People take risks - sometimes they're fully and properly aware of what those risks are, sometimes they're happy to take someone else's word for it. But then, they weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves. That, frankly, is how things are supposed to work.
And, for the most part, it IS how things work. For instance, most folks know that hurtling down a mountain on two skis at speeds in excess of 70mph brings with it a very good chance of hurting yourself, no matter how many times you do it - even the very best skiers, Olympians, fall over and bounce down the piste on bits of their anatomy that are better suited to not being fallen on.
But they choose to do it, and if they're doing it in Aviemore, the NHS picks up the bill when they do themselves a damage. No special taxes, no NGO trying to have it banned or licensed, or any RCTs into it.
Same with paragliding, parachuting, powerboating, downhill mountain biking, snowboarding, aqua lunging, free diving, off-road motor biking, parcours, fell walking, mountain climbing and the list goes on and on. Indeed, many, many participants in risky pastimes do it for the thrill of it - the actual, real, and undeniable fact that they're taking a risk. And nobody tries to ban it, restrict it, control it or even get active against it.
But make it the consumption of anything somebody else doesn't approve of, and the same can not be said. "Why does anyone need to <insert name of enjoyable consumption here>.....?" they cry! "The human body doesn't need <whatever>, It will only end in risks that aren't necessary".
So what? Who actually gives a real tuppeny toss? It's not YOUR body, it's not YOUR life, it's not YOUR choice, so butt out!
Now, if we're talking hurtling through that Lunnun at 120mph right in the middle of a lovely day's shopping for half a million people, then yes. That needs looking at. It's not a good idea. That's why we have speed limits. They very likely do reduce the number of deaths and injuries, and I think most folks know it's not a brilliant idea to risk other people's lives by being a dick.
But, and here's my point, if you're old enough to serve your country, get married without parental consent, drive a motor vehicle, and, crucially, be elected to your country's legislature, nobody has the right to enforce measures that prevent you from imbibing, legally, any substance which gives you pleasure and does no immediate harm to others, especially when those others can choose not be around you while you do it. Neither do they have the right to restrict the places you can do such a thing to such an extent that you cannot, effectively, do such a thing in company.
It is, frankly, ludicrous.
That is all.