People are always saying the "slappy hand conflict on Drugs" is a failure, and that we would be better off without it, but they don't really bother to consider whether this might not be true.
They only know what they have now, and they assume it is worse than it would be the other way, but this assumption is strongly in conflict with the historical evidence available.
China stopped their war on Drugs. Drugs then destroyed their nation. What they ended up with was far worse than our troubles with the "tiddly winks on drugs" we have been pursuing.
I'm sorry, but your "Grass is always greener on the other side" argument just does not appear to conform to historical reality. Not having an "Arm Wrestling contest on Drugs" would appear to be a far worse outcome in the long run.