You argue that drug use makes a person more likely to commit crimes. It is a risky behavior, which makes a person more likely to commit 'real' crimes. That is an acceptable summary of that particular portion of my argument against Drugs. Even though I diasagree with the generalization that the greater likelihood of committing a crime should itself be criminal, I will accept it for now, because I believe that the evidence is overwhelmingly against the proposition that all narcotics possess these social ills. Now, this is not what I argued.
Different narcotics have wildly different effects.
I am fully aware of the social dangers of heroin and crack cocaine. You claim that the same dangers are true of the soft drugs, like marijuana. This would be correct in the same way that beer, wine and liquor can all get you drunk. The difference is in how much of each must be consumed in order to be in violation of legal BAC levels. Other than that, however, at equal BAC levels, you're just as drunk whether you got there by drinking beer or whiskey.