All political orientations lead to authoritarianism at their extremes. Even an anarchist must adopt authoritarian approaches to enforcing anarchy should they wish to actually live in an anarchist society, which is of course a paradox in and of itself.

The problem is there are a great many things where it does matter if someone chooses to do something. In fact one can argue that everything a person chooses to do matters. This then becomes a debate into what is the roll of the individual and what is their duty to society.

I tend to be far more on the "let's let people do what they want want see how it works out for them before we decide if we need to ban it or not" side of the fence, but I'm still on the "we do need to ban certain things" side.

A good example of this is drugs, I can see a highly regulated form of even hard addictive drugs being legalized as not causing harm to society, but as you can see in many places where it isn't enforced, legal or not widespread drug use can be a major civil and safety issue. It also is one of those issues where the urban poor suffer the most both directly and indirectly and it does serve as a major barrier to them being able to better themselves. You can't really access society to the same extent when you need to worry about getting jumped by a meth head.

Now I don't think we are going to benefit society much from going out and mass arresting the meth heads. That's only benefitial if they are all given treatment. Something I doubt the government can manage well.

Do I'm largely in favor with the "decriminalization" argument, but with a major caveat, in that you don't arrest people, but you still confiscate the drugs when you find them.

This is of course best managed at a lower level of government. There's no need to go about policing drug use in areas where there is no drug problem to begin with.