The argument against the preventative personal law that you've outlined hinges on the idea that the removal of such laws would lead to societal degradation. This line of thinking presumes certain outcomes, primarily negative, and is based on a set of assumptions that might not be universally accepted. Here are a few abstract counter arguments:
1. Autonomy and Personal Responsibility
This counters the paternalistic approach of preventative personal laws. It argues that each individual has the right to make decisions about their own body and life, as long as they're not directly harming others. Personal responsibility is emphasized here; adults are assumed to be capable of making informed decisions and dealing with the consequences.
2. Harm Reduction
This perspective argues that people will engage in certain behaviors whether they're legal or not. By legalizing and regulating these behaviors, society can reduce the harm associated with them. For example, if a potentially harmful substance is regulated, it could be purer, safer, and less likely to lead to harmful outcomes like overdose.
3. The Slippery Slope Argument
This argument posits that allowing preventative personal laws to exist could lead to a slippery slope where the government continues to infringe on personal freedoms under the guise of protecting society.
4. Questioning the Assumed Negative Outcomes
This argument questions the assumption that societal degradation would result from the removal of preventative personal laws. It asks for evidence to back up this claim and points out that there could be positive outcomes, such as reduced crime rates associated with illegal activities.
5. Redirection of Resources
The enforcement of preventative personal laws often requires substantial public resources. An argument can be made that these resources could be better used elsewhere, such as in education or healthcare, which could lead to better societal outcomes overall.