It seems to me that the problem is the demand for drugs by the populous. Going after the drugs, and blaming the drugs for the actions of their users can be compared to gun banning. In both cases we are blaming inanimate objects for the actions commited by their users.
I would argue that a there are few drugs that immediately cause a person to change their personality, and that getting high or drunk only lowers inhibition in most cases. This indicates the desire to do harm was already present, and simply repressed.
Also, many drugs that are illegal can have beneficial uses. For example, marijuana can be used as a mild pain reliever. The adverse affects are much less than the typical narcotics prescribed for pain relief. This is coupled with the fact that more people die every year from "legal drug" overdoses than "illegal drug" overdoses indicates how the war on drugs is causing harm.
I think we need policy that treats the disease, instead of going after the symptoms.
I would also like to argue that the free market has been more efficient at stopping drug use than the government. I say this because if someone wants a decent job, making a decent wage, they first have pass a drug screening for employment. Once this screening is past, many companies have random drug screenings as a condition of employment. Unless if someone wants to flip burgers for the rest of their life (and there is nothing morally wrong with this) they will eventually stop using recreational drugs.
