> It's sometimes difficult to quantify the negatives and positives of an activity So from this you talk about banning them, right? Except you ban everything be

> It's sometimes difficult to quantify the negatives and positives of an activity So from this you talk about banning them, right? Except you ban everything because everything has a risk, which is something no-one would accept. Alternative is you try and answer the question instead of asking it. A utilitarian viewpoint. A 'You-can-{smoke/drink/parachute/motorrace}-if-you-have-enough-money-to-cover-your-own-hospital-costs' approach. An attempt to quantify where the line should be drawn, which is what I was getting at. Or not ban them at all, as some people will propose, which certainly has some merit. Hand over that decision to the government (which seems to be happening anyway) and wash your hands of it as an individual - the conformist approach. And doubtless others. Don't ask obvious questions, questions are easy, and this one is trivial to ask. Try to answer them instead.