I believe you are thinking way too narrowly about the consequences and even the vice, for that matter. The consequences are nearly always shared by a circle of people around the person-of-vice. And in nearly every case, the guilt is not just one person guilt. The legal problems of the recreational drug user has as much to do with the producer and seller of the drugs as it has to do with the end user. You have to make it tough on the end user, the easier guy to catch, so that you can find and stop the bigger problem -- the dealer.
An abuser doesn't start as an abuser. And never ever are the consequences only his to bear. You have to hope he doesn't drive or operate machinery under the influence. You have to hope he doesn't beat or neglect his children and other family members. You have to hope he doesn't break the law with violent behavior or destruction of property or theft. You have to hope he is holding down his employment obligations so that he doesn't become a welfare issue. On and on and on and on. Those who want to legalize all drugs tend to put blinders on. They also assume control is adequately maintained when a person chooses to hand over the healthy functions of his brain to some controling substance. But by definition the individual has freely given up control.
Some food for thought for you. My oldest sister shared your view about drugs until just a few years ago. What changed her mind was the close-up view of drug convicts' families she was exposed to after a new prison opened just south of the town where she taught school. It's a min security prison, housing mostly drug offenders and petty thieves. This brought in a number convicts' families to the area, many in her school district.
You see, she witnessed first-hand for the first time the destruction and hardship the WOD had rained down on these people and concluded that they were not deserving of such treatment. She learned how these folks wound up losing homes and personal property now that the bread winner was unable to make a living, how their credit was ruined for the same reasons, how they lost insurance coverage because Dad had lost his job, not to mention the fact that the wives had lost a loving husband and their children a loving father for several months or years.
They suffered all this for dealing in something that shares the same moral risks and hazards as the "legal" drug alcohol. Had there been no WOD, they wouldn't even have been dealers, just mere consumers. She recognized the inequality these people suffered before law vis a vis the legality of alcohol vs. the criminalization of these other substances. In light of all this, the drug war no longer made any sense to her.
Not that any of this concerns you in the least in that you, in your infinite wisdom and deep concern for the well being of all concerned, just know you have these people's best interests at heart.
You and your ilk focus on the worst-case scenarios, bemoan the tragedy, then extrapolate that worst-case scenario to the entire drug using population, rationalizing your way to prohibition. Then you turn a blind-eye to all the financial and personal damage inflicted on people prosecuted under the laws you support. You ignore the unintended consequences of the WOD, most notably a violent black market and the erosion of constitutional rights and safeguards. You ignore the inherent hypocrisy and double standard that the legality of alcohol poses. You and your ilk do Pontius Pilate proud. Your approach to drug use and drug abuse is akin to the "we had to destroy the village to save it" addage thrown about back during the 60's.
If you can tolerate a father or mother that likes to down a few beers at home or down at the tavern on a regular basis, then surely you can tolerate the same if they smoke a doob or two when the kids are at Aunt Sue's or already gone to bed. Until you're ready to jail consumers of alcohol for the same reasons you want to go after other drug users, please spare me your rationalizations for the tyranny that is the WOD.