On the contrary; it's comparable, it's just not identical. The point is that public health recommendations are made to serve the greater good, not serve the pre

On the contrary; it's comparable, it's just not identical. The point is that public health recommendations are made to serve the greater good, not serve the preferences of an individual. Please wash your hands. Regarding the policy aspects: when a substance is potentially harmful then we already have frameworks to regulate sale and possession, as used for things like radioactives and poisons. If an activity is harmful but only to the individual, then education and normalization of behaviour offers the best possible public health outcome, such as the wearing of bicycle helmets (everyone should wear a helmet, but criminalising noncompliance is the worst possible means to achieve it). Only when an activity is harmful to others (such as smoking, or not wearing a facemask during a pandemic) should criminalisation be considered, in my view. In general, exposing younger citizens to hazardous substances (like people feeding their kids raw milk) shouldn't need specific treatment since it's already covered by child endangerment laws and duty of care towards minors, although I suppose carve-outs can be considered when some echobubble loses their collective minds. By such a policy position, the legislature in the original story did half the job, in my opinion; the sale and possession of raw milk should be regulated like a poison, and the consumption of it strongly deterred through education of the risks. The stunt of drinking it was the height of idiocy, but stupidity is hardly in short supply amongst legislators.