It may seem simple, but there is a deep rabbit hole when you pair liberty and things seen to reduce the impact of illness on a population. For example: it is statistically more likely for homosexual men to have HIV and other fatal transmissible illnesses. Therefore, they should not be free to donate blood, so goes the tradition, since this overall increases the health of a population. This rule has come under contention lately, and if you agree that gay men should be able to donate blood, you now have a counterexample. Notwithstanding of course the arguments about better testing, and so on; statistically: it helps.
I'm not presenting an argument in either direction. I'm simply saying it's a more complex issue than "this thing makes everyone healthier, therefore it should be law."
I'm not presenting an argument in either direction. I'm simply saying it's a more complex issue than "this thing makes everyone healthier, therefore it should be law."