> Interesting line of thought, but how far do you take it? That's a good question and a correct perspective for arguing these kinds of policies. The answer is

> Interesting line of thought, but how far do you take it? That's a good question and a correct perspective for arguing these kinds of policies. The answer is "as far as possible". Personal freedom should be default starting position. If it is going to be taken away it should be done in a way that is as minimal as possible while getting the best bang for the buck in terms of minimizing actual harm (with actual evidence backing it up). "I don't like other people doing drugs, so we should put them in jail for that" does not meet this standard (or any standard worthy of it's name, to be frank). "People will harm themselves by doing drugs so we will ruin their lives and put them in jail while spending way more money than it would take to actually help them" also doesn't meet this standard.