Trying to prevent crime by criminalizing victimless actions only creates more crime.
Let's say I have a 1,000 acre ranch and I build a nuclear reactor on it. I go to extreme lengths to make sure it's safe and secure. As far as my neighbors are concerned my operating a nuclear reactor has no impact on them. However, now I have the potential, should I choose, to make nuclear weapons, radiological "dirty" bombs, or otherwise contaminate the general vicinity (for potentially very large values of vicinity) with radioactive byproducts. It is for this reason that the operation of nuclear reactors is highly regulated.
One could imagine how this argument might apply to personal drug use. Drug use itself may not instantly impact anyone else but suppose that, as in personally operating a nuclear reactor, it enabled individuals to have a far greater negative impact on society than other normal human behaviors might.
I don't buy it and I'm not sure if that's the argument that runTIME was making, but it's an interesting argument I think.
HOWEVER, if we say that anything should be legal as long as it doesn't encroach on someone else's freedom, where do you draw the line with hard drugs such as PCP/Crystal Meth that may increase violent tendencies with the user?
I could potentially see many making the argument that legalizing certain things simply hurts the lower class or keeps them in poverty, such as crack, etc. Should there be rules protecting people who aren't educated enough to make good long term decisions for themselves?
In any case, I'm more comfortable with these scary and unlikely exceptions than with the government arbitrarily trying to prevent criminal acts by criminalizing things they believe (without sound research) may potentially lead to some harmful side effects.
That is much scarier than a nuclear reactor built in a back yard.
Example: If I hold a knife in my hand, it is more likely that I will hurt someone than without it. This deterrent causes people to be more careful when holding knives.
Holding the knife itself is not a deterrent, just as using a substance is not in itself a deterrent, but the possibility of hurting someone else is greater.