I should be free to experiment with my own consciousness (so long as it does not impede on the rights of others) - how much more personal can you get? For the government to impede on this is unconscionable (pun intended).
This is really the crux of the problem. How do you suggest that you legalize all drugs and then keep people on those drugs from harming others? Public safety has a hard enough time without having to deal with some unknown number of additional people that would try drugs are harm themselves or others if those drugs were legal.
Your argument would mean that no one could drive a car or drink alcohol. Why are drugs different?
That being said, I've seen a lot of people who think it will eventually become illegal to manually drive, at least on crowded public roads within large cities.
The bulk of the societal harm that comes from drug use is in the steps people take to get drugs, not from the actual drug use. Having adverse reactions to drugs can be mitigated by actually knowing what you're taking. And removing the stigma and taking on addiction as a public health issue and not a criminal one is a huge boost to community safety.
It depends on what you mean by that.
If you mean they harm others by going on a drug fueled rampage, there isn't much we can do but react when it happens like we do for, say, a passion fueled rampage or a drunken rampage.
If you mean people getting desperate because of a crippling addition so that they try to harm others in order to get access to their drug then I'd recommend spending a fraction of what we do going after and incarcerating these people and get them medical help with their addiction and the basic necessities of survival. And if they continue breaking the laws against other crimes, than prosecute them for those crimes.
How do you legalize alcohol and then keep people on alcohol from harming others? How do you legalize guns and then keep people with guns from harming others?
Illegalizing drugs doesn't keep people on those drugs from harming others; in general, government policy can't absolutely prevent any class of unconsented harms, what it can provide accountability and compensatory mechanism and do things to mitigate (or increase!) the quantity of such harms. And I think the evidence is pretty clear that prohibition, as it has been attempted with alcohol and many other drugs, does quite a bit to increase harms inflicted on others related to the use of and market for the prohibited drugs. A better policy is needed, but its not reasonable to expect that that policy will "keep people on those drugs from harming others".
Links to reputable studies backing this up would be welcome.
Some of those other things are regulated as well. E.g. You can't rappel in many state parks, because idiots kept getting hurt and costing the state $$$ in rescue attempts to remote locations.
Its not all cruel government heedlessly restricting rights. That's an immature viewpoint. Count the cost and see that nothing is free.
Do you think prohibition of alcohol had no costs? Same thing with drugs - which the article pointed out. The cost of keeping it illegal far outweighs the potential costs resulting from irresponsible users (which we still pay for even when it is illegal)
And, for anyone who would drive intoxicated or cripple their health via drug abuse, that is already easy to do -- drugs aren't hard to find if you're looking. Prohibition hasn't and will not stop any of the negative consequences of drug use.
Perhaps the police need to come and kick down your door and throw you in prison to keep you from drinking any more alcohol. You know, for your own good and to protect society.
Meanwhile people are dying all over the world due to the Drug War but you can feel smug and secure knowing that you are above it all.
https://www.reddit.com/r/oakland/comments/3pf0xk/machete_wie...
Do drugs have risks? Of course. But as pointed out elsewhere, so does everything else. It's also very clear that any ostensible benefit from prohibition is easily outweighed by the crime and suffering caused by it.