher quality predictions.
Each market is a community with a financial incentive to think outside of the bubble.
tancop 1 hours ago [-]
there is one upside, its a big incentive to indirectly leak things like album release dates and military operations. anything that helps get some secrets out is a positive in my book
kibwen 1 hours ago [-]
No, this doesn't work. Predictions markets can only resolve to things that are publicly verifiable, so any leaked information is information that was destined to become public anyway. Furthermore, the leaker is disincentivized to leak in such a way that the act of leaking could compromise their insider knowlege; the structure of the markets means that leakers don't want you to have this information in any way that opponents could usefully invalidate.
They're just gambling. I'm not trying to argue for or against gambling here, but please stop trying to delude yourselves into thinking these gambling sites are anything other than gambling.
plutaniano 26 minutes ago [-]
Unresolved markets transmit information too. A market doesn't need to resolve to transmit information.
kibwen 23 minutes ago [-]
Sure, and a white noise generator transmits information too.
freejazz 1 hours ago [-]
But they don't get secrets out, they just make a bet? Show me any information like this on any of the prediction markets...
rizzom5000 2 hours ago [-]
Do you also believe there is no upside in crowdsourced information found in, say, commodities, equities and futures markets?
justonceokay 2 hours ago [-]
Those markets create pressure to ensure that real physical goods and useful services are priced accurately. Prediction “markets“ are in my estimation no different than roulette.
If you cross your eyes hard enough, you could claim that roulette gambling provides economic pressure to ensure that roulette wheels are balanced evenly. But when the roulette wheel is Vanah White’s dress color, what does that mean? Charitably, it’s a fun pass time. Through a dystopian lens, prediction markets pressure all public figures to play a kind of Keynsian Beauty Contest with their own behavior. Like social cooling for the celebrity/owning class.
free_bip 2 hours ago [-]
Those are not the same as prediction markets
nom 2 hours ago [-]
Thanks to crypto it can't be enforced and is here to stay, like all forms of online gambling.
kklisura 26 minutes ago [-]
Cue in the talking heads to tell us how devastating this ban is.
Robotbeat 45 minutes ago [-]
Does this ban the prediction markets that don’t use real money but instead tokens that are worthless?
OsrsNeedsf2P 1 hours ago [-]
> The prohibition extends to services supporting prediction markets, like virtual private networks, that could allow consumers to disguise their location and get around the ban.
I'm sorry, what the fuck?
kube-system 1 hours ago [-]
That's a creative interpretation by NPR. The law doesn't mention VPNs. The law bans:
> provid[ing] supportive services to a prediction market or consumer knowing that the services will be used to identify a consumer’s location, transfer money, or make or process payments for the purpose of allowing consumers to make wagers or to settle wagers made by consumers in violation of this section.
"knowing" is key here.
steve1977 2 hours ago [-]
Isn't the stock market a prediction market as well?
kube-system 1 hours ago [-]
No, a stock is a share of ownership in a company.
Now yes, people bet on the derivative value of those ownership shares... but that also happens to basically every asset. If a stock is a prediction market, then so is corn, and gold, and your home.
michaelscott 21 minutes ago [-]
Yes, they are. Accurate prediction is rewarded in every market, for every asset or asset class. There are adjacent order benefits (I live in my home, I eat corn, I have a say in how a company is run) but these are never divorced from the impact of prediction and prediction in aggregate is just a crowdsourced leading indicator of value; oil spikes the moment a missile hits Iran not because the 2 are explicitly linked, but because the market has predicted the effect on the flow of that oil over some subsequent timeframe and priced itself accordingly
foobarchu 2 hours ago [-]
The difference in my mind is that prediction markets and gambling are betting on outcomes, not long term behaviors. You could make the argument that they are the same, in the sense that buying a stock is "betting" on a company to do well, but I think you'd be making a silly argument. Stocks are intangible these days, but they were traditionally a physical thing that one would trade. If you're betting on prediction markets, there's nothing to trade after the event happens, just payouts.
SoftTalker 1 hours ago [-]
Stocks are shares of ownership. Now, in practice many people buy them as bets, but even those aren't really predictions. Prediction markets are time-boxed all-or-nothing plays. You are either correct, or you lose your entire stake.
nojito 2 hours ago [-]
Not exactly. Kalshi is binary options. Not stocks.
ahepp 50 minutes ago [-]
Couldn’t we say that any market rewards prediction? And that this is generally seen as a beneficial quality that results in more accurate valuations with better liquidity?
rizzom5000 1 hours ago [-]
Stock prices are a prediction built on crowdsourced information.
wnc3141 2 hours ago [-]
I think the stocks don't have a arbiter managing a discrete outcome between parties that don't have any KYC compliance.
unethical_ban 15 minutes ago [-]
A commenter noted that MN already bans sports-betting, which is far closer to what prediction markets are than asset trading.
