The War on Drugs: Because Prohibition Worked So Well

That's a pretty convoluted attempt at sounding, "logical." Murder is outlawed and seen as immoral because the state has a duty to protect and defend the constitutional rights of its citizens, "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." If you or I murder someone, we are depriving them of all of these inalienable rights.
If you or I grow poppies in our backyard, harvest the opium in them and go into our kitchen and use the opium we deprive no one of anything but perhaps ourselves. As for your other 'argument'; it sounds eerily like, "It's the Law!" This merely excuses a government acting outside of its lawful authority which is nothing but Tyranny. It's no different than trespass. Perhaps if 'government' outlaws churches we should all bend?

Well said, Parker.

But when you use your opium and then in a confused and disoriented state get in your car and kill someone, then it does hurt someone else and the rest of us have a right to stop you from doing that.

But when you use your opium and then in a confused and disoriented state get in your car and kill someone, then it does hurt someone else and the rest of us have a right to stop you from doing that.

Uh no you don't. Think about what you're saying. Do you really like living in a society that can punish someone simply because they have the potential to do harm in the future? In the case of driving, just the premise alone assumes that we are are equally qualified drivers which is nonsense. There are thousands of reasons a driver could be potentially dangerous. There are good drivers and very bad ones. But until they commit a traffic violation and there are more than enough laws regarding driving a motor vehicle, they're guilty of nothing. Same goes for drinking alcohol. The legal levels are so low now that's it's essentially a backdoor prohibition.

So, from your response, I guess you believe that Singapore has it right-- caning for minor transgressions as chewing gum, and prison terms for disparaging the government.

Furthermore, your line of reasoning is not dissimilar to the old saw "If we outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns."

You miss the point entirely.

I've seen some pretty reprehensible behavior from drunks, should we start a new war on alcohol?

If not, why not?