And I think that those are the "sticking issues" for many people -- but I also think that they are the issues that have rational arguments on both sides.
For example, I agree with your position on abortion for the same reasons. But the question is what can be done about it? Some think it is purely an overturning of Rowe vs Wade and federally outlawing abortion -- nice idea but nearly impossible a task. However, if you return abortion to the State level, you might succeed in outlawing abortions in some States, reducing the number of children who are killed. Eventually, other States might follow.
And yet, having said all of that, ultimately it is still "a personal decision" because if a woman is truly determined to get rid of her baby, there isn't much one can do to stop it. The best you can do is to reduce the numbers, not eliminate it altogether -- unless you have a complete cultural shift in this country as to how the origins of the issue is dealt with.
Re the drugs issue, I have equal and opposite arguments in my head as well.
Argument #1 against the War on Drugs: Even with huge amounts of money and the goodwill of the majority of the population, the War on Drugs hasn't worked. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons so how are we going to keep it away from the general population in a free society? The price of the War on Drugs, both in increasing federal powers and in money, has been too high for too little return.
Argument #2 against the War on Drugs. I have no more right to tell you what you can or can't put into your body than I have to tell you that you must eat vegetables for lunch instead of red meat. It's your home, your body, you deal with consequences of what you do. Not my problem.
Argument #3 against the War on Drugs: It's a corrupt rip-off. It's "protection money" to protect you from yourself.
Argument #4 against the War on Drugs: "Houston, we have a problem". We have so many people in jail for non-violent drug offenses that our prisons are overflowing and we are forced to release violent criminals out on to the street to keep the non-violent drug offenders in. In terms of priorities, it's a really bad trade off. And when the non-violent drug offenders are finally returned to the street, do you think that they have "learned their lesson"? More likely, we have just turned what started out as a non-violent offender into a violent and completely unproductive member of society.
Argument #1 FOR the War on Drugs: I don't do drugs, so I don't want to live in a society where everyone is "high" and looking for their next "fix", nor do I want to have to pay for people who are non-productive because they are high all the time. Problem is -- I already do, even with a War on Drugs.
I had to laugh at Arugment #3. The funny thing being that you got it right. What’s even more absurd is that when you look at the positions of most Dems you’ll find a protection racket or a confidence racket at the heart of almost all of them.