This is an example of moral universalism, or moral objectivity. Somehow you know the morals I live by.
Morality is subjective.
This is not an argument. Making an assertion is the opposite of making a case. For example: saying "god exists" neither proves nor disproves anything.
I never said we have the moral right to enforce other people.
Banning things because the are dangerous to other people is not based on morals, it is based on scientific studies and facts.
You are advocating the use of force against people for disagreeing with you. That's precisely what it means to ban something.
We have laws against aiding murderers, so why should substances that lead directly to a higher amount of murder be aloud?
Allowing people to own and drive cars is correlated with a greater number of hit and runs. Allowing people to live in a city is correlated with higher levels of gang membership and homicide. Therefore are you justified in pointing a GUN at anyone who drives a car, or who lives and works in a city? Of course not! This is absurd. The man who drives a car has done nothing wrong, the man who lives in a city has done nothing wrong, and likewise the man who takes a drug has done nothing wrong. None of these actions has hurt a single other human being. You, on the other hand, are hurting people. You are using violence and the threat of violence against people for their perfectly voluntary behaviour which is their own personal private business. You are declaring them guilty on the basis of what you think they *might* do in the future. Incidentally, this is a basic violation of human rights; Everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
To put this in concretes for you, consider this scenario. Someone is about to pour a glass of brandy and sit by the fire in the house that they own, on the land that they own, in the city that they live in. You, in your infinite wisdom, have read that statistically people who drink brandy are five times more likely to beat their wives. Thus, you feel 100% justified in picking up a firearm, bashing down this man's door and putting the gun to his temple, with your finger on the trigger -- literally threatening his life, his very existence, because you are FUCKING CONCERNED that he might beat his wife in the future on the basis of a STATISTICAL CORRELATION, when he hasn't even done anything wrong. This is exactly the same moral scenario for
any other substance.
Society is everyone. Everyone has the ability to stop things such as alcohol or hard drugs through voting, campaigning, and many other ways.
Why would society only include me and people who agree with me? That statement is ridiculous, especially in the context I used the phrase in. I did not say something along the lines of we as society have the moral obligation to stop it, I said we as society can stop it.
You deliberately miss the point.
How are you going to stop it? Clearly the 'society' you speak of excludes the people who break your ban on drugs (or whatever else you want to ban.) So clearly your definition of 'society' is not 'everyone'. What you actually mean by society is 'people who agree with you'. Watch how your sentence improves in clarity when your contextual definition is dropped in:
Why give people [who disagree with me] the choice to make the wrong decision, and possibly hurt people [who agree with me] when we [people who agree with me] have the ability to stop the [people who disagree with me] [by using the guns of the state] in the first place?
To answer your question, again: because it's immoral to point guns at people when they haven't caused damage or injury to anyone else.
The wrong decision of doing hard drugs or drinking alcohol has nothing to do with morals either. It all leads back to our established laws, and the proof that is out there that those substances can kill you, and suicide is against the law.
Again, you deliberately misunderstand the point. You wouldn't defend a law that said all jews have to be gassed, or that all black people should be slaves. I assume at least that you are only defending these drug laws because you agree with them on moral basis, thus this is a moral debate. If you are defending them only on the basis that they are 'the law' and have given no further consideration to them, then you are the most detestably evil person in existence. You would advocate the slaughter of innocent people just because some greasy politician wrote it on a scrap of paper 40 years ago?
Finally, you debate like a total sophist. You are unwilling and unable to set strict definitions and you use equivocation all over the place. Your sentences are quagmires designed to baffle and confuse the reader, rather than to educate and inform. And thus, unless or until you are willing to learn how to write in a straight clear manner I suggest you find somewhere else to debate.
