No.

From a non-moral point of view you could say some forms of self-harm (like drug abuse) disrupt the society as a whole. A sensible law-maker would seek to limit those kinds of self-harm.

Isn't that what speed limits and necessitation of insurance laws are about?

>>29488
Speed limits are also there to prevent people from crashing into you, causing property damage, or traffic jams that effect everyone. Seat belt laws on the other hand force people to protect themselves.

Not unless they are also hurting other people. Or perhaps in some sort of psychotic state.

>>29485
YES

>>29487
question is, where does it stop? Are you going to outlaw selling processed foods with refined sugar because it makes people fat and a drain on the public healthcare system?

>>35566
Yes. A person's life and meaningful freedoms aren't harmed if you prevent them from eating corn syrup shit and using meth. Both of which being harmful, addictive substances which exist solely for profit. There's no exact formula for these things, just a "I know what's killing people when I see it" approach.

Yes and no.
I wholeheartedly agree with >>29487 >>35567

>>29485
Just let them.
People hurting themselves seems like an issue that solves itself sooner or later.

>>29485
No. Who decides what's "harmful?" You trust the same governments that wants to ban encryption and file-sharing with the power to outlaw arbitrary things? Also this thread should be in /tat/ I think.