For a while I've been a firm believer that if you want to ingest something in your body, as long as it does not directly hinder the liberty or freedom of another, then why the hell should I care. Recent debates in a classroom setting do have me a bit turned upside down on that attitude now. Example: Cracky McMeth head uses drugs. For a while its great, but after a while he is resorting to things like burglary, shoplifting, and so forth as a means to fund his drug habit. Also his home where he lives is becoming blighted due to lack of maintenance. He also has had a few medical issues hes had to go to the ER or Doctor for due to his drug habit. He has no insurance and since he steals for pay for drugs, having cash is pretty much out of the question. Good news though, after some years of this he finally decides he wants to straighten up, but now he has a serious addiction problem and once again needs medical help / rehabilitation, which he has no money for, to kick the habit. We all know who pays this bill at the end of the day. So in some circumstances we could argue that other individuals were actually effected by this drug user and in all the others the cost is to society as a whole. The flip side of this coin is there are a bunch of coke heads in the world who do have jobs and manage to not break the law (outside of the consumption of the drugs themselves) to fund those habits. Hell there are quite a few millionaires that are druggies, we all know that. Generally if they need rehab they have insurance or deep pockets anyhow for personal care. So in one example we clearly have a drug user who is in fact a burden on the individual (theft) AND society, and another example where they are not. I'm just not so clear cut in my thinking on the subject anymore. What do you think?