If a parent tells a child not to touch the hot stove, and scolds the child every time he attempts to do so, such action may protect the child from immediate harm, but will often fail to quell the child's desire to touch the hot stove. The child, of course, will learn not to try to touch the stove when the parent is around, but will likely try to do so when the parent is absent. Such desire will persist until, and only until, the child actually does touch the hot stove; once will likely be enough.
People tend to learn best to avoid mistakes by experiencing the natural consequences of their mistakes. A child who is slapped for trying to touch a hot stove will likely recognize that the slap is a parentally-imposed consequence of trying to touch the stove. The child will learn that trying to touch the stove when a parent is around is foolish, but will not learn why touching the stove is foolish even when the parent is absent. If the child understands the principle that unknown objects should be touched lightly before they are grabbed, he is unlikely to suffer any major injury from unwisely touching hot objects, but touching a hot object even once will suffice to impart a life-long lesson.
Unfortunately, the government's efforts to protect people from the consequences of their actions also prevent people from learning from them or teaching others be example. Attempting to remedy this by having government-imposed consequences for self-harmful behavior is almost always futile, for it creates the perception that such activities are only harmful if one gets caught. By contrast, letting people experience for themselves the self-destructive effects of their own behavior is apt to be a much more educational experience.