Ask Lemmy

Like you, I tend to feel that in general, people need to stop trying to force people to live the way they think is best. Unless there is a very real, very serious impact on others ("I enjoy driving through town while firing a machine gun randomly out my car windows"), people should be permitted to choose how to live as far as possible. Flip side is that they gotta accept potential negative consequences of doing so. Obviously, there's gonna be some line to draw on what consitutes "seriously affecting others", and there's going to be different people who have different positions on where that line should be. Does maybe spreading disease because you're not wearing a facemask during a pandemic count? What about others breathing sidestream smoke from a cigarette smoker in a restaurant? But I tend towards a position that society should generally be less-restrictive on what people do as long as the harm is to themselves.

However.

I would also point out that in some areas, this comes up because someone is receiving some form of aid. Take food stamps. Those are designed to make it easy to obtain food, but hard to obtain alcohol. In that case, the aid is being provided by someone else. I think that it's reasonable for those other people to say "I am willing to buy you food, but I don't want to fund your alcohol habit. I should have the ability to make that decision." That is, they chose to provide food aid because food is a necessity, but alcohol isn't.

I think that there's a qualitative difference between saying "I don't want to pay to buy someone else alcohol" and "I want to pass a law prohibiting someone from consuming alcohol that they've bought themselves."