> You don't seem to understand that addicts aren't free.
Yes they are. Quit trying to overload the term. Are they slaves? No. Are they in prison? No. Freedom means the freedom from the tyranny of others, not from yourself.
I find myself agreeing. Psychological addictions are a real problem, but not one that I am comfortable involuntarily treating, so long as they do not directly harm other people.
On the other hand, I am in favor of regulation sufficient to make the worst-case-scenario equal to the worst-case-scenario of unemployment. The real social problem is only externalized beyond individual and dependents when the stereotypical problem gambler starts seeking lines of credit to further their addiction; This is to be avoided at considerable cost, because not only are their incentives compromised in a manner associated with addiction, but also in a manner associated with fear of whatever private sticks their patrons have to get them to repay the debt, and they have no legal means to do so.
This is a pretty low-empathy position. You're basically saying that exploiting people for profit is ok as long as it only harms those directly exploited plus their dependents.
I don't necessarily think we should ban anything that people could get addicted to. But I'm generally in favor of stopping people making money off of addicts. And I'm thoroughly in favor of banning people from trying to create new addicts. As an example, I think the cigarette advertising bans, mandatory on-pack warnings, and high cigarette taxes are swell.
I'm saying that there are desirable limits on how much a free society constrains voluntary behavior. Cigarettes are physiologically addictive on a separate level from psychologically addictive gambling, or psychologically addictive pornography, or psychologically addictive exercise, or psychologically addictive knitting, or psychologically addictive excessive work ethic. You can find people obsessed with any activity on Earth. It's a very rough ride trying to define a pathological level of each of those activities, and then intervene when that level is reached, with the full power of the state, against participants with no desire for an intervention.
I don't disagree that there are desirable limits. I disagree that physiological addiction to nicotine is societally more harmful than gambling addiction.
I also think there are things to do other than "intervene [...] against participants with no desire for an intervention", so I think that's a bit of a red herring.
Oh hey, I didn't notice you had been elected Grand Poobah of English last week. Sorry.
Your use of "freedom" is one meaning, but it's not the only one, or even the main one. Note, for example, that the phrase "freedom from addiction" has 129,000 hits, and there are dozens of books with titled related to the phrase. Similarly, people talk of slavery to their addiction: E.g.: http://www.thehopeline.com/17-lows-of-addictions-part-2/
If you talk to actual recovering addicts, their experience is one of freedom. And they're not misusing the word; Webster's first definition is "the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action". That is distinct, in their view, from your definition, which they have next: "liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another".
Yes they are. Quit trying to overload the term. Are they slaves? No. Are they in prison? No. Freedom means the freedom from the tyranny of others, not from yourself.