But is it the government's job to determine how much of a given substance an individual can use? A good example is sugar and caffeine. New York is pushing a bill (maybe it's already been passed here) making it illegal to sell drinks like the Big Gulp which are, they say, exorbitantly sized. Now I personally agree with the idea; it is certainly a health conscious objective, but is it really the job of government to determine how healthily we eat?I don't see how it was out of context nor meaningless, I've clarified my point. Abuse needs to be taken into account where the likelihood and/or severity of abuse are high..
Many people abuse sugar and caffeine (admittedly, substances with less obvious state-altering effects), but that does not mean they should be illegal simply because they have a high probability of abuse...