All drugs should be legal to sell, produce, distribute, and to be consumed by consenting adults.

Negative liberty refers to, freedom from interference by other people. In order to truly accept this concept we would have to truly accept anarchy. This being said, remember that the right to liberty is expressed in the Declaration of Independence, one of the founding documents of the United States of America Thomas Hobbes, a 17th centry philosopher, argued that a strong authority was needed to curb men's intrinsically wild, savage, and corrupt impulses. Only a powerful authority can keep at bay the permanent and always looming threat of anarchy. If Negative liberty leads to anarchy and anarchy can be prevented by authority, why whould we believe that the liberty highlighted in the declaration of independence was refering to negative liberty. Rather, the liberty I believe that was implied, was the freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. This is also why we have our constitution that shows that our liberty is not absolute. Your concept of private property leaves a lot to the imagination. With your theory, because my car is my property, I should be able to do as I please to it. So if I busted out my headlights, removed all of my seatbelts, spray painted over the license plate, and took off all of my mirrors, I should not be punished for driving down the road. My intention is not to ban all drugs, rather to keep most drugs from becoming legal. I have no reason to justify this by stating the harm to the individual, rather just the harm to others caused by the individual. A report in the Journal of the American Medical Association reports that cocaine use is linked to high rates of homicide in New York City and that "homicide victims may have provoked violence through irritability, paranoid thinking or verbal and physical aggression which are known to be pharmacological effects of cocaine." The violent behavior caused by drugs won't magically stop because the drugs are legal. Legal PCP isn't going to make a person less violent than illegally purchased PCP. Although the crime was committed by a person, that person was influenced by pharmacological effects of the drug, altering the person's normal behavior. We call this being high. While some drugs do influence a more peaceful behavior, most do not. As far as your argument of poor people tend to commit more violent crime. The state of being poor cannot always be the person's desire. However the state of being high is. These are two completely different parameters. I completely agree with you that not all drugs are harmful, but because of the ones that are we cannot have FULL drug legalization. There is no country where there is FULL drug legalization. Many countries have very relaxed drug policies, however none have full drug legalization. With your version of liberty you might have well just started your last argument with, All drugs should be legalized in the name of anarchy. You have also yet to show any reason for full legalization. All you have accomplished is showing reasons that some drugs should not be illegal. There is still no benefit from changing the status quo, only harms.