I disagree. It's still hypocrisy if we are following the recreational drug spin: "as long as I'm not harming others it should be legal." Again, I'm sure I'm off-topic here but this debate to me is not about choosing the particular thing/substance we want legalized, it's about freedom. Government, in it's true form should only exist to settle disputes or harms between individuals, states, foreign invaders, and other entities, not for restricting individual freedom ON ANY LEVEL. The Individual is the most important component in any society or culture, not government. If a man chooses to own or do anything and does so without harming or costing others then government should have no say-so.
In actuality, this thread IS about those who wish to use their recreational drugs, be it alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, or other. And when you further this line of disillusioned "Free" thinking to something else that's not the smoker/pothead/drunk's idea of being good, then these "freedom seekers" are always the first to say "we should have a law against that." It's hypocrisy. I'm a hypocrit as well.
Now, with all that said, the current laws are the current laws whether I agree or not. And until government steps outside the illegal bounds of being welfare agencies, then I stand by my points in the article. It should not cost me when the drunk or doper casues harm to others, or when the smoker (like myself) kills himself with lung cancer. Legalize everything and you will increase costs to taxpayers in my opinion because of government being in the welfare business (which it has no right to be in), even though keeping the war on drugs is costing me as well.