Point?
Alcohol and nicotine kill far more.
Exactly. And that is because they are legal, not in spite of it.
That circular reasoning, i.e. supporting the WOD because drugs are illegal, is a logical fallacy.
And that is because they are legal, not in spite of it.
So you would support the return of alcohol prohibition?
This is your best point, and has made me stop and think for a few minutes. Then I realized where the difference of opinion comes from. You seem to be indicating that it is the job of government to regulate, criminalize, or control almost any inanimate object that could injure the user when it is used or abused. Many here disagree, wanting the government to have as little to do with our daily lives as possible.
Is it the government's job to protect us from ourselves doing unhealthy things?
Many pro-WOD would say that drugs harm more than the user. My response would be that law enforcement should handle those effects without making the item in question illegal. Auto accidents kill 55,000 per year but cars should not be declared off-limits. Police regulate the cars speed; legislatures control the safety, emissions, and licensing; individuals are left to enjoy the "privilege" of driving as they see fit after that. Many are abusive, and are punished for those abuses. Why aren't drugs controlled, monitored, and enforced the same way (controlling their potency, content, and strength; punishing those who used them in ways that harmed or endangered others after the fact; and leaving citizens the freedom to use recreationally)? Yes, the number of deaths may increase... so what? It is not the government's job to make us as healthy as possible against our will.