Fundamentally, I oppose the concept of "zero-tolerance". It simply begs for trouble. It implies that allowing any level of something to continue amounts to condoning or supporting it. Enforcers of zero-tolerance policies can never achieve their goal. Wherever they decide to stop short, due to costs or resources or just simply when they let that stubborn common sense kick back in, is the level of criminal or deviant or suspicious behavior that they "tolerate" by default. Accomplished reductions in whatever is being opposed are ignored as long as the level of whatever it is is above "zero." whatever that means. Nevertheless, "zero-tolerance" sounds so reasonable on the surface. This is what makes it so damned evil.