No, I am arguing that by taking certain actions (abusing drugs), you have forfeited some of your right to "own your body", not because of your health, but because the health and welfare of other citizens is effected. Does my right to swing my fist end where your nose starts? No rights are absolute; they end where they start to adversely infringe on the rights of others. Drug abusers do this constantly.
The problem with drugs is that, with a great many of them, there is a loss of control over one's actions. How do you simultaneously allow people to do something that deprives them of control of their actions, and hold them responsible for those same actions? Either you have to place drug users out of the protection of society, or society has the right to defend itself from the behaviors of the drug users. Either Society isolates the users, or they isolate themselves while abusing. I have no faith in the druggies voluntarily isolating their own damage.
I see. So I own my body, unless I want to do something with my property that you disapprove of. That's like saying by taking certain actions (speaking), you have forfeited your right to freely speak.
Does my right to swing my fist end where your nose starts?
Yes, of course it does.
No rights are absolute; they end where they start to adversely infringe on the rights of others. Drug abusers do this constantly.
Tell me how.
The problem with drugs is that, with a great many of them, there is a loss of control over one's actions.
You've swallowed the propaganda, you're using what Reason Magazine's Jacob Sullum calls "voodoo pharmacology": the idea that there's no such thing as responsible drug use, that anyone who takes drugs suddenly transforms into Mr. Hyde, completely unable to take responsibility for his actions.
How do you simultaneously allow people to do something that deprives them of control of their actions, and hold them responsible for those same actions?
Very easily, actually. By holding them responsible for the earlier action which had the criminal action as a reasonably foreseeable consequence. By refusing to accept "I wasn't responsible for my actions" as a defense.
Just like we do with alcohol. It's not criminal to get blisteringly drunk. It is criminal to punch someone in the face while blisteringly drunk. We don't let such criminals off the hook by letting them say, "I was drunk, I wasn't responsible for my actions." We tell them, "You were responsible for your actions when you chose to get drunk, you could have reasonably foreseen that your fistfight would be a consequence of your drinking, therefore you're responsible for the assault even though you weren't in your right mind at the time."
Either you have to place drug users out of the protection of society, or society has the right to defend itself from the behaviors of the drug users.
Or you have to arrest those who commit criminal acts while under the influence of drugs, and leave the vast, vast majority of drug users, who harm nobody, the hell alone.