You have simply repeated the same ridiculous comparison using beer now instead of wine. I won't bother repeating my answer to that since it's the same.
I did not say you wanted to be a scumbag. Who in their right minds "want" to be "scumbags"? I'll bet even people you would regard as such don't "want" to be "scumbags" and may not even regard themselves as such.
You may not have explicity said you get high, but again, let's clear away all of your arguments and get down to business, shall we? Let's quit dancing around it, and be honest; otherwise, it's a useless exchange. You want to get "high" without worrying about any legal "hassles". Am I right or wrong?
You are correct when you say just because people get high doesn't mean they are going to go out kill or destroy property. I did not say the latter is an automatic result of the former; however, drug use (including alcohol) DOES play a part in a large number of crimes. A police officer I know in California thinks the lenient "medical" marijuana laws are an absolute farce and that they should be completely done away with. He says when he's out on a call, it invariably comes down to DRUGS. Not simple possession, but what results from the abuse of the substances. Legalization of drugs certainly won't help this situation whatsoever, and will quite obviously only make matters worse. As big of a "failure" as the WOD has been, legalization of drugs would be an even bigger failure by the only accounting system that matters - the toll on human lives. Do I wish the WOD would be more effective in reducing illicit drug availability and use? Absolutely. The answer isn't to give up the war, but to fight a more effective one. What was the lesson from the Vietnam War? That we shouldn't fight wars because we were not victorious? Obviously not. The lesson leanred was to fight a clearly defined war to WIN, period. Instead of thinking of ways to give up and declare defeat in the WOD, we should be thinking of ways to win the war.
What crimes people commit to obtain drugs or while under their influence is certainly worth noting, but it is not the main issue as far as I am concerned. Again, while a free society should guarantee your right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" it also has a duty to protect citizens even from themselves if it comes to that. Unfortunately there are those that are so reckless with their rights to privacy that they cross a line where society has the right to intervene for their own good. I previously listed what some of those circumstances are, which includes drug abuse. Again, NO right is absolute. EVERY right has its limitations. Those who seek ANY right that carries with it NO limitations are interested in only self-indulgent, excessive behavior. RESPONSIBLITY is the counter-balance to rights. Someone who seeks rights without responsibility is on a dangerous, self-destructive path. A society that seeks the same is doomed.