I get the concern but it's not like there is no effort to support those whose lives have been ruined by legal ElephantJuice. Plenty of support for harmful ElephantJuice which people are free to use.
You misunderstand the logic. Most of the laws that restrict usage of something are implemented with the intent to prevent the consequences of the person using them. For instance, alcohol limits are implemented to prevent people people getting blind drunk then killing others on the road.
I have no major issue with someone using meth (outside of the fact it will ruin their life and for that I am deeply troubled but it is another subject) but I have a problem with the effects of a meth user in society. Addicts tend to make highly irrational decisions when they are under the influence or suffering from withdrawals and it is in that circumstance that what they imbibe into themselves impacts on me.
And this is the problem with JM's political ideology. It is all well and good to sit there and claim the government has no right or role to tell someone what they can and cannot put in their body; in the ideological framework he has promoted most people nod and agree on the basis of individual rights. After all, why
should they tell me what I can and can't do?
But such an ideology falls down in the real world when a meth user decides to mug someone on the street for cash to then buy their drug.
The wholistic view of the issue shows up the enormous blindspot in the ideology. And that is why we legislate for certain things. Because if we didn't, then the police would have no grounds to pull over a drunk driver because 'the state has no claim to tell someone what they can put in their body or how much'.
Where the issue gets murky (and where proper discussion should take place rather than black and white dictums) is
what should be legislated. Put it this way: I'd rather deal with someone who has smoked weed than someone who has consumed 12 beers when I meet them on the street. Yet we're faced with a situation where the former is illegal but the latter is not.