<i>People with addictions don&#x27;t have preferences in the sense you mean. The nature of addiction is that it subverts and overrides the (delicate) mechanisms of rational choice.</i><p>It&#x27;s an interesting point to discuss.  Presumably they did (in most scenarios) have a choice when <i>beginning</i> the drug, but then once addicted, you have a good point.   So should we argue that that initial choice was made freely, and that we have no right to use force to break you from that addiction (presuming you aren&#x27;t hurting or posing a threat to anybody else)?  Or should we say that since you aren&#x27;t truly making willful decisions, then intervening <i>isn&#x27;t</i> violating your personal notion of agency, and going &quot;against your will&quot;?<p>I&#x27;d have to give this one some more thought to be honest.  It strikes me that it isn&#x27;t a simple question.  OTOH, I still have no problem saying that anyone who is free to make conscious, willful decisions (whether we consider than <i>rational</i> or not) should be free to make the choice to put anything in their body that they want.