I disagree. There is truth in what you say. There are addicts in every walk of life, but by and large, the lion's share of the problem is centered upon the young. Those addicted later in life are likely "still addicted", or returning to past indiscretions.
Yes, there are those (like me) who become addicted through prescriptions later in life (still am), but generally, folks tend to settle down and get married after 35, and do not attain the same level of narcissism they had in their youth, and therefore, their need for self indulgence is naturally less.
There is equally a certain amount of wisdom imparted to many of us that find our wilder days to be of less value than we had once assumed. That insight is called "growing up".
And it certainly is a product of a certain sub-culture, btw. If your children are raised "Country", with an intact two-parent household, in a Conservative Christian environment (church, home or private school), statistically there is a very good chance that your children will miss the drug culture completely.
Redneck kids get pretty crazy, but the worst you will be likely encounter is fighting, fast cars, tobacco, alcohol, and sex. Not to say these are not bad enough, but they are a far cry from the ailments found in other subcultures.
The reason is because the drug culture is rejected completely throughout the country subculture. Look at the music, the paraphernalia of rebellion used by the kids, the role models, and etc., and compare them to the venues of rock and rap (as instances)... Look at the supporting industries and workplaces and what they will put up with... Look at the comparative respect for elders, law, and country.
I am not saying that any subculture is immune to abuses and addiction (admittedly alcohol and tobacco are addictive), but I will certainly suppose that some are better than others, and statistically, certain subcultures will be more inclined to lead a child into the drug scene than others.
Prior to the 20th century, there simply was not such a thing as an illegal drug in most of the US. Patent medicines and "tonics" were the main medications for most 19th century Americans, and those had THC, cocaine, morphine, sometimes all three.
That is not true. Morphine addiction was a terrible problem after the civil war, especially in the south, where battle casualties were not limited to soldiers, and opium was pervasive wherever the Chinese were, particularly in west coast China-towns and in towns along the Chinese-built railroad lines.
The first federal law regulating drugs wasn't until 1906, and that merely required accurate labeling. Heroin wasn't outlawed until 1924, and marijuana until 1937. Prior to federal government involvement, there were not comprehensive anti-drug laws at the state level; they were relatively few and widely scattered.
I was not concerned about federal law, and I will concede the point. But state and county law is another thing. I would grant you that there were no comprehensive state laws, as in universal to all states, but that was largely because not all states were having problems with addiction on a large scale. The delivery systems were not in place to supply the drugs, nor were the people in a position to afford them.
But as railroads and road systems progressed, allowing distribution systems to develop, The laws followed those distribution systems. And as coin replaced barter in outlying areas, and prosperity came with the roads and availability, so did a pervasive fight against addictions.
But even with distribution in place, there was an accepted limit to many of the vices. They were "across the tracks" from the proper society, in a decidedly different part of town. The "red-light district", if you will. That uneasy acceptance went on for many years in a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" mentality.
I think what the 60's did was mainstream the "across the tracks" crowd, and bring it into the entirety of society, to were it could no longer be ignored. I think that's why society became reactive, and I think it was necessary. I think it still is necessary, albeit misplaced at the federal level.
It is a very good rule of thumb that what one endorses one will get more of, and legalizing all drugs will only add to the problem.
What would you propose to do with all the addicts, and the wreckage they will leave in their wake, if we were to do as you propose? Let them fend for themselves? Because otherwise, you must also be in favor of a burgeoning welfare system, one like we have never seen...
Singapore had at least a 70% higher rate of heroin addiction than the Netherlands. The US had about twice the rate of the Netherlands. Iran was reported by the BBC to have the worst heroin problem in the world. link
What is your evidence that the WOD reduces addiction, or that addiction would skyrocket without prohibition?
Haven't heard about meth, have you?
Drug legalization is self-funding. For starters, you take a $300 billion underground economy and subject it to taxation. States spend about $6 billion a year incarcerating non-violent drug users; that would pay for a hell of a lot of rehab.
A legal, regulated drug trade would pull the funding out from under criminal organizations that, in many cases, are more like armies than gangs. It would remove the rationale for asset forfeiture that turns the presumption of innocence on its head. It would undermine the case for no-knock warrants, intrusive bank reporting requirements, and an array of other assaults on individual liberty justified by the "war on drugs."
I share your philosophical unease at adding to the welfare rolls, but in pragmatic terms, the money is already being spent on incarceration. I support a solution that spends less money to achieve a better outcome, even if it means shifting the funds from the "law enforcement" to the "social welfare" line item on the budget.