I live in SoCal.  In all but a few areas (Malibu / parts of Los Angeles / part of San Diego) it's a vat of conservative Christians/Muslims/etc.  We have a larger group of emo and a smaller group of punk who do what you describe, but we don't have enough hippies to notice.  Oh, and we have a lot of homeless.

maybe i will lure all the faux hippies in my town into a box with doritoes and an extra large pizza then nail it shut and send it to SoCal.

You can do the same just change the bait in the box to something like a monkey playing drums and upset toddler with a microphone. Some of the kids will enter the box thinking it is a punk show, but you may also  want to label your box "Totally cool anarchist punk show", as some of the other kids may not recognize the music as "punk" unless someone else tells them it is.

I missed seeing this comment.  I totally would, except for postage is outrageous nowadays.  We'd have to come up with some ingenious shipping method.

"If it were alcohol, not cannabis, that brought out the worst in Your mom, would You call for the prohibition of alcohol?"

I already think alcohol should be illegal, doesn't do anyone good. There isn't a real reason to drink it other then some peoples pleasure, and in cases like other people I know, a means to forget parts of their life. So yeah I would have no problem with them outlawing alcohol. To top it off, smoking tobacco should be banned too. This comes from an ex smoker, there is no good in it, theres no point to it, its a waste of money and harms people around you.
I actually see this happening soon, Here in Iowa, you can't smoke in public with the except of casinos. Same thing in Nebraska.

Banning cars? That won't happen. Some people live out in the middle of no where with no way to get food/supplies/etc. I get what you're saying though, I do think there should be a law down about the types of vehicles people drive. Unless you have a bunch of kids, you don't really need a hummer, for example. Even then, a more economic minivan would be better then a hummer. I know it will never happen, oh well.

you really must like to be told what to do, huh?
Why should cigarettes be banned? I understand the idea to prohibit smoking in public, that makes sense as it would harm other people, but to suggest that people shouldn't be legally aloud to smoke in their own homes or vehicles is ridiculous. Whether it's harmful to people or not, they can decide for themselves if they want to harm their own body.
Cigarettes don't even have an intoxicating, behavior altering effect, so you can't say that it could cause someone to harm someone else besides the smoker, as is the case with drinking and driving.

Well, just know that there will always be people like me out there. People who are going to decide things for themselves and do things anyways if they don't think they're wrong, even if they might be illegal.  If I don't agree with a law, then I find no need to follow it.

I think what she was trying to say is that the only good thing about alcohol (among the many negatives) is that some people find it fun, so there's no good reason for it to be legal/allowed.

I don't think addiction/substance abuse can be put so simply as "they're weak." It's surely not a good coping mechanism, but it's not exactly helpful for anyone in a victim mentality to think that, oh well, they're weak (just a furthering of the victim mentality...). I guess one could likewise say that people who are depressed or suicidal are weak. And yeah, you could say that those people might have a reason to be depressed/suicidal, but apparently so do a lot of people who abuse drugs/etc.

Also, as far as drinking goes, some people have way more or way less than normal alcohol dehydrogenase. People who don't have as much as the average get "Asian glow," and feel awful after very little alcohol. Others who have a lot of alcohol dehydrogenase can drink *a lot* without many of those ill effects. However, the problem is the level of dehydrogenase doesn't affect how addicting the alcohol is... in other words, people with high levels of the dehydrogenase can become addicted much more easily because there's much less of an aversion.

The other day I was shopping in a somewhat poor neighborrhood.  There was a prominant sign in the middle of the shopping center for a alcohol and tobacco store.  All I could think was 'that is why their is so many undernourished and neglected children'.  Their parents would rather spend money on those things than take care of their children.

The original temperance movement was an offshoot of the women's (and children's) rights movement(s) of the 19th century.  People in the US use to drink and use drugs much more than they do now.  Women and children being rapped, beaten, neglected and abandoned was very widespread.  The idea was to limit the rights of drinkers and drug addicts so that others could have a basic freedoms.

I agree with faylein.  I think that alcohol, cigarettes and drugs, including marijuanna, should be outlawed.  They are not victimless crimes.  Many women and children are still neglected and abused due to their use.  Also, Mexico and other countries are essentially fighting wars to produce and distribute them to our country.  That is the big elephants in the room.  There is no way that is could take anymore effort or money to expand prohibition than we are already spending on rehabilitation, foster care, domestic violence centers and police/military force.  This is my two cents.

