Howdy All. I'm a new arrival to these shores, but here is my opinion.
Oddly enough, my non-lethal weapon of choice is my own body. Now, I realize that may not be the best choice tactically, but it's my honest answer. I've trained extensively to use the body as a weapon, so that's what I'll go to if I'm unarmed. It has advantages and it has weaknesses; the bottom line is if you've trained to do it, you will. I'm just going to outline some of the pros and cons of this approach below.
Pros: I always have my body with me. I've put in the preparation to use it (the top priority for any tool). I'm confident in it, usually training about 3hrs/day.
Cons: If you smash a cane against a skull, the cane doesn't feel anything... my fist, on the other hand does. If you use a pepper-blaster or Taser, you can engage a threat from a greater range, but you have to close with an opponent to use the body. Also, the size and strength of you attacker comes into play when using the body, but far less so when using something like a Taser. Age, illness and injury all have a greater effect on hand-to-hand ability that they do on weapons use.
That's a pretty long list of cons, isn't it? Don't get me wrong, I think unarmed close combat is a skill set everyone needs to train/maintain, otherwise I wouldn't spend so much time on it. But mankind invented other weapons for a reason. I would agree with RedHawk that we shouldn't limit ourselves to one defensive tool. Tasers and Pepperspray are good, and then you can fall back on the hands or the blade if they fail.
Increased training=Increased options.
