Either a man has a right to himself or he does not. If he has such a right, how can it be argued that he does not have a right to also harm himself or, as in this case, commit an act which the government happens to define as harmful?
Either a man has a right to himself or he does not. If he has such a right, how can it be argued that he does not have a right to also harm himself or, as in this case, commit an act which the government happens to define as harmful?