And those so-called "principles" would be..? Reckless endangerment?
"I load a revolver with one cartridge, spin the cylinder, and aim it at my family and pull the trigger. They haven't been hurt, so there's no problem." That kind of so-called "no harm, no foul" mentality is uncivilized at best and a mortal threat to others at worst. Society has the right and obligation to defend itself against reckless irresponsible people.
If you don't like society's decisions, then you're more than welcome to 1) get them changed through the democratic process we have in our Republic or 2) move to another society more to your liking. I hear that recklessness and irresponsibility is big in Lebanon and Somalia and Peshawar. Do you want to make America into that?
A fool who play russian roulette is (1) committing suicide (with some chance of being unsucessful) and (2) leaving a mess for others to clean up (also with some chance there is no mess)
There is as much comparison between the two actions, as say, your own decision to eat at a restaurant and anothers to swallow arsenic. You don't know if someone at that restaurant hasn't spit in your food, nor if they haven't dumped arsenic in it.
Just a few weeks back some folks made the awfully dangerous and risky decision to attend a church social in Maine and drink the coffee. Verty bad choice. Hang 'em! Or so your analogy might have it. For someone did lace the coffee with poison. ANd those who got poisoned had made a choice to *horrors* "eat out".