I think you answered your own question. Because an action "affects" someone else, there may be a need for some sort of third-party arbiter, or even proscription under the law of certain kinds of behavior, depending on the extent of the "affect". What that extent is has to be determined by the will of the people (though that is not always perfect judgement). That is what we have legislatures for. No I don't think the government should be as extensive and intrusive as it is today, but neither do I want it to simply go away. Governments must be kept in check and they must tread lightly, but they can serve a good purpose.
It is also a good idea to seriously examine the principle of "as long as it doesn't hurt someone else" or as you put it in a slightly different variation, "as long as it violates no other individual's rights." Personally, I think I have a right to drive on streets where I do not have to risk my or my family's safety because someone has decided to drive under the influence of whatever chemical influence they are under at the time. You may argue rightly that is of a different order than whether someone can ingest their drug of choice. That is true, but it is all about where we draw the line--the extent of the affect. There are societal costs to drug use and even certain sexual behaviors that are not immediately measured in a direct affect on another individual. Society has to weigh those costs and make a decision. For now the mechanism that we have to do that is through representative government.
I think you answered your own question. Because an action "affects" someone else, there may be a need for some sort of third-party arbiter, or even proscription under the law of certain kinds of behavior, depending on the extent of the "affect". What that extent is has to be determined by the will of the people (though that is not always perfect judgement). That is what we have legislatures for.
And if the people decide to get involved in anything other than violations of rights, they've gone farther than they have a right to do.
No I don't think the government should be as extensive and intrusive as it is today, but neither do I want it to simply go away.
False dichotomy - nobody here has advocated anarchy.
Governments must be kept in check and they must tread lightly, but they can serve a good purpose.
It is also a good idea to seriously examine the principle of "as long as it doesn't hurt someone else" or as you put it in a slightly different variation, "as long as it violates no other individual's rights." Personally, I think I have a right to drive on streets where I do not have to risk my or my family's safety because someone has decided to drive under the influence of whatever chemical influence they are under at the time.
Your rights are violated when you are put at risk by a driver impaired by any substance - including the legal drug alcohol. That's not a sufficient basis for banning that drug - and therefore not a sufficient basis for banning any other drug.
There are societal costs to drug use and even certain sexual behaviors that are not immediately measured in a direct affect on another individual.
What costs? At least some of those costs are self-imposed by society and are thus no justification whatsoever for infringing on personal freedoms.