First, it's not a great analogy. Fluoride isn't a psychoactive drug. It doesn't change behavior, it's not addictive, it's not outright toxic to the body at normal levels. It's presence doesn't cause a public health hazard (though its absence might). There is a substantial difference that can't be hand-waved away. We're talking apples and oranges.

Second, have you researched the history of modern nation states and their collective "war on drugs"? I have no qualms saying that it's been an utter failure. Running a centuries long war against its citizens is unconscionable, expensive, and it doesn't even reduce drug use or its impacts.. I see no evidence, none, that militarization of police forces against their citizens has any positive effect on society. It certainty does nothing to stop drug use, which is the entire point.

Put another way, I don't personally drink or smoke (and I happen to think they're far more harmful than we realize), yet I don't want to live in a society where those things are made illegal. There is no contradiction here.

In terms of fluoride, I don't want to live in a society where I'm a) drugged against my will or b) forbidden from accessing the drug entirely. There's got to be a middle ground.