zlacker

maybe it would make more sense if i framed my perspective differently. i think as a default laws should offer as much agency as possible to the individual. if someone wants to smoke cigarettes even though it literally does nothing but kill them, i'm fine with that. i think that there is a threshold that can be passed whereby *on average* it starts creating serious externalities on society. if the externalities get too high i'm fine with them stepping in and making regulations restricting and potentially banning them. there are plenty of weapons and chemicals and materials that fall into this area. i think that when it comes to stuff like drugs and gambling if you do a blanket ban on them it might actually make the problem worse because it creates a black market and demand will just go there. this will be make it impossible to regulate and impossible to even know what is happening in these markets. i would suspect that a better answer is to have specific types of gambling and a form of drugs that are legal that is hopefully less damaging that people with propensity for this sort of thing could be funneled into.

>>risho+(OP)
I think you have a very good point, and I agree to the most part.

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.