Although I think there are Constitutional problems with the War on Drugs (my views can be pretty much summed up by Clarence Thomas' dissent in the Raich case), that is not the point I am trying to make.
When I say that I don't think protecting people from themselves is a legitimate function of government, I meant that I think that such laws are immoral. I think it's wrong to point a gun at the head of someone who is hurting no one but himself and say "Thou shalt not" because we think it's bad for him. In the words of C.S. Lewis "No sin, simply as such, should be made a crime. Who the deuce are our rulers to enforce their opinions about sin on us? - a lot of professional politicians, often venal time-serveres, whose opinion on a moral problem in one's life we shd attach very little value to."
In a practical sense, there is also a problem. I would want very high taxes on cocaine to cover its impact on social services. The drug companies would demand as much oversight of cocaine manufacture as you have in Aspirin. Trial lawyers would demand an incorporated producer. The end result would be that "recreational drugs" would still be expensive. Not at all likely to solve the associated crime.
Aspirin is pretty cheap, and I see no reason to believe that recreational drugs would not be cheaper if they were legal. Sure, there would be oversight, and regulatory costs, but I don't know why recreational drugs would be much more expensive than most over the counter drugs. Or tobacco or alcohol for that matter.
I'm personally and religiously not ready to take a "thin the herd" approach.
That's not a position that I take either. I'm a bit sickened by some of the comments I see on these boards that run along the line of "Just legalize it all and watch the losers kill themselves. That'll solve the problem!" Rather, in addition to my position that prohibition is immoral, I believe that drug prohibition is much more damaging than the actual drugs. I already discussed some of the statistical evidence on prohibition and the homicide rate, but there is another reason I think prohibition is wrong - it's bad for the people who still end up using. Users end up using drugs that are of questionable purity, may be less likely to seek treatment (for emergencies or dependency), and may have to deal with thugs to get drugs.
On top of all this is the threat of arrest. The vast majority of drug users use a few times, quit and that's the end of it. No addiction and no ill effects at all. But what if these people, who would otherwise be fine, are arrested and prosecuted? Now they have criminal records and a tougher time getting a decent job. Some of them are pretty promising people whose lives are ruined, not by drugs, but by bad public policy.
All in all, I very much appreciate your candor, and I hope you now trust that I too am trying to be very honest and get to the heart of the issue and to the key areas where we likely disagree.
Thank you. I admit that I didn't have high hopes when I saw your first comment on this thread, but yes, I see that you are interested in discussing this intelligently, which is a real rarity around here. Take care.