A closer stock analogy would be options.
yamillove 39 minutes ago [-]
It would be good if they banned Learing Centers.
CPLX 56 minutes ago [-]
They've been banned for generations. It's called gambling.
Of course, we all have to sit through another round of Silicon Valley pretending they've discovered some new exciting business model that's just vice.
Unlicensed gypsy cabs, SROs, shift work, patent medicines, narcotics dealing, customs fraud, and smuggling already had established market entrants I guess.
SilverElfin 2 hours ago [-]
Doesn’t this violate commerce between states, effectively?
tardedmeme 2 hours ago [-]
It does, but the constitution's already been shredded and it's dog-eat-dog in the political space right now, so we'll see how it goes.
thrance 50 minutes ago [-]
SCOTUS will probably soon rule that extracting wealth from alienated gamblers is a fundamental American right, that the founding fathers had in mind when drafting the constitution.
unethical_ban 14 minutes ago [-]
No.
They're not banning prediction markets from out-of-state, they're banning it entirely. A state cannot ban out-of-state alcohol, but it can ban alcohol outright if it wanted to.
calvinmorrison 2 hours ago [-]
where did the lear about this?
mghackerlady 1 hours ago [-]
Love it here, only sane state there is these days. Everywhere else is either brain dead, too hot, or too mean
sergiotapia 1 hours ago [-]
There should be a ban on the instagram reels showing gambling like it's not a big deal. They are deliberately targeting teens and it's quite sickening.
If you work at one of these companies it's the same as working for a payday loan company. You are making blood money.
kube-system 51 minutes ago [-]
I've seen a lot of YouTube ads recently for illegal gambling apps
cft 2 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
abrowne 2 hours ago [-]
There's plenty of legal gambling in Minnesota. To quote the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library it includes
"horse racing, a card club at Canterbury Park, Indian tribal casinos, charitable gambling, and a state lottery."
There might be a couple more, but there is far less legal gambling in MN than anywhere else I've been in the US (though I have not been everywhere in the past 5 years, and I assume laws have changed enough to ignore experience older than that).
Indian tribal casinos are only legal because they are in a separate country as far as the state is concerned. (they don't bother, but each reservation has a good case to join the UN if they wanted to)
kube-system 44 minutes ago [-]
Tribal casinos are a whole different situation given their legal sovereignty.
hilariously 1 hours ago [-]
If you're talking Minnesota its scratch offs and bingo all the way down.
quickthrowman 53 minutes ago [-]
Excluding tribal casinos like Mystic and Grand Casino, MN has Canterbury, Running Aces, bingo, pull tabs, and the state lottery. Horse racing and poker rooms at Canterbury and Running Aces, IIRC no limit betting is not allowed in poker.
numbsafari 2 hours ago [-]
Do explain the Somalia connection you perceive. Please, go on…
_doctor_love 1 hours ago [-]
Here's some troll food for ya: he's reaching Hacker News level of "noticing"
/s
tardedmeme 2 hours ago [-]
If a prediction market uses AI will this violate the federal ban on states impeding AI?
foobarchu 2 hours ago [-]
Using AI to identify the ideal neighborhoods to sell meth in doesn't mean it's legal to sell meth.
Rendered at 22:20:39 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
We've seen a couple other states that allow sports betting go after prediction markets. Personally, I feel that any state that allows sports betting is going to struggle to argue a case to ban prediction markets because you're essentially arguing over implementation details. Even arguments that certain prediction markets are ripe for insider trading or morally wrong fall a bit flat when you realize that traditional sportsbooks let you bet on things like college basketball player props and the little league world series.
I'm still not sure Minnesota will win their case, but it feels like that detail gives them a lot better chance of winning compared to many other states.
Separately, I believe over time that prediction markets will become the source of real world truth. Why? Because money is at stake and so validity and verification matter. It'll be interesting to see how, if this comes to fruition, how laws in states like Minnesota affect news reporting and journalism. It seems likely to me that at a certain point prediction markets will buy traditional media and news outlets to hire out the fact-finding and reporting teams to ensure ground truth, and of course to use journalism as the gateway to the market. So you read an article "China disappears random person" and then at the end you click a button and bet whether that person is alive or dead or whatever.
[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/options/articles/polymarke...
That's kind of the point I was getting that. That's not really an argument about prediction markets, it's about what things should we be allowed to bet on.
I'm looking at FanDuel right now and I can bet on 1v1 eSports games of FIFA. The bets aren't even just who will win, but it's things like how many goals will a team score or who will score first. During the last Superbowl books were offering bets on things like what color tie the announcers would wear. I get that there's maybe a slight difference between that and betting on what words a sports announcer will say during the broadcast, but IMO, you're splitting hairs. They're both very easily to manipulate and very open to insider trading.
