I personally rarely drink alcohol, don't smoke, take drugs etc etc. I still don't think any of the above should be forbidden. I've found it's a good idea to me - cheaper, better for my health, better for my mental state. Somehow I'm able to follow this without the state compelling me to do so.
Should we ban alcohol as well - as that is how "society works"? It does a lot of harm in many countries.
I don't understand why every good idea has to be enforced with a law.
(As an aside, I'm from a country where bicycle helmets are mandatory, despite their dubious safety benefits, and the fact as soon as the law was introduced cyclist numbers plummeted).
Consumer-choice and personal responsibility is a nice thing as long as that choice isn't systematically undermined by market forces.
FTFY.
Different people accept different levels of control over their lives, and feel they have different levels of control over their own lives. This can even change over one's life. And sometimes it's not a feeling but a much more objective fact. I know people whose interests would be better served if someone else made all their financial decisions because they have a long pattern of poor decision making regardless of the monetary amount. I don't feel I should force such a thing on those people when they don't want it, but often it's possible for an in-between solution they find agreeable enough of removing some autonomy but not all. This delicate balance is best done as locally as possible.
It's all very variable. I strongly disagree with a dichotomy I see often propped up of "we need the full force of the federal government in our daily lives" against "move to Somalia if you don't like it". A better approach is federalism. In the US at least there's been "enough" federalism to keep most larger groups of different people happy enough (even now I know I can move to a different state and be free of some of what I dislike about my current state) but the trend is less state decision and more federal control. Extending this to the city level for large cities works fine too. I don't care if Seattle wants to enact some nanny law, maybe the people of Seattle want that and indeed will have better lives because of it, but I don't care because I don't live there nor have to live there. Even if Washington State, where I do live, does something I hate, I can move. When it's the whole US that has a law that I really find unbearably intrusive, things suddenly become a lot more challenging because the cost of exit is much higher. When you can't really do anything about it you either become unhappy or rely on stoicism or whatever to get you through, it would be better though if the negative factor wasn't even there to begin with.