I agree with most of Emily's position. Engaging in activities or indulging in substances should only be restricted by law to the extent that there is real potential for harm to be caused to others as a direct result of the choice of an individual to engage in activity or consume a substance.

For example, the law allows alcohol consumption but rightly proscibes driving when affected above a certain limit, and makes a crime of being drunk in public (especially if violence or nuisance is involved). That is the way it should be for other recreational drugs too, even though some of these such as ice/chrystal meth can cause abusers to become dangerous criminals.

Some may argue that the abuse of recreational drugs over the long term can cause health problems that place burdens on our health system. While that is so, it is not an argument for criminalising recreational drugs, in fact, a regulated decriminalisation of these drugs would be more likely to produce an environment of harm minimisation (now there is a term that prohibitionists hate).

The line does become blurry at times though. Assuming it is the right of individuals to undertake dangerous adventures such as solo ocean crossings, mountain climbing etc., to what extent is that fair on would-be rescuers who are sometimes placed at risk?

Don't you just love the way the Right is vociferous in its defense of freedom for the market, for capital, for trade, for individuals to negotiate their working conditions, for employers to decide who they will hire and fire, often calling themselves "liberals" and defenders of liberty as a result? Yet the same Right is equally vociferous about the need for state control over the right of a women to choose abortion, or an adult to ingest a drug, or an adult deciding who to sleep with, or marry, or when to end their life? So the right only believe in economic freedom, they are extremely authoritarian and controlling about private and social freedoms.
And the Left are just as contradictatory. They believe in centralised control of industry,the economy, markets, collective bargaining and are much more regulatory about business in general, yet they become positively libertarian over people's right to choose in their private and sexual lives, supporting a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, liberalisation of drugs, you name it.
It seems we only believe in freedom to choose when people make the choices we approve of.

Ena is right to highlight the inconsistencies in these disparate views. "Harm no-one" makes alot of assumptions on whether citizens are, firstly, able to determine what may cause harm or, secondly, if they have the discipline or control tonot do something that may cause them or someone else harm.

Those who would freely cry for the freedom to "marry" of the same sex will cry "hang him" when I claim the freedom to choose to drive my car at the speed I want.

So, Brougham, I can see how driving a car at a dangerous speed through a crowded area might harm someone. But how does one demonstrate any harm to others caused by your other example, same-sex marriage?

The lack of personal choice available in this country, of the kind this author discusses, often amazes me too. A loud minority take it on themselves to play missionary to the rest of the society - I'm well able to look after my own soul, thanks, and don't need anyone else to do it for me.

Of course the right to choose breaks down when harm is done to another. I don't see why I should have to pay, via taxes, huge medical bills racked up by life-long smokers, fatty food addicts and mountain-climbing adventurers. So everybody draws their own line on the sand when it comes to tolerating another's choices. But that line should be drawn to limit real harm, not outdated ideology.

So I can say, without feeling contradictory at all - yes I support same-sex marriage and yes, I want you to drive to the speed limit.

So you will not tolerate my choice / freedom to drive at the speed I think is safe? Am I not able to determine if I am going to harm anyone? Or, am I not trusted to make my own decision on what I think is "safe"? I think I am 'well able to look after my own' too!

The question was asked 'How is same sex marriage a "Harm"? Quite simply because 1) Homesexuality is not a healthy lifestyle by any measure (real harm) and 2) children raised within a family by both their mother and father in a monogamous marriage is shown time and again to be the best environment for them to be raised. Defining marriage as anything other than unique to one man one woman, exclusively, is to diminish the value of marriage at the cost of it's benefit to future children.

Talking about not wanting to pay for the health costs of those people who smoke, etc. . . . I could say the same about AIDS costs or STD's for a homosexual or non-monogamous hetro.