No, mainly on scientific evidence and crime reports. But my personal experience solidifies it. And I find no problem that do base it on personal experience. The decision should be that of the people of each state. If the majority of people see hard drug use as too much of a threat, they have every constitutional right to prohibit it, and those that disagree can move to a state that does not, or try to change the minds of the others.
We're in agreement, then. In a sane world, the people of each state would have the right to decide for themselves. Of course, I'm still not convinced that these drugs are really more dangerous than alcohol (as I said, it would take a comparison of all users to all users who commit crimes). Also, I wouldn't qualify any of the hallucinogens as hard drugs, though that's partially out of personal bias. Still, it's nice to see we can actually agree on some things.