Perhaps. But the bottom line is that the WOD touches every single one of those issues in a negative way. That's probably why it seems that the LP focuses so much energy on opposing it -- because it is the most egregious example of deprivation of individual liberty and personal responsibility, bigger government, centralized federal power, etc.
Furthermore, and most importantly, legalizing drugs before we've reduced the size and scope of the federal government is pointless.
I disagree. Eliminating drug prohibition is just one of many steps needed in the overall reduction in size and scope of the federal government.
Notice the emphasis on "federal". Truthfully, I have much less of a problem with state laws - I believe that many states would liberalize their drug laws if the federal leviathan could be tamed. The California medipot issue (no matter what you may think about whether marijuana really is useful as medicine) is a stark example of the federal government overstepping its bounds in the pursuit of the Holy War on Drugs. And the hypocrisy of continuing to use the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify federal meddling in what is clearly an intra-state issue is breathtaking, despite the many "cut and pastes" of court decisions that drug war cheerleaders like Roscoe use to justify it.
IMO, ending the federal component of the WOD is one of the most essential steps towards reducing the size and scope of the federal government -- it can't be back-burnered.
When you make a statement like this, you give people the impression that federal "inter-state" drug regulation and prohibition would be just fine with you. It's that pesky "intra-state" that bothers you. Is that the case?