You're not harming anyone by serving endangered species at your restaurant. Over-capacity without fire exits also doesn't harm anyone. Why bother with insurance if no one is being harmed?

But the potential for harm exists with a few of those. If there's a fire...

Cigarette smoke is not agreed upon by anyone to be remotely safe, so you can't say you're not harming anyone. You can say those people are choosing to be harmed and I'd agree. But the laws aren't there to protect people from themselves, believe it or not. They're there to protect them from others, even if they're complacent in the injury.

I'm pretty sure you're not allowed to serve human flesh, even if you advertised it prominently, and I'm pretty sure it's not likely to harm anyone if cooked to the right internal temperature (probably similar to pork). Nor would you be harming anyone if you had a huge sign outside your emporium reading "WHITES ONLY."

As far as extra taxation, I don't agree with it either. But it's not there to try and curb consumption. There are many ways to better do that. It's there simply to extract more money from a market you know will pay almost any price for something.

I'm all for fewer and better (clearer, concise, less reactionary, less tangled, twisted, generalized, misinterpret-able) laws.