Cigarettes, while harmful, don't result in instant death. Banning cigarettes would result in the same problem banning other drugs has created.

The only things that should be "banned" are those that are so intrinsically harmful they cause severe, immediate, measurable harm to both the abuser and society.

There aren't many drugs that people consume that qualify for this standard since to be able to continuously abuse something it can't kill you the first try.

I agree with the spirit of your argument, but for reference 30mg of nicotine is fatal. It's a potent neurotoxin and is actively used as a pesticide. It would easily qualify as something "so intrinsically harmful [it] cause[s] severe, immediate, measurable harm."

True; it seems there's some more fuzzy element involved, involving how the substances are used rather than their intrinsic potency. For various reasons, turning nicotine into a more potent drug hasn't become popular. And, tobacco leaves smoked as-is are not acutely dangerous (only chronically dangerous). But, the same is basically true of coca leaves. The difference seems to be that coca leaves are refined into more potent/dangerous recreational drugs, but tobacco leaves aren't.

By a very loose interpretation so would water and surely more people drown than die of a nicotine overdose.

Interesting perspective.

Firstly, substances can be used without 'abuse'. Alcohol is a good example of this, you probably know many users who never abuse it. Alcohol most certainly can cause severe, immediate harm to the abuser an society.

Why ban substances based on harm? Why not just enforce the rules around the actual harm?

For example, enforce driving under the influence and don't ban alcohol.

Is there really a need to ban things like heroin which have a high rate of causing harm to the user? It seems like it is more of social and community issue. Throwing that person in jail is hardly improving their life.

Managing harm, as you suggest, is the best way to handle things going forward. It also covers a lot of things beyond drugs, things that are addictive for some people like gambling.

In terms of priorities it should be avoiding harm to others, such as not driving under the influence as you suggest, and then avoiding harm to the individual, as might be the case with a chronic alcoholic.

As a note, heroin isn't as inherently harmful as it's made out to be, but, like other things, so long as it's illegal it will really only be popular with the more hard-core drug users. It was legal before, after all.

Perhaps not, but you can overdose and die from nicotine.

Almost nobody does though because there is a legal form from which to get the high that is a minute fraction of what is required to kill you.

I have never liked the line of argument where 'but alcohol or cigarettes are worse than cocaine'. they should all be legal and people should decide for themselves what is more dangerous

I'd rather not be driving around on the same road as someone tripping on LSD.

Even if LSD were legal, it would remain illegal to drive while under the influence of it. But more importantly, do the laws prevent someone who wants to drive while consuming LSD stop anyone from doing it now?

I'm not sure about the USA, but in Canada, the number of people who use marijuana and the number of people who use tobacco are almost equal, despite only one of those substances being legal. That seems to indicate to me that the laws have no impact on consumption or the limitation thereof.

If you are worried about the effects of people using drugs, you are already witnessing them.

I agree, and feel the same way about people on alcohol -- which, incidentally, has a much greater risk of toxicity than LSD if you overdose. Which of these substances, if any, do you think should be illegal?

I don't mind if people kill themselves on drugs. I just don't want that to negatively impact me.

And the current War on (some) Drugs isn't having a massive negative impact on you? Do you not pay taxes? Do you own nothing at all of value and never go outside?