okies, so... I have no ideological dog in this fight, but let me try to explain what I see as the core concept here, in case there's some misperception on one side or the other.

... Assume the person of an individual and their property (and right to decide what is done with the self and that property) is universal and individual, and exists as a static status quo. In other words, if I purchase something or come into being, my right to continue having that something (or continue living) in it's(my) current condition, allowing for normal wear/tear and changes due to natural processes, is inviolate.

If what I decide to do with my person or property interferes with the right of another individual with regard to himself or his property (practically or potentially - including but not exclusive to murder, assault or the attempt to commit assault or murder, threats to commit same, theft, rape, damage to property, negligent or intentional of any of the above, et cetera) then that would be a crime. Drug use, however, since the act itself does not endanger others' persons or property, would not be a criminal act.

A good example would be prostitution - a person who forced someone else to prostitute themselves would be committing a crime; a person who prostituted themselves of their own free will would not.

Likewise someone who knowingly spread a disease to others would be interfering with the person of those others and therefore be committing a crime, negligent (misdemeanor) in the lack of malicious intent, felony in the presence of ill intent.

That's just what I'm getting from this, though. I seem to remember a book titled 'Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do', which makes a forceful case for legal reform to that standard.