Drugs; pro- or anti-legalization?

I'm against drug use because it's illegal, and a crime, and i am against crime. There are other reasons i'll state here as well.

First off, the most common reasonings in favor of legalization that i've heard have been 1) It's not up to the government to tell us what we can or can't do, 2) If it's not hurting anyone else, then what's the harm? 3) The only reason it's illegal is because the government can't track and tax the farming/use/sales of it, 4) It would reduce/eliminate the drug cartels, and lastly, 5) It would reduce crime, lower the amount of money going into the justice system, and increase our domestic product.

Now let me address these ideas;
1) It's not. No, that should be a personal conviction, just like beating the crap out of someone (refer to #2 for why i use this correlation) . . . We should know better than to do it. It should simply be common knowledge and instinct to not do things that kill us, just like with smoking and drinking. But no. There are millions of people who do things their body tells them not to.

2) Again, it should simply be common knowledge and instinct to not do things that kill us, just like with smoking and drinking. If it doesn't hurt others . . . That's the thing, though; it DOES. Just like alcohol and tobacco; alcohol claims 2.5 million lives each year. Those aren't just people who drink, but people whose judgement has been impaired by it. It probably takes less of most drugs to get someone 'buzzed' than it takes alcohol.
And smoking . . . I don't know how many lives that claims. Smokers aren't the only ones who get lung cancer from cigarettes; people around smokers do, too. Same thing goes for most drugs; the smoke/excess of them would affect others. That sense of logic is flawed and, sorry, downright stupid.
It would make drugs cheaper, so anyone could have them . . . That doesn't sound appealing to me, knowing that even more people would be intoxicated or under the influence of some sort of substance.

3) Sadly, that's true. It makes me sick to think that, if it has the same effects as alcohol does, that'd be another 2.5 million people worldwide if it was legal across the globe. And the government's only concern is cash. Revenue > lives. Lovely. It's depressing knowing that the government values you and i just a little less than money.

4) True. It would eliminate them, or at least reduce them. But then, once they were no longer running drugs, they'd run something else, just as has happened since boats were invented. It's human nature to want what we can't have. There have been smugglers since the beginning of countries' borders, and there will always be smugglers. As long as anything is illegal, they will run that product.
And i live just a few hours from the US/Mexico border, and there's said to be families of drug runners in Lake Jackson, a town about 15-20 minutes away from my home. I worry about alcoholics more than i worry about drug cartels. I would worry more about the influx of doped-up people roaming the streets (in vehicles, no less) if it were legal than i worry about drug cartels.

5) It would reduce crime. Personally, i think the best way to reduce crime is not to give in, but make the punishment so severe that it's no longer worth the risk of getting caught (why should criminals get access to the internet and tvs? Why is the American public paying for their luxuries? Why do the more vile inmates even get beds and chairs? It should be prison, not a stay at a fully furnished second-home). Like drunk driving--i think that should be attempted involuntary manslaughter . . . But that penalty does not exist and is only inside my head. Legalizing it for the sake of reducing crime is essentially surrendering morals because it seems the easy thing to do. It's not the wise choice, in my opinion.
And i understand that money used to have drug users arrested, tried, and incarcerated costs you and i both, but i would prefer some dopehead who can't see because so many of his brain cells have been burned out was sitting behind bars in his zombified state rather than piloting a 4,000 object traveling 60 mph past any combination of my spouse/parent/child/sibling/cousin/niece/nephew/grandparent/aunt/uncle/etc.

6) . . . If you have another reason, please message me on FB or Tumblr, comment on this, or send me an email at jos_h20@hotmail.com (please state in the subject it's regarding this blog or i probably won't even see it), and i'd be happy to discuss it.
If you're looking to argue, i'm not so naive as to think arguing online changes anyone's mind, so i refrain. If you want a legitimate conversation about it, though, just two people discussing it with reason, please do send me a message; i'd love to get more than the stereotypical reasons.