I think you probably agree with this, but IMO, there needs to be two separate conversations. One, are prediction markets sportsbooks by another name? Two, are there certain markets that we should not allow betting on?
Personally, I think the answer to both of those is yes, but I think if you smush them together into one conversation it makes things really messy.
So think really hard about what the problem with this whole concept might be...
Second, while yes, some of the markets available on prediction markets can push people to do awful things, there are plenty that are harmless. I'm cherry picking to make an extreme point, but I would so much rather have someone betting on what the temperature in Los Angeles is going to be tomorrow on Kalshi than betting on who will win the little league world series on DraftKings.
I support regulation saying certain things should not be allowed to be bet on, but allowing bets on morally questionable things isn't a quality unique to prediction markets.
> "congress can regulate sports gambling directly, but if it elects not to do so, each state is free to act on its own."
(To be clear, it is still an nonsensical decision though. Congress does still have the power to regular gambling under the interstate commerce clause, just not outright ban it)
Canterbury Park would like a word…
My guess would be that either A) that's tribal land and there's an exemption for that in the current laws or B) they have a casino, but don't offer sports betting or C) they only allow sports betting on the property by either requiring all bets to be placed in person or the app they offer is for sportsbetting is geo-fenced to their property (which is how states like WA do it)
This has been banned for generations. It's called gambling. Of course, we all have to sit through another round of Silicon Valley pretending they've discovered some new exciting business model that's just vice.
Unlicensed gypsy cabs, SROs, shift work, patent medicines, narcotics dealing, customs fraud, and smuggling already had established market entrants I guess.
> EFFECTIVE DATE This section is effective August 1, 2026, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.
Traditionally it has not been, but the current CFTC says that 'prediction bets on sports' ARE under their purview. This has not been fully challenged in court, though.
They charge trading fees.
This is Don Jr's consulting fee at work.
There's the same upside as pretty much all other forms of gambling. Plenty of people enjoy it and it can be used to generate tax revenue for the state.
Don't get me wrong, there's tons of harm that can come from it, but the arguments to allow them are essentially the same arguments for allowing sports betting.
Most major online sportsbooks have taken bets on the US presidential election for well over a decade. I can't imagine anyone really arguing that it's okay for DraftKings to offer that market, but not okay for Polymarket to offer it.
I put it somewhere else in this thread, but there are actually two different questions that need to be answered separately. Are prediction markets just sportsbooks by another name and are there certain things that we should not allow people to gamble on.
The argument around prediction markets always seems to squish those two into one which I think does people who want regulation a disservice. I think to most people, the answer to first question (are prediction markets just sportsbooks by another name) is a pretty resounding yes. The second question has a lot more room for debate though. Even if people agree that there should be things we don't allow people to bet on, there's still plenty to argue over where we draw the line. The problem is that as long as we mush these two together, people will use the disagreement over the second question to prevent action from being taken on the first.
At the very least maybe it would make the advertising (tv, college campuses, etc) of prediction markets illegal in Minnesota?
That alone seems like a good thing.
Each market is a community with a financial incentive to think outside of the bubble.
They're just gambling. I'm not trying to argue for or against gambling here, but please stop trying to delude yourselves into thinking these gambling sites are anything other than gambling.
If you cross your eyes hard enough, you could claim that roulette gambling provides economic pressure to ensure that roulette wheels are balanced evenly. But when the roulette wheel is Vanah White’s dress color, what does that mean? Charitably, it’s a fun pass time. Through a dystopian lens, prediction markets pressure all public figures to play a kind of Keynsian Beauty Contest with their own behavior. Like social cooling for the celebrity/owning class.
I'm sorry, what the fuck?
> provid[ing] supportive services to a prediction market or consumer knowing that the services will be used to identify a consumer’s location, transfer money, or make or process payments for the purpose of allowing consumers to make wagers or to settle wagers made by consumers in violation of this section.
"knowing" is key here.
Now yes, people bet on the derivative value of those ownership shares... but that also happens to basically every asset. If a stock is a prediction market, then so is corn, and gold, and your home.
A closer stock analogy would be options.
Of course, we all have to sit through another round of Silicon Valley pretending they've discovered some new exciting business model that's just vice.
Unlicensed gypsy cabs, SROs, shift work, patent medicines, narcotics dealing, customs fraud, and smuggling already had established market entrants I guess.
They're not banning prediction markets from out-of-state, they're banning it entirely. A state cannot ban out-of-state alcohol, but it can ban alcohol outright if it wanted to.
If you work at one of these companies it's the same as working for a payday loan company. You are making blood money.
"horse racing, a card club at Canterbury Park, Indian tribal casinos, charitable gambling, and a state lottery."
(https://www.lrl.mn.gov/guides/guides?issue=gambling)
Indian tribal casinos are only legal because they are in a separate country as far as the state is concerned. (they don't bother, but each reservation has a good case to join the UN if they wanted to)
/s