Quote:
What is the difference between the negligence of letting food be contaminated and getting so high you decide to drive a car and end up plowing right into a family car, killing everyone inside?


The difference is huge, and its right in your post. The key is the "you decide" part.

Quote:
I understand that at that point you'd say to prosecute for the bad decision to drive while high, drug use or no, but this isn't much consolation for the loved ones of the people who died.


You're right, so we should prosecute them not only for their negligence (whether they killed someone or not), but also for the harm they inflicted on others. There is no way to stop these kinds of acts from happening, but we can hold people accountable when they do. This is how we handle drunk driving. Drunk driving is an illegal act because it is negligent to others. When a drunk kills someone, we prosecute them for murder in addition to drunken driving. Getting drunk is not a crime, however, and shouldn't be.

Quote:
And unfortunately, as a society we don't generally do a very good job of looking at the potential consequences for our actions.


This is exactly my point. We don't hold people accountable because they aren't free to make decisions of their own accord. Accoutability, responsibility and authority are all interrelated. This is my whole point, which you seem to agree with but don't understand the root cause. It is precisely the idea that the government needs to impose "moral" behavior that causes a society where people don't consider the consequences of their actions. They don't need to. This is precisely my point about people not really wanting to be free. If you see this as a failing in our society, as I do, really think about why it occurs. Freedom implies responsibility. Lack of freedoms imply lack of responsibility. This is the direct cause of both the litigious society and the general lack of consideration of consequences. People do not start out failing to consider consequences -- they learn that behavior. It is strategic behavior, like any other human behavior. In fact, I would go so far as to say that people do consider the consequences, they just don't care.

Quote:
A nation full of drug abusers with no external motivation to stop until it's too late would not be a good place to live.


This is an opinion of yours (I would say a prejudice) that has no basis in actual experience. It is effective and scary rhetoric, but not the way things actually are. In the 19th century, there was no drug prohibition is the US, and we did not live in a "nation full of drug abusers." Holland is not a "nation full of drug abusers" and is reportedly quite a nice place to live.

This statement reveals your fundamental misunderstanding: You believe that people, left to their own devices, will become a "nation full of drug abusers." In other words, at your very core, you believe that without external coercion people will destroy their lives and the lives of those around them. This point of view is closely tied to religious conservatism, and has been called an "ascending view" -- people are inherently evil and must be controlled, either by the state or by the threat of eternal punishment. I believe this is completely ridiculous. Even if it were true, I believe it is nobody's business but my own if I choose to lead a self-destructive life.

History has proven that a person's motivation to persue their self interest causes them to accomplish much greater deeds than the fear of damnation or imprisonment. Look at the other thread showing the night skies of North and South Korea...

At root, however, I think I have a much higher view of man than you do.

Quote:
I don't think there are any easy answers, unfortunatly, and that is very sad.


There are no easy answers. Freedom is messy business. We need to allow people to make bad decisions for themselves. This is not an easy answer, but it is the moral answer.

I think that much of the "ascending view" that I mention earlier is people's own fear that they will be unable to control themselves. Well, your fears do not give you the right to impose your own values (which may themselves be fear-based) on others.