The foundation of all laws is off of some moral presupposition. If the basis of law is to stop people from "injury or harm" than we should ban skateboards, guns and anything sharp.
You're mischaracterizing my statement. I didn't say "the basis of law is to stop people from 'injury or harm'."
This is what I said: "In regulating the conduct of persons within its jurisdiction, the government's main concern is with conduct that causes or potentially causes injury or harm."
Skateboarding, like driving, as conduct in an of itself, is neither moral or immoral. But, the government may regulate that conduct as a matter of public policy. For instance, if a person drinks alcohol and drives, that person may cause injury or harm. Thus, the state legislature has a legitimate interest in that potentially harmful conduct and may enact a criminal statute prohibiting driving under the influence.
Similarly, the state legislature might conduct studies that show skateboarding is an inherently dangerous activity and that a large number of skateboarders have experienced traumatic brain injuries as the result of skateboarding accidents. Those studies might also show that the state has expended valuable state resources to care for persons with traumatic brain injuries. The state legislature might then have a legitimate interest in passing a law that requires skateboarders to wear helmets to reduce the risk of harm.
Do you see how that works?
Perhaps the state legislature may decide as a matter of public policy to regulate the eating of raw cookie dough. Anything is possible.
If a person is arrested or cited for violating the law, that person has the right to challenge the law on its face and/or as applied. Perhaps the charged person will allege the law is unconstitutional (under the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution) because it deprives him of his liberty interest to determine for himself what he wants to consume and that the state doesn't have a rational basis for prohibiting him from eating cookie dough.
See how that works?
It helps to have a basic understanding of our constitutional republic and the scope of state and federal government powers.
You're saying that my morals should not be imposed on others as state law, but what if the tables were switched? What if all abortion was illegal and you had to fight to have one? Would you fight or just suffer through the unwanted pregnancy and "not impose your morals"?
You seem to forget that abortion was illegal at one time. A case was brought before the Supreme Court and the matter was decided. Look up the case, Roe v. Wade, on the internet. Read it. A woman has a fundamental right to determine her own procreative destiny. The fact that other people have rights to decide certain things for themselves does not mean they are imposing their morals on you. You are still free to apply your own morals to yourself.
Again, see how that works?
If you cannot understand the things we have discussed so far, I don't see much point in continuing this discussion.