They cause almost all the misery and death due to drugs.
Don't pull my chain, man. You're talking to a kid from the 1960's California. You ever heard of Meth? You can't rationalize that social scourge by pointing to alcohol abuse.
The Drug War is hugely expensive, ineffective, and corrosive to the freedom of law-abiding people.
The classic Libertarian argument and one that I find almost persuasive.
Any additional drug use will have no impact on your or me, and we will benefit hugely from the money saved and, most of all, from freedom from bad laws and bad cops.
I'm with you on the "cop society" aspect. But, there was a time-- in the Western states at least--where you could walk over laudanum addicts in the gutter in nearly any town. I'm not sure I want to live in a society like that. We say that social mores against such behavior will win out, but do they? Aren't laws born from such mores?
Last time I had to step over an addict, it was a drunk. In fact, last 753 times, it was a drunk. "Crack hos?" Mostly common drunks. People who get violent in the street? Angel dust or booze - which do you think is the main contributor to 98% of violence? Look up the morbidity and mortality numbers yourself.
Ending the Drug War will have no measurable ill effect because people who engage in the truly high-risk, high-impact behavior are too out of it to give a damn about law, and people who might, but don't engage in that behavior, are not deterred by law, but by the risks.
And anyway, which do you think will work better regarding people's behavior: A multi-tens-of-billions Drug War, or a society and economy that values personal responsibility and the private sector more?
On top of which, I have nothing against states and localities being "dry" of any type of intoxicant the local people want to ban. Well, OK, they will pry my morning quad latte out of my cold dead fingers.