[MWS]

Interesting points. However, I was not saying that everything someone considers harmful ought to be banned. I would not even say that it should be a matter of what the "majority" of people believe to be harmful, as we know that simply because a majority of people believe something to be true does not make it so. However, one can certainly evaluate things based on their merits. What benefit comes from what is being considered? What harm does it cause? Does it create the problems it is related to or is it merely a symptom of larger problems? If a particular thing is indeed the cause of troubles and produces little benefit, is society acting outside of its boundaries to regulate or ban it? We elect representatives to debate and discuss issues for the very purpose of considering such matters and to pass laws in accordance with their decisions (that the system has been reduced to simple pandering for votes is a sad, sad thing).

I suppose my main contention is with this notion that society has no right to ban certain activities and that all such bans are really just matters of "preference" on the part of a few.

[dirtboy]

If a particular thing is indeed the cause of troubles and produces little benefit, is society acting outside of its boundaries to regulate or ban it?

What is important is to recognize the inherent dangers in having government determine what is beneficial to us. For example, I like beer and a good steak. There are do-gooders who see no benefit to me having either. If the answer to your question is NO, they would be justified in having the government prohibit me from consuming either.