No, I wasn't alive in the '20s. Today, they don't have to, because there are liquor stores where such people can buy alcohol (after panhandling some quarters). I have, however, seen people step outside in -20 F weather to catch a smoke during the peak of flu season, because the establishment was banned from allowing smoking indoors.
To put it in terms even a fool libertarian can understand: When demand for a product is so high people will KILL to get it, then others will kill to sell it to them.
Your sense of reason has apparently been warped by rage, or something, so I'll spell it out for you: if it were legal, the addict is free to buy it at a "drug" store, so those who would kill to sell it won't have many customers.
Here's what will happen if you legalize drugs: Use will skyrocket. Unemployment will skyrocket. Crime will skyrocket.
Um, that's what you have in Camden today, with your immoral war being fought.
And your comments on Alcohol are urban legend. Fewer people died during prohibition than after.
With respect to homicides, you are either mistaken or lying.
Source: http://eh.net/encyclopedia/?article=miron.prohibition.alcohol
Note that the homicide rates peak with law enforcement dollars both towards the end of the Prohibition, and rise again as the War On (some) Drugs begins in earnest. Maybe it's just coincidence - but, maybe it's not. In any case your assertion is disproven, with respect to homicides. Does this fact change your worldview whatsoever?
Have you looked lately at the number of people killed by drunk drivers in this country? Tell me again that ending prohibition reduced deaths.
Drunk driving deaths are a separate issue, and anyway drunk driving is still illegal. Furthermore, vehicular homicide is still reflected in the overall homicide rate. (In order to make the case you intended to make, DD would have to be decriminalized, which I am not arguing. That's called a straw man argument on your part.)
So, is it morally superior to legalize a product that will fill your morgues with victims but might reduce high-visibility murders?
Having seen the data, let's turn the question around: Is it morally superior to keep a prohibition in place, when there are not one but two cases in which the imposition of a prohibition has increased the homicide rate? (Who is the one who wants to decrease the surplus population, re: your argument just below?)
Oh, right. The Libertarian mindset: I can do whatever the hell I want and don't you try to stop me, and if someone else dies, well, then they should just hurry up and do it and decrease the surplus population.
Another straw man argument. Used by dishonest people when honest arguments don't work or can't be found.
The push to legalize drugs is raw, naked evil at work.
On the contrary, the War On (some) Drugs is.