<s>[INST] The opposition to Japan's Synthetic Drug Control Law passed in 1997 goes deeper than a simplistic analysis of the public's tolerance towards marijuana use. While the law itself is not aimed directly at drug users, it oppresses the afflicted by characterising drug use as a problem belonging predominately to marginal groups such as the homeless, foreigners and the unemployed. The protests against this law are therefore not just about the right to use drugs, but about the right to be part of society.

The law, which came into effect in 1999, requires that the scripts of television dramas and movies be vetted, to ensure that they don't portray drug use in a favourable manner. Also, musicians who promote use of certain drugs in their lyrics are prohibited from appearing on public television. These measures are aimed at protecting the youth from what the government considers the glamour of drug use.

The opposition to the law claims that these measures are not only ineffective, but also a restriction on free speech. In addition to the restrictions on free speech, they argue that the focus of the law on marginal groups may lead to increased discrimination against these groups. Moreover, the opposition also disagrees with the government's stance that only dire warnings can prevent young people from using drugs, and instead claim that education and constructive dialogue are more effective.

To what extent do you think the opposition and supporters of the law have valid points?[/INST]