[Schmedlap]

“Your naked people on stilts argument isn't applicable to a situation where all concerned are co-owners.”

That was part of the point.

“But from what you've written so far, I can't see any clear statement of a conflict in rights in regard to use of the public roads. The only thing I see so far is the limitation on the rights of the minority of co-owners that the majority imposes just because they desire to do so, and that undermines the concept of property rights.”

The public property owners agree to behave on the public property in a manner that the majority deems acceptable. The domain of acts that the majority has the right to deem acceptable or unacceptable includes only those behaviors that apply equally to all. Specific example: nobody - neither the minority nor majority - can drive drunk on the public roads.

Please define your understanding of the "concept of property rights." This would help me to understand in what manner my views undermine them.

“In drafting laws pertaining to society, the majority has superior force by way of being the majority, because the population has agreed to accept majority decisions, so long as the laws apply equally to all. Thus, you should have no quarrel with the laws on drug use.”

The population agrees to accept majority decisions, in regards to matters that the majority has jurisdiction over – such as public property. The majority does not have jurisdiction over the behavior of a property owner on his private property.

“The drunk driver has agreed to the laws in question in the same way that you have agreed to the laws against doing dope.”

In the case of the drunk driver, he has agreed to behave on public property in a way that the majority of the public deems to be acceptable. In the case of the dope-smoker, he has not agreed to behave on his own property in a way that some non-owner deems acceptable. The majority has simply usurped the power to deem what is acceptable and what isn’t.

[KrisKrinkle]

The domain of acts that the majority has the right to deem acceptable or unacceptable...

Apparently does not include any concept of minority rights.

Please define your understanding of the "concept of property rights."

Property right:  "A generic term which refers to any type of right to specific property whether it is personal or real property, tangible or intangible."

In regard to property, a right is an "interest or title in an object of property; a just and legal claim to hold, use or enjoy it or to convey or donate it as one may please."

You could call it  "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual" and say that  "it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage."

I have taken liberally from Black and Madison above, but I say that property rights are contingent upon, among other things, the ability to take possession of something as property.

To use your logic:
The population agrees to accept majority decisions, in regards to matters that the majority has  jurisdiction over – such as conduct in society.   The majority does  have jurisdiction over the behavior of a property owner on his private property because of this.

In the case of the drunk driver, he has agreed to behave on public property in a way that the majority of the public deems to be acceptable.

If he has so agreed, why is he driving while drunk?

Again, to use your logic:
In the case of the drunk driver, as a member of society he has agreed to behave on public property in a way that the majority of the public deems to be acceptable just as (i)n the case of the dope-smoker, as a member of society he has agreed to behave on his  own property in a way that the majority of the public deems acceptable.