>>Both would be lessened if drugs were legal.<<
BS. Under what theory would either be lessened? They would be increased, as drug use would skyrocket.
>>DUI is no more an argument for a drug ban than it is for a car ban.<<
This is just stupid. Cars have a legitimate, legal purpose, and can be used for good. Illicit drugs have no such purpose.
>>problem solved<<
Great. Then all these smoking nazis who seem to think its their God-given right to smoke anywhere and everywhere come out and start demanding drug use rights. On top of that, if we get rid of drug laws, it is based, at least partly on, the idea that drug abuse is a right, is it not? That's a springboard for the same argument for drugs that exists for smoking, homosexuality, and every other made up "right."
>>Nobody HAS to.<<
You either have no experience with illicit drugs, or you have way too much experience with them.
Nonsense. I would be no likelier to use heroin if it were legal; would you?
Cars have a legitimate, legal purpose, and can be used for good. Illicit drugs have no such purpose.
They have the same legitimate use as alcohol: to enhance one's enjoyment of one's circumstances.
Then all these smoking nazis who seem to think its their God-given right to smoke anywhere and everywhere come out and start demanding drug use rights.
The right to do something in no way implies a right to do it on property not one's own.