It is a powerful question. One that evokes all kinds of immediate, knee-jerk responses; from "yea, way to go dude!", to "oh my God no, it will destroy this country". But let's try to get past the immediate gut response and look at the situation calmly and coolly. The main fear, and argument against legalization, is that the number of drug users will increase, perhaps doubling, tripling, or quadrupling; until we become a nation of drug crazed zombies - something approaching "Night of the Living Dead", but presumably without the cannibalism, but who knows. This fear, and much used argument, has no basis in fact or any scientific study. People who are inclined to use drugs are already using drugs. People who are not inclined to use drugs are not using drugs. That won't change once drugs are legal (or decriminalized).
It is not as if the law is the only thing stopping drug users from using drugs. For young people, drugs are readily available in college and high school (and probably junior high as well). Kids can go to parties and partake of drugs, mostly marijuana, if they choose - in a fairly safe and secure environment, surrounded by their friends and peers. The last thing on their minds is the law. If a kid in that situation would not use drugs (and most do not); why does anyone think that same kid would use drugs just because they are legal? In fact, one can argue, somewhat convincingly, that some kids use drugs precisely because they are illegal. They are bucking the system, saying a big "fuck you" to their parents and society as whole. Drugs are "cool" because they are illegal. Drugs would become a lot less "cool" if they were no longer illegal. Now that is not to say that a 14 year old should be allowed to purchase or use drugs - minors will always have fewer rights than adults - but if the nationwide atmosphere of paranoia about drugs were removed from the scene, that would have an effect on minor's drug use. Just as there will always be that segment of youth that smokes, even though cigarettes sales to minors are illegal; and drinks, even though liquor sales to minors (or even adults under the age of 21) are illegal; there will always be that segment of youth that uses drugs; no matter what laws are on the books.
What about adults; who can presumably make educated decisions about what, or what not, to put into their bodies? Why should the government tell me what I can, or can't, smoke, drink, inhale, shoot-up or snort. What I put into my body is my own business; whether it is a joint, or a Big-Mac; and in fact, there could be some argument as to which is worse for me. However, that is not the point. Even if a substance or food is horrible for me, I should be allowed to drink, smoke, snort, inject, or eat it. I am only harming myself; which is my divine right. I am not saying that these are smart, good or logical choices to make; I am just saying that they are an individual's choice to make, not the government's.
The Constitution does not guarantee outcomes, it only guarantees the ground rules. The anti-drug forces want a drug free country and are willing to use the all too vast powers of the state (in this case a police state) to achieve that outcome. What they don't realize is that this country (or this planet) will never be drug free. There will always be a want or need for some people to alter their moods in some fashion, either socially, as with drinking a beer with friends in a tavern; or alone, with a crack pipe. Some people are lucky in that they can find some solace or contentment in the Bible; and good for them. But other people choose to find their nirvana in a drink or a toke. It is their choice. Some people feel that they need to be their "brother's keeper", and thats great. If that is what, as individuals, they want to do, then more power to them. They can join educational outreach programs to try to convince people to not use drugs or booze, or help drunks or addicts get straight. What they can't do, through the government, is stop me, by force of law, from drinking or using drugs. That is my decision, and my body, not theirs.
If I choose to not exercise, and have a diet of half & half, Cocoa Puffs, and canned frosting; drink a fifth of scotch and smoke four packs of cigarettes everyday, then that is my business and I am protected in my "lifestyle" under the law. However, if I eat right and exercise, don't smoke cigarettes or drink booze; but once in a while, smoke a little pot, I am a criminal - all in the name of protecting myself. Does that make sense to anyone out there? My body belongs to me, not to the United States government. Whatever I want to do with my body is my business. I am not asking for government handouts or an entitlement to drugs. I am just asking to be left alone to do with my body what I may. It is my right and everyone's right; and fortunately we are a nation of fairly common sense individuals who will do what is best for themselves. Just what the founders envisioned.
"Law, being a sign of Corruption in Man; many laws are signs of Corruption of a State."
JSC