You are inflating my position, then attacking it. This is what is known as a Strawman Argument. I clearly wrote "drug abusers" not "drug users". By definition, an abuser is not a responsible drug user.
So I own my body, unless I want to do something with my property that you disapprove of.
No, unless you do something with it that adversely effects other's rights. Like the right to expect you to fulfill your freely taken obligations, those legal (such as employment contracts), familial (such as the financial support of your family), and societal (such as the safe use of public ways). You have the right to speech, but not to libel and slander. You have the right to religion, but not to human sacrifice. You have the right to travel, but not into my house. You have the right to your actions, but not when you've obligated them elsewhere.
Just like we do with alcohol.
We do a damn poor job of it with alcohol. If the punishments for alcohol and drug abuse were commensurate to the damage and/or averted damage potential, (catching the smashed driver before the accident) I'd be more inclined to support decriminalization. But given our coddling of drunks, I'm disinclined to allow legal meth heads.
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.
Which is my second option: society defending itself from those who damage it by their use of drugs.
You've been doing the same to me. See: fences robbing my house.
Did you? Let's check the record:
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.
Your position in this thread seems to indicate quite clearly that you do not believe there is such a thing as responsible drug use. If that impression is mistaken, please clarify.
No, unless you do something with it that adversely effects other's rights. Like the right to expect you to fulfill your freely taken obligations, those legal (such as employment contracts), familial (such as the financial support of your family), and societal (such as the safe use of public ways).
If I fail to live up to my employment contract, my employer has the right to take action against me. It doesn't matter if my failure was due to being stoned out of my gourd, drunk as a skunk, or just plain lazy. If I fail to live up to my familial obligations, my family has the right to divorce me. It doesn't matter if I got zonked on heroin or had an affair. If I fail to live up to my societal obligations, society has the right to arrest me. Sitting in the privacy of my own home and consuming the substance of my choice does not constitute failure to live up to societal obligations.
We do a damn poor job of it with alcohol.
We did a damn poorer job when we tried to fight the problem of alcohol with prohibition.
Which is my second option: society defending itself from those who damage it by their use of drugs.
How does using drugs constitute prima facie damage to society? What societal obligation does a nonviolent drug offender break? When formulating your answer, try to come up with something that doesn't equally apply to someone who just sits at home perfectly sober in front of the TV doing nothing, because we don't arrest people for that.