Those are private properties or privileged activities. Eating poison, in your private home being regulated means your home is not truly yours and you have no liberty.
I’m not sure about the others in this discussion but I’m certainly not saying you shouldn’t be able to eat poison at home.
I’m saying as a society we should want to try avoid selling poison freely if we know a non negligible number of people would, in fact, eat it at home and die as a result.
And again, I’m not arguing for criminalizing the people who do get poison and eat it. I’m not arguing for criminalizing anyone actually. I’m arguing for sensible checks in place. Which is what we’re already doing with things like drivers licenses and medical prescriptions.
So long as those people are adults who are functional (can care for themselves), it isn't society's business to protect them from self-harm. Your sensible checks are violations of liberty. A person's right and authority over themselves being infringed is a loss of liberty. Society gets involved when their actions affect non-consenting members of society.
Yes and the point you’re trying to make is? That as a society we allow some things that might be risky and not others? Isn’t that obvious? We try to find a balance. Or are you suggesting that since we allow people to drive cars we should also give people easy access to all drugs?
Since you missed it, the vast majority of people can regulate their behaviour just fine and we deal with people who don’t without banning activities except for special medical exceptions.
The vast majority of people grew up in a society with regulations.
You telling me you’d be happy to let people drive a car without a drivers license? How about a plane? Should we just trust people to not drive if they’re not capable?
