Banned or Bad?

What if banned and bad stuff both get outlawed? What if both get condemned in God's name? What if the difference between them still showed? What if banned was only bad because it was outlawed and punished for? What if bad was harmful to another's life, liberty, or property possession?
Why are there outlawed recreations? Are we not supposed to see the difference between banned and bad? Are we not supposed to see addicts and alcoholics as equivalent? Are we not supposed to see the Prohibition of alcohol and the war on drugs the same sort of act?
What are some recreations doing regulated to here allowed there not? Are they good here and bad there? Is good and bad decided by jurisdictional prerogative? Is good or bad decided by the majority of judges' decisions? Is good or bad decided by putting the matter to a vote? Is a democratic choice the difference between right and wrong?
Let us get honest. Either a deed is good in itself or bad in itself, or it is neutral and people voicing opinions that have nothing to do with what the act is like. If it is good, it is good.  If it is bad it is bad. If it is neither, it is not good or bad. That is not an opinion.
When the highest court in the land decides legality by opinion, there is something very wrong with the system! Who made their opinion law? Whose opinion should rule? Isn't the rule of opinion by one tyranny? Why is the rule by the opinion of judges, senators, the majority, or even the chief executive, counted something better?
Who killed the law of liberty and made opinion the decision-maker? Who lost the knowledge that if it is harmless, it is innocent because no one has the right to punish someone who has done no harm? Who lost the natural law knowledge that if a body of law does not grant the right to perform all known harmless acts, then it is in violation of the known greater liberty? How long before they get reminded opinion is not king? Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty...