You don't deserve any rights or liberties if you can't accept the rights of the drug addicts,gamblers, homeless people and many more types of people out there.
It is a fundamental aspect of the human experience to self-determine one's fate.
It is unfair and unjust to punish someone based on probabilities. A innocent person should not be treated like a criminal. A free person shouldn't be treated like a prisoner or a slave.
The government has no authority to punish citizens because they might commit a crime. Citizens are subject to the rule of law. But in exchange for compliance to the laws, we expect a fair and just treatment under that law. That is the contract.
you are either being hyperbolic, you are irrationally ideological, or you haven't thought about this enough.
surely you don't think that people should be allowed to have nuclear explosives in their house because until they have actually used them they haven't actually committed a crime yet. different people can have different ideas on where that line is but you must acknowledge that it exists.
Maybe cars are sane analogy. You need to pass all kinds of testing and regulation to be allowed to drive a car or build and operate your own car, but only on public roads. You can in fact buy any kind of car you want or build one and operate it as you wish on your own property without any license. Even though cars can be used as dangerous and deadly weapons (terrorists use them on crowds all the time).
Yes, a line exists, that line is when you are engaging in privileged activity like driving, flying on a commercial plane or train, entering school property and such.
Maybe it might be productive if you used specific scenarios where you think allowing gambling would cause harm to others in and of itself, not as a side-effect (your nuke example is a direct effect).
My overarching objection is that such laws are simply lazy. That laziness is infringing on people's liberties. Cigarettes are a good example, they shouldn't be outright banned as we both agree, but second-hand smoking should be banned as it affects others. I would even go as far as to say smokers should have higher premiums for the rest of their lives (I was one myself) when it comes to health insurance and such deliberate mishandling of your body might even cost you priority treatment for anything subsidized by the public. I am not against consequences at all.
I think like many legal issues, it boils down to what is "reasonable". If a "reasonable" person would find that possessing a nuke is an immediate danger to the public then of course possessing one doesn't amount to the government interfering in private lives. That is not the same as gambling and drug use, where the reason for restricting them is not an immediate concern of danger but an indirect and probabilistic anticipation of harm to others, which even if true, there are many other steps that can be taken to disincentivize or punish potential harmful interactions without outright restricting those things.
For example with drug use, it should only be allowed under medical supervision, when used outside of your own property. And as I stated earlier, gambling is bad financial decision making, so the fact that you are gambling and the details of your gambles should be made very public, so that others can steer clear of you as needed. It shouldn't be possible for a person to use a joint bank account to fund a gamble (to protect spouses and families), spouses should get notifications when their other half is gambling,etc.. That's hard and specific law making, instead of the lazy and unjust law making we have today.