Used to feel similarly, and extrapolated this sentiment to drugs, gambling, and other vices. Quite a grim realization, but without the shaming, the banning, the

Used to feel similarly, and extrapolated this sentiment to drugs, gambling, and other vices. Quite a grim realization, but without the shaming, the banning, the control, people will allow "their agency" to take them places that only cause them and others harm. This is why law, shaming, and religion are important, because they are strong forces that protect people from "their agency", and the ills it can cause. Who has more agency, who is more free here: a man who is a drug addict or a man who isn't a drug addict but otherwise would be without drug laws and shaming? You may say the drug addict has more agency. You might be right, but it's not good for him or his family, and that's where law and shame come in to protect him from "ill-agency". >This is the line of reasoning behind banning the sale of addictive substances to minors Yes.