No. Using drugs and driving fast are both victimless crimes. There is nothing criminal about them per se. I am saying that the same justification is used to justify both speed limits and drug prohibitions.
My parent comment said (referring to speeding past a school bus without harming anyone):
> Just because they are not the victim of murder or assault doesn't mean they're not a victim. You threatened them. You endangered them. They are victims of being put in danger by you.
Pro drug-prohibitionists would argue: just because you can use heroin without hurting anyone does not mean it isn't generally hurtful. But it does lead to other crimes: theft, murder, child neglect, spousal abuse, rape, etc. and burdens society (medical, unemployment, homelessness). You don't have to agree with this justification of course.
'Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins' sounds simple. But what if people keep swinging their fists around and unintentionally hitting me? What if people are living on the street and stealing from me so they can spend all day swinging their arms around? What if my neighbour swings her arms around so much she gets dizzy then decides to drive-while-dizzy?
All those questions can be answered with "charge them with a crime after they commit one, not because you think they might commit one because they're [on drugs/obsessed with swinging fists around]"
Stealing from you? Charge them with theft. Hitting you accidentally? Let's call that a misdemeanor. Driving while dizzy? Call it DWAI.
