I think you are right. It remains to be seen if they would all "like" them and continue using them, but surely without social stigma and with ready availability many would try them who otherwise would have passed.
Libertarianism insists on personal responsibility, which is good. But "too many are far from the self-restrained, healthy type envisaged by democratic theory" (Ernest Van den Haag).
Which is why some things are illegal.
It is ILLEGAL to engage in disorderly conduct.
If all the do-gooders here would accept the argument that people should be held accountable for their actions that cause harm to others BUT NOT be held as criminals for doing something that is of their own concern then I think we could find a happy medium.
But it sounds like people have a list of what they are comfortable with and not comfortable with and want to legislate based on that.
Well I have some type of movies I like and some I am not so comfortable with (really gorey movies are not my thing).
But guess what? It isn't my perview to tell the rest of you what kind of movies you should find entertainment in. Nor is it within my perview to tell you what chemical substance you should put into your body.
Try applying your comments to the prohibition of alcohol. You may see how inane your comments really are.
Let me get this straight... conservatives oppose welfare partly because they don't want the government to protect people from the consequences of their actions (in this case, refusing to work). For this reason they don't want welfare to be available as a way of life for these people. But these same conservatives think government should protect people from the consequences of other actions (in this case, using drugs). For this reason they don't want drugs to be legal. Does this make sense?