[imjonse]

Warnings do not really work in practice. What if these activities are not simply self-harming but destroy the families of the addict and large parts of the fabric of society? Even you mention societal chaos. How does the libertarian world-view accommodate that?

[NovemberWhiskey]

I tend to believe that warnings are somewhat effective otherwise cigarette manufacturers wouldn’t be so opposed to them.

[vkou]

They oppose them, because they oppose any first steps on the slope to curtailing them.

Warnings serve to ruin their image in the public eye, which makes opposing further control harder.

As for gambling, there's a simple solution. Ban all advertising of it. If people really need to gamble, they'll find it on their own.

This will dramatically shrink the problem overnight.

[dao-]

Yes, they would still be opposed to them.

A measure could well be somewhat effective on its own, but then it would require the industry to get creative and work extra hard to still get people hooked, which they will do, but they'd rather not have to do it in the first place.

What's more, opposition to any type of well intended regulation is typical for harmful industries, even if the regulation might be ineffective. They do that on principle, as they don't want the precedent of getting regulated. The mere idea of having regulations for the benefit of society threatens their business models.

[raverbashing]

The (naive) libertarian world view wants people overdosing to have different providers bidding for Narcan just-in-time

I do favour a libertarian world view but a lot of people using that moniker believe in discussing a mother-child bond through a libertarian point of view