The individual's freedom is sacrificed by the drug user when he drives a car or requires public funds for survival or treatment. You might not have had time to read the whole thread yet, but I posted this link earlier - DUI Marijuana: Does Marijuana Impair Driving? Also, very few drug users are ever going to require any public money for survival or treatment. It happens, but it's relatively rare.
I can therefore justify drug laws by putting them into the crime category - in other words.....if you use drugs - OK - but if you step on the toes of others - it's a crime. How's that for a compromise?
You've pretty much staked out the libertarian position here. Or I should say, the libertarian position is that drug use cannot be used as a defense.
>>You might not have had time to read the whole thread yet, but I posted this link earlier - DUI Marijuana: Does Marijuana Impair Driving?
Your alluded justification of pot smoking and driving is probably where you need to be for a legal drug position. I strongly prefer to keep all drivers, pilots, and doctors with clear heads and reflexes.
Alcohol is by far worse than other drugs in damage to society. Each State defines the point at which alcohol is OK or not OK, but we still have alcohol-related catastrophic costs to the point where we are numb to the news.
If an adult dabbles to excess with mood-altering drugs - be it a martini or a joint - the adult's responsibilities to others typically can't be met.
That's why I consider the Libetarian position on drugs bordering on radical personal autonomy without a commenserate severe penalty for ignoring personal responsibilities to others.
Think of it as a driver's license.