Once upon a time, the line drawn was when you caused actual harm to a person. Now, the Left has so screwed up the entire mechanics of, well, everything, that now people (including jurists) behave as if a lifestyle "affecting" another is the same as a grievous injury. Using that as the measuring stick, anything and everything is a crime... which is what the Statists want. "You don't eat enough soy-bacon, ergo you are causing food prices to rise and healthcare costs to rise, thus you must be punished... and 'enough' is whatever we decide that amount is, an on ever-changing basis."
Sorry, mom... you still have a long way to go before truly expunging the insanity of the Left.
From Atlas Shrugged (which I suggest you read):
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
Sorry, mom... you still have a long way to go before truly expunging the insanity of the Left.
I think you engaging in a fallacy here, in that you seem to be expressing the belief (popular among drug abusers) that their addictions do not affect other people. The problem is, they do. Whether you are talking about the heartbreak of a mother who is helpless to break her son's descent into addiction, the crimes committed by the addict to get money for the next fix, the cost to the taxpayer of "social spending" to provide medical care, food, and shelter to the addict, or the suffering of those close to an addict who has become violently abusive because the drugs have addled his mind--the costs to families and society at large make addiction everyone's problem.
One aspect of the "insanity of the left" that I have overcome is, in part, the attitude that anyone has a right to do whatever they want, no matter what the effect on others. Had I grown up to be the person I was raised to be, I'd be a welfare queen gaming the system for whatever I could get, all while complaining that I wasn't getting enough. And the toil of taxpayers who are forced to pay for the non-productive to have decent lifestyles would mean nothing to me. That is analogous to the attitude of drug abusers whose desire to get high overrides any consideration for others.
Honestly, if there were a way to separate drug addicts so that their behavior would not be a burden to everyone else, I'd support it fully. I really don't care if their desire to escape reality leads them to OD. I just don't want to have to pay for that behavior.