BS. The idea of drug zombies is nothing more than drug war propaganda with absolutely nothing in empirical evidence to support it. The idea of "precrime" is so foreign and abhorrent to a free society it hardly bears mentioning.
Three of my friends are LEOs, two are sheriff's deputies, and one a suburban municipal cop, all in disparate areas of the country... All of them tell me the very same thing wrt crack/meth. Burglaries and petty thefts increase exponentially as users increase. This is extremely easy to see in rural areas where crime is rather low prior to the arrival of "kitchens" in the area.
They have no reason to lie to me, or to promote any propaganda. I also know the local LEOs pretty well, and the local street. Without a doubt, it is the users jonzin' for a fix that are behind most of the theft here.
And sitting here, I can think of five kids I know personally who have become "drug zombies"... One particularly who had her two children illegitimately (at age 15), and then lost them to the state because she was not capable of caring for them because she was stoned out of her mind all the time. She has been convicted twice of felony theft and B&E, and also illegally selling prescription narcotics... all to support her meth habit.
All of the kids I am talking about were great kids - Bright, out-going, full of life. All were above average in grades until they hit the party scene. All of them now have illegitimate children, and have been through detox at least once, have utterly destroyed themselves and their families, and of them all, only one has a chance in hell of turning it around, and that is a small chance at that.
You may cry BS all you like, but the impact of drugs on this country is deep and wide, and I dare say you will find it hard to find a single family anywhere that has not been damaged by drug abuse in a very intimate way. It is insidious and pervasive, and is not limited to the user, ever.
IF that were true, we would oppose laws that kept mental patients from getting guns, blind people and drunk people from driving cars, people driving heavy equipment without a license, and a host of other laws that restrict what free people can do NOT because of direct harm, but simply because of an INCREASED POTENTIAL for harm. Now, if you actually do oppose any law that restricts people's actions unless those actions lead to actual harm, you would be consistant in applying that belief to drugs. But you would be wrong to suggest that such laws would be abhorrent to a free society -- the argument generally isn't whether we can restrict activities that have potential for harm to others, but instead at what degree of potentiality we should set the bar. Otherwise, you would have no recourse if someone built a meth lab in the apartment next to yours, unless it actually blew up and killed you.