I think that a government should be able to ban murdering people but that it would very sketchy for them to ban it for some people and not others.

One of the most important foundations of democracy is that the law applies to everyone equally. If smoking is banned, it should be banned for everyone, not banned for some people and allowed for a privileged class who got here first.

This is nonsense. There is a logic to the law, it's not arbitrary.

I could argue (unsuccessfully) that it's discriminatory and unfair that I have to wait an extra 3 years to claim my pension compared to older people.

You vill get your state mandated 1 hour of exercise and 5 servings of vegetables. You VILL eat only the state mandated bug based protein that our studies have shown to be 10% less likely of causing heart attacks than red meat. YOU VILL NOT spend more than 1 hour outside to prevent skin cancer.

>our studies have shown to be 10% less likely....

You are not nearly jaded enough.

If the construction industry is any indication the stuff these people mandate is lucky to have 1% at best and that's with "money motivated" numbers cooked up in academic labs funded by the same industries that benefit from the rules.

This is a great argument. Let's use it to ban sugar and meat.