'Living in a free country means having the right to put anything you want into your own body. Anything else, is BS.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HCNKMQR1yg

I reckon the whole zero tolerance vs harm minimisation is a false dichotomy.
Who would really object to factual drug education, addiction prevention, and help and rehabilitation anyway?

The issue of whether drug-use should be a crime or not is the real crux of the matter. And the contention rests on individual vs society.
Our society generally views (some) drugs as bad, both for the individual and for society, and have therefore outlawed their use.
Many individuals who take drugs accept that they might be harming themselves but do not believe they are doing anything to harm the society in which they are a part. That's really the point of argument i think.

Personally i think a crime label is way to harsh for private use, but i do believe that drug-use is damaging to the individual and to society and that measures need to be taken to prevent, restrict and stop circulation and use. But somehow without further ruining individual users by making them "criminals".

Personally I think that the whole zero tolerance thing is actually causing the problems it is trying to fix (ala alcohol prohibition usa) , illegality creates risk ,risk creates high prices ,high prices attracts crime (and violence) , a lot of the harm done by "illegal" drugs isn't the drug itself but by the crime that is generated dealing and paying for drugs .

For those who are sick of arguing about this issue with stubborn, out of touch, know-nothing politics academics and religious followers, and want to actually do something about it. Please visit www.re-legalization.com