> Why shouldn't it be their right to lose their freedom if they choose so? No one of sound mind chooses to become an alcoholic. People might accept the risk in

> Why shouldn't it be their right to lose their freedom if they choose so? No one of sound mind chooses to become an alcoholic. People might accept the risk in exchange for the effects or taste though, and taking that choice from them is a negative. > Even if you argued that it should not be their right to control their body you would still also have to argue that the side-effect (which restricts the freedom of people that produce alcohol in a way that leads to everyone having to pay much higher prices) is acceptable. The producers of alcohol are slaves to the market anyway. The reduced freedom of people who want to consume alcohol is an issue though. I dont know if restricting access to alcohol actually increases freedom. My point is that it is not obvious that it decreases freedom.