Bias and conditioning? There is large and measurable variability in potency, effect, and dependency formation. Anyone with any sense sees the difference between coffee, marijuana, pcp, and heroin.
I'm on three of those right now, two more to boot.
It's the dose that makes the potency and effect.
The dose available to the end-user is determined from the drug itself and the supply chain, since it is unregulated. If it were regulated, the individual doses would be more controlled, allowing for less habitual redosing, and less acute mental and physical dependency.
Imagine you want a beer but hafta volumetrically dose it from 100% grain alcohol and cider. It'd be easier to become an alcoholic. Similarly, it is harder to "responsibility" enjoy heroin/fent or coke/meth because every time I want a small amount, I have to stare at a weeks worth for a brief moment.
The illegality of drugs itself becomes tautologically entwined with the reasons they are illegal. It is becoming more difficult to diffuse as our culture leans to polarity on drug issues.
If that's the criteria then we still have an inconsistency: tobacco and alcohol should be banned. The alternative is to be consistent in the other direction (which to some that are after "freedom" sounds more appropriate).
Yeah, there's a logical inconsistency. So what? Just because our society has so far failed to ban two addictive, harmful drugs, does not mean we must legalize every other addictive, harmful drug.
I see it differently: despite alcohol having absolutely horrible safety profile the vast majority of people manage to use it responsibly and don't let it ruin their lives. We all know that some people become alcoholics and yet it stops virtually nobody from enjoying Friday beer.
The drug prohibition made it difficult to know how many people use drugs responsibly. It is linked to legal weed actually: it is being legalized not because research showed it is not too dangerous (we knew it for a while), but because more and more people become aware that you can totally use weed and remain a respectable member of society.
For me it is a question of personal freedom. Everything has risks. Going hiking in mountains can kill you, for example, or almost any outdoor activity really. And some people die there pretty much every day. But I really don't want the state banning it just because some people fuck up.
To me, there is obviously a tension between the right of individuals to take calculated risks and the responsibility of the society to protect its members from harm. I don't think it's reasonable to say that individuals have an absolute right to take any risks they please, irrespective of the wishes of their society, because the society will end up bailing them out when the outcomes of their risky behavior get bad enough. Mountain-claimbing is actually a great example: if you get yourself caught in a ravine, there are crews of highly trained, well-equipped rangers who will fly in and spend enormous sums of money, as well as put their own lives in danger, to save your life. All this despite the fact that the risk was taken without consulting them at all. Because of this, mountain rangers have every right to mark certain dangerous trails closed to the public. It is a reasonable infringement on personal liberty, given that they're on the hook for other people's risky decisions.
How about sugar? Sure it seems innocuous enough, but some people get effectively addicted to it, developing diseases and conditions that can prevent them from working their chosen profession or die and "destroy" their family unit.
Have I heard about diabetics refusing to change their diets and dying, yes.
Does that mean we should outlaw sugar? Probably not, plenty of people struggle with obesity and sugar is a major contributing factor, but there's plenty of responsible adults that can consume sugar in moderation.
I also imagine there are a non-zero number of people that begin using more pure forms of caffeine in ways that are damaging to their relationships, health, and careers.
