I’m a huge free marketeer, but a minimal amount of regulation really goes a very long way to improving outcomes.
Plus, you don’t get a second chance fixing your own brain.
Says who?
I also believe your argument suffers from an attention fallacy. We allow (and encourage) people to do quite a lot of things that are outright more destructive and dangerous. Just walk past any gambling hall and have a look inside if you need an example. There are proper addicts there driven to extreme measures by desperation and tunnel views.
edit: If you need an example, a class mate of a very good friend of mine got into the habit of spending his pay check playing slots. He is currently serving time for cocaine smuggling after he ran out of options and couldnt see any other way out. Once losses are mounting peoples sanity goes quickly. Cocaine smuggling is by far not the worst thing he could have gotten himself into. And its not like putting him in detox for a week would have cleared his mind up as long as the debt is still there.
GP was just saying (given their assumptions / understanding) that it's a bad trade-off to allow people to take these particular risks. That the costs outweigh the benefits.
You, on the other hand, claim gp's (supposed) slippery slope will lead down the path of banning anything... in other words, that if we ban people from taking [these risks] it creates a slippery slope to arbitrarily banning all kinds of things with any risk involved.
you, or i, don’t get to decide what’s fair to treat, or who’s deserving of treatment.
What are you on about? Have you actually tried any of the substances mentioned in the parent comment?
Money + no responsibilities + nitrous shipped to your door is a very very very very bad combo for some people.
I've personally used all of those substances without having mental breakdowns and know many people that have as well. But I do know people that have went down dark paths with nitrous. More intense than the worst alcoholism, imo.