Jamie Whyte writes in the Times:

In 1990, 15 men who had voluntarily cut each others genitals for the sake of sexual gratification were convicted of assault. Why did their consent not stop this from being assault? If it did not, then why is rugby not assault? In the failed 1992 appeal, Lord Lane explained. Consent is a defence only if the physical damage is sustained for a worthwhile purpose. Rugby is a worthwhile purpose; sexual pleasure is not. I suspect that something similar makes legislators systematically discount the benefits of drugs. It is not enough that people value something. To count it as a benefit, our betters in Westminster must deem it worthwhile. And, as with kinky sexual gratification, they do not consider getting high to be worthwhile. It is not concern for our welfare that explains the illegality of drug use. It is bigotry.

Mind-bender: bigotry
Truth: social protection

Translation: Whyte falsely presents drugs as a potential problem only for the user. This of course is not why drugs are illegal. It is because of the profound harm they do to others and to society from users who in varying degrees lose their minds and behave cruelly, criminally, violently or otherwise antisocially as a result. Presenting drug laws as a prejudice against individual pleasure conceals the fact that they damage other people and thus grossly misrepresents the reason for anti-drug laws, that they are essential for social order.