No, I'm saying that the balance between "<substance is so harmful in it's effects that it's beneficial to society to eradicate it outright>" and "<substance is

No, I'm saying that the balance between "<substance is so harmful in it's effects that it's beneficial to society to eradicate it outright>" and "<substance is harmful to the individual but in a free society we have body autonomy>" is a spectrum. On one extremes we have substances that people would pretty universally agree which of the buckets they'd put them into. But where in the middle the balance shifts from one to the other is fairly controversial. Heroin decriminilization is controversial. Banning excessively large soda drinks is controversial. Everyone agrees cigarettes and alcohol are harmful, and probably wouldn't be legal if they were invented today but noone seriously suggests criminalizing them. My point with OP that treating all "drugs" so black-and-white is harmful without more nuanced discussion. Do they believe cannabis be illegal but cigarettes legal? I don't know.