I'm suggesting where I think the regulatory hurdle should be placed.
I stand by my suggestion to disentangle concerns with giving someone their sequence (no concern--it's THEIR sequence!) from the concerns about companies offering quasi-medical services based on that sequence. The latter issue is perhaps analogous to practicing medicine without a license, although that is admittedly a bit of an overstatement since they're generally making predictions, not diagnoses. At any rate, the companies' behaviors are concerning.
That's not disrespectful at all. In fact, it's to be expected that those who are closest to a technique are the most familiar with its pitfalls.
> it is a statistical fact that certain studies have associated certain SNPs with certain conditions
Sort of, but that's not as relevant as you seem to think. The SNP reported in each study is not generally presumed to be the causal SNP; it's just tagging the causal SNP. For any particular person, it is possible that recombination occurred between the tagged and causal SNPs, interrupting the haplotype.
Even if we assume that sort of thing doesn't happen (which, most of the time, it won't), we're still talking about odds ratios of at most (for lipids) 1.3. That type of minimal increase in risk extremely difficult to convey. In fact, in medical practice, it often wouldn't even be worth reporting (depending on, e.g., background prevalence of disease).
So really, I think that issues are more complex and subtle than one might gather from reading your post. Should you have the right to get your genome sequence? Yes. Should you have the right to read the published literature? Yes. Does a company have the right to interpret that literature as a quasi-medical service? Again, this is the place where regulation makes sense.
But what does that have to do with the regulations being proposed, namely requiring a doctor's permission/interpretation to get DNA tests from reputable sites like 23&Me?