I'm ok with outlawing adults with free wills, getting payed to play russian roulett even if five out of six wont take a bullet to the head. Adults can be exploited too.

"neither harmful", tells me you know nothing about the subject.

What does that have to do with children [as opposed to adults] working in the coal mines, though?

Also while you might have a point in principle it has quite little to do with random chance like in the Russian Roulette example.

We want to protect vulnerable members of society. they come in all sizes and shapes.

Whom gets to decide and determine who is “most vulnerable”?

Also when it comes to the Nordic countries it’s rather hypothetical, considering that they (+Estonia) have one of the highest rates of drug overdose related deaths in the EU. Surely they would have adopted different policies on that already if their goal was protecting the most vulnerable rather than puritanical moralism?

> Whom gets to decide and determine who is “most vulnerable”?

As galling as this is to American software developers, in this case it's the elected Swedish government

Yes, That was implied in the question. Same government controlling drug policy and laws. Your point is?

Nevermind actual policy outcome when there is opportunity for posturing.

Your examples and appeals to emotion make no sense. Dying from a gunshot wound is de facto harmful to someone. Driving a person to s-u-i-c-i-d-e is not an act of commerce between consenting adults.

Maybe the victims of gunshots wanted to be shot? People shoot themselves all the time.

Should we make convictions of murder, depndent on proving that the victim dint actually want to get shot?

Your hypotheticals are so outlandish and irrelevant, I honestly think you're trolling.