Whoever wishes to argue that something is not OK has to provide detailed arguments backed by evidence about harm that is being produced and demonstrate that som

Whoever wishes to argue that something is not OK has to provide detailed arguments backed by evidence about harm that is being produced and demonstrate that someone non-consenting is actually suffering from that harm (even if the effects are second-order). And the burden of proof needs to be significant. Yes, this is what limited government is about. It makes policy makers accountable to the people, not the other way around. Because the government can not really implement a ban per se, but rather a particular policy that hopefully eliminates the harm, policy makers actually have to make a case for something and not just against something. Otherwise, it's just the government proclaiming that the world would be better off without something. In which case, let us start with war, margarine and bad coffee.