Did people really drink more than they did now? I can see smoking, because of the campaigns and health info that there has been in the past half century. But drinking? I think the current estimate is that 40% of adults will/have abused alcohol, and 20-25% of adults will have/do have/have had an alcohol dependence problem. It's hard to imagine it being much higher :( Also, another factoid is that 1/4 women will be hit by their partner/s in their lifetime.

also, maybe there was more to your story... but drawing that conclusion on that anecdote seems kind of classist. Surely wealthier people smoke and drink. And there are plenty of higher class alcohol stores, like Bevmo (ok, they sells seltzer and syrup too), or hell, even Trader Joe's, where a third of the small store is wine/other alcohol in many cases.
domestic violence is likewise not a class problem. It is simply reported more in closer housing situations (-> poorer neighborhoods). In fact, the highest rate of batterers (per person, not sheer number) occurs in doctors and police officers.
I don't think the problem of neglect, abuse, and self-destructive behavior can be solved or even majorly helped by banning the abused substances. By laying all the blame on the substances, we evade the personal responsibility in these situations. Why do people start abusing drugs to begin with? What about other addictive behaviors? It might be harder to get people psychological help or cognitive-behavior therapy (and more expensive) than banning substances outright, but I think it would ultimately be more effective.
Also, how would such an outlawing work? What about current addicts? Many people who are addicted will do whatever they have to in order to get high/drunk/etc, whether or not it's legal. That was apparently the problem with the Prohibition... it didn't decrease drinking rates, it just drove the business and practice underground.
I don't think it matches to say tobacco/alcohol should be outlawed, and then say that there's a huge drug trade for illicit drugs. There's not for tobacco or alcohol - why? There's an above-ground, cheap, "safe" (well, safer) way of getting it. Doesn't the violence surrounding illicit drugs make an argument for their legalization? If they were legal, we wouldn't have impoverished persons risking their lives and freedom just to traffic drugs into the US.

This is confusing:

I could care less if someone goes out, has a beer, makes it home safe and puts no ones lives at risk... And I again could care less if someone smokes in their own home

But I still hold to my original opinion that no drugs should be legal. I question even some legal "drugs" they give to people.

This comes back to what I was talking about earlier, about how people base the threshold of what's acceptable based on their own preferences.  Anything beyond that threshold is unacceptable.  This is how same-sex marriage got banned.

I just remembered something from freshmen year history about Prohibition:
After a dip in the beginning, alcohol sales weren't that affected, it's just that there was more violence around the supply chain.  So, for all of the people who don't like gang violence over drug trafficking and sales, making alcohol illegal would increase exactly that.  Also, during prohibition there was a rise in marijuana and cocaine use.  I can see that.  If I chose to buy something legally, but then it became illegal and I was going to buy something anyway, then the whole world of illegal substances would be opened up for my purchase.  They're all equally illegal, so why not?

Seeing that people aren't answering the question, I'm going to suppose that the people this thread migrated to talking about aren't all hippies.

Obviously, people are not responsible with alcohol, tobacco and drugs.

That's quite a blanket statement. 

What we define as responsible socially and medically are sometimes different... with alcohol, it's (at times) socially responsible to get buzzed but not "drunk," and not drive. Or sometimes it's acceptable to get drunk/sick/hung over, but certainly still no driving. But biologically speaking, a person can develop alcoholic fatty liver with 1-2 drinks per night, where a drink is 12 oz beer/5 oz wine/1.5 oz hard liquor (some people think a given glass of a mixed drink is "one drink," but it's often not the case). That's considered totally moderate, socially responsible (most people wouldn't get drunk, or maybe even buzzed by that), but you're still doing damage to your liver. Of course, fatty liver is mostly reversible (if you stop drinking at that level, and don't take any other drugs that could further compromise liver function).

I'm just saying that normal amounts of drinking are not necessarily as innocuous as reputed, even though we're told that that amount might even be good for us. Also, I'm sure you could get away with inhaling the fumes from a cigarette a few times and come out pretty unscathed (but because of the high likelihood of addiction, it's probably not realistic to smoke "in moderation"). But, there's the difference between the lungs and the liver... the liver can, to a degree, regenerate. Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is social acceptability affects how noxious we perceive something to be. Public opinion doesn't favor smoking, and we see any amount as terrible, but alcohol has a different reputation.

I was thinking of something more like 1 drink per week, not 1-2 per day.  I think the latter is too much, I think.  And I guess you are right that a cigarette a week won't kill you, but who does a cigarette per week?  They are not used in the same manner.

Refined sugar does not do more harm than drinking.  I can eat a bit of refined sugar every day for the rest of my life and as long as I retain my weight it won't affect me a bit.  It's the overall lifestyle and excess calories that matter.