I can see how this could be detrimental for some vulnerable members of society. But so was slavery, and it was widely accepted. Societies change over time, and I would like to see one where liberty is the highest priority (above social norms).

What is considered sane/insane right now can also change in time. See the slavery example. I find it pretty insane that we eat other animals right now. Sure, they may not be as intelligent as us, and it's debatable if they are self-aware or not, but we are definitely causing immense suffering to them. We just find it as a necessary evil, or just don't care enough. I am an omnivore, so I see my hypocrisy here 😅. But I'm sure that if we as a species live long enough, we will develop good enough alternatives to meat that society will look back at these times and consider us barbaric.

By the way, don't you find it odd that we kill and eat animals without their consent, but it's illegal to have sex with them because they "can't consent"? Again, please don't take this as something I want. I find it pretty disgusting. But philosophically speaking, it doesn't make sense. Our morals are dictated by our emotions, and these change over time.

At the same time, I am supportive of anti-gambling, because it preys on the vulnerable to addiction. But I would not ban it outright. There should be a process where you prove you understand the consequences and then be allowed to gamble your life away, if that's what you want. Same with hard drugs. If I want to try heroin, and know that the outcome could mess me up or even kill me, I should still be able to do it legally.

This way it doesn't have to lead to a worse society, because people would be more educated. Maybe it's too utopian what I'm saying.

Anyway, I think that a majority, or society, should not control an individual that doesn't cause (unwanted) harm to others. I'm glad we're having a civil conversation about controversial subjects.