You're right, they're not. There is not a single illegal drug that is as addictive or as lethal as tobacco. And there are very, very few legal drugs that are as harmless and benign as marijuana. Caffeine, aspirin, even vitamin A are all more toxic than pot.
More people use alcohol and tobacco than drugs. So your statistics need to reflect this.
Even if there were one illegal drug user for every hundred tobacco smokers (a gross underestimate), tobacco would still kill a far greater percentage of its users.
Drugs can be far more addictive.
There is nothing that we know of that is more addictive than nicotine, although caffeine comes close. Even heroin falls short.
And tobacco does not interfere with a persons ability to drive safely.
So make it illegal to drive under the influence of a substance, not to consume the substance. Banning a drug because some are stupid enough to drive while impaired makes as much sense as, uh, banning firearms because some are stupid enough to commit crimes with them. Or banning airplanes because some are stupid enough to crash them into buildings. Or banning spray paint because some are stupid enough to inhale the propellant. Or banning water because some are stupid enough to drown.
Alcohol and tobacco can be used safely in moderation; illegal drugs cannot.
So, uh, do you believe everything the government tells you, or just the propaganda it shovels down your throat in order to justify a grievous encroachment on personal liberty?
Legalizing drugs would result in more people using drugs
Maybe. Legalizing alcohol after Prohibition did not result in a massive increase in consumption. In fact, Prohibition itself resulted in an increase in the usage of hard liquor. See, prior to Prohibition we were primarily a nation of beer drinkers. But beer is bulky, and when smuggling illegal substances, bulkiness is a major disadvantage. So we as a nation turned to more compact, more potent distilled liquors. The cocktail, in fact, became popular as a way of hiding the foul taste of amateur-distilled spirits. Prohibition ended, but America's taste for hard liquor did not. Thanks, Prohibition!
more children using drugs
Again, maybe... but I doubt it. Kids get drugs today from dealers who are already criminals and have no incentive to check IDs. Put the drug trade in the hands of reputable businessmen with licenses they do not want to lose, and you may see the availability of drugs to children decrease. Besides, "oh, won't somebody please think of the children?" is a pathetic argument.
more drug related traffic accidents and fatalities, more addicts and more breakdown of the family structure.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that all of these things are true. I do not concede them, but let's stipulate them for now. This means that prohibiting drugs results in fewer drug-related traffic accidents and fatalities, fewer addicts, and less breakdown of the family structure. How much are you willing to pay for these benefits? Are they infinite? Will you do whatever it takes to receive the marginal benefits, no matter the cost?
Let's look at those costs. More turf wars, more innocents gunned down in the crossfire, more people made sick by adulterated substances, less tax dollars from the sale of these substances, more tax dollars spent on enforcement, more breakdown of civil liberties, less respect for the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, more money in the hands of criminal gangs, more subversion of the judicial systems in the United States an abroad, fewer prison cells available for violent offenders. Is it worth it?
I believe in personal responsibility - and it is the responsible thing for everyone to abstain from illegal drugs. It is responsible for my elected representatives to allow this reality to be reflected in the legal code.
You've got a funny view of personal responsibility. If I'm attracted to Fred's wife but I abstain from making a pass at her because I know that adultery is wrong, that's personal responsibility. If I'm attracted to Fred's wife but I abstain from making a pass at her because Fred is a 260-pound former NFL linebacker, that's not personal responsibility, that's just fear of consequence. To enforce the "right" choice at the point of a gun (which, in the final analysis, is what the law is) does not uphold personal responsibility, it just removes liberty.