It's in your own citation:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson, 1776.
Emphasis is mine. As Schmedlap said, rights are not granted by government. Rights are secured or protected by government. Unfortunately, they don't always fulfill that obligation.
Having said that, your point about "consent of the governed" is valid, even though I still ask where you would draw the line. The Clinton administration committed a number of serious abuses of government power, all with "consent of the governed". How much are you willing to tolerate? Is it always OK, or only when you happen to agree with it?
Jefferson's proposed alternative of abolishment is so extreme that only anarchists would support it. Alteration is what we are talking about, and a honest consideration starts with historical precedent. Prohibition is an interesting case study, because it addresses a lot of relevant issues:
All of these issues are relevant to the War on Some Drugs, and there's no evidence that the results have been or would be any different than Prohibition.
The people who support America's drug control policy aren't morons. These people are intelligent and responsible individuals who don't condone the use of illicit drugs and consider such behavior to be irresponsible and immoral.
I think that the abuse of mood-altering drugs is irresponsible, too. But, I don't believe in using government to enforce morality, because it results in nothing more than a power struggle among competing interests. If you want to promote your vision of morality, do so on your own, rather than crying to Uncle Sam to do it for you under force of law.
But, there are responsible uses of drugs that are currently illegal. And even the effects of irresponsible use are confined to the user, unless they go out and commit a crime like driving under the influence. We don't blame alcohol when a drunk driver kills someone: we blame the drunk driver.
One of the most important issues is absent from this discussion: who profits from the War on Some Drugs? Entire federal and state bureaucracies have been built to prosecute it and are literally competing with each other for tax dollars. Like LBJ's "War on Poverty", one should not expect a bureaucracy to eliminate itself by eradicating the very set of circumstances that prolong its existence.
But to justify its existence, the bureaucracy has to appear to be doing something. So, they claim that drug use is down or propose new programs. But mostly they demand more laws to give them additional powers. And that's the worst part of the War on Some Drugs: the damage it is doing to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
You probably don't care now, but the precedents are being set for them to use the same abuse of power to come after you for violation of something you hold dear, but are out of step with the majority.
Don't believe me? The National Firearms Act of 1934 was enacted as a "revenue measure" and was upheld on that basis in Sonzinsky v. US, due to the precedent already set by the Harrison Narcotic Act (one of the first skirmishes in the War on Some Drugs). The record of committee hearings shows that was exactly the plan, as explained by the Attorney General when challenged on that point. I presume that you know the subsequent history of US v. Miller and the resulting state of 2nd Amendment jurisprudence that resulted from that particular subterfuge.
While I agree with you, that government doesn't always do the job I expect them to do, government, nonetheless, through the power of "We The People...", have always secured, granted and protected the rights of the people. And I would like to think, with the blessings of God. That's the reason why I highlighted what I consider to be the most important part of what Jefferson said. Again, "... that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." Most of the time our leaders have done a good job when it came to upholding the rights of the people and sometimes they've done a lousy job. Remember, the Constitution is a governing document and isn't holy scripture. Man is responsible for his actions, good and bad, right or wrong. Through the strong moral compass of individuals, mankind will succeed or fall.