The government banning tobacco from sale is the same sort of free-will exercise by humans for humans as is me banning tobacco from my own body, just on different levels.
The government can just as well have "addiction" problems with things that are bad for the population which are supported by the population.
The difference isn't free-will or not, it is only the level on which it is applied.
I prefer personal free will to collective free will whenever it is possible and reasonable.
The purpose of government is to do things we can't do for ourselves. I can decide whether or not to use a substance which might be addictive or to abstain from it forever. The government can do that too but I really don't think they need to. They need to make sure that those kinds of products are sold pure and as expected, that there is accurate information about their usage and effects available, and that people selling them do not mislead or manipulatively hook people, but ultimately I would rather a responsible individual make decisions than a collective.
I can’t get behind this argument when we live in an economy driven by a massive industry of personalized marketing and advertising. You espouse free will as if it’s some absolute, but studies show that human behavior is primarily the product of environment and is, to an extent, easy to predict the likelihood of someone becoming a smoker based on their age, race, income and zip code. How can we justify giving mega corporations carte blanche to market poisonous and addictive substance to our own friends, family and neighbors without asking that the government step in to prevent it?
You're talking about marketing, I'm talking about availability of products.
I don't think anybody is going around discussing the philosophy of government because they're concerned that they aren't free enough to be advertised to.
There is a marked difference between governments interfering with an individual's freedom to act on themselves and interfering with an individual's freedom to manipulate the actions of others.
>giving mega corporations carte blanche to market poisonous and addictive substance
They absolutely do not have this. Tobacco ads are banned from TV and Radio in the US, for example. Wouldn't exactly call that a blank check.
They absolutely do have this. Juul has spent millions marketing on the internet and social media, and recently was advertising on TV until the networks began to refuse ads _within the last week_.
Notably absent in your list is to incentivize the "right" behavior, especially when society will have to pay for it down the line via social safety nets. Hopefully less of an issue with vaping.
The government can just as well have "addiction" problems with things that are bad for the population which are supported by the population.
The difference isn't free-will or not, it is only the level on which it is applied.
I prefer personal free will to collective free will whenever it is possible and reasonable.
The purpose of government is to do things we can't do for ourselves. I can decide whether or not to use a substance which might be addictive or to abstain from it forever. The government can do that too but I really don't think they need to. They need to make sure that those kinds of products are sold pure and as expected, that there is accurate information about their usage and effects available, and that people selling them do not mislead or manipulatively hook people, but ultimately I would rather a responsible individual make decisions than a collective.