I completely and actively disagree. To establish my relationship on the matter, I am a USMC combat vet who never did any drugs for clearance reasons, who after I got out was saved by cannabis from being an alcoholic.

We are a nation of sovereign individuals. That is the entire foundation of the American governmental system which was founded upon the enlightenment idea that we each have unalienable rights, and that the main purpose of government is to protect those rights, and that the government does not grant rights! That the government derives it's power from the people is a huge reason America is, as the British defector Christopher Hitchen's called it, "the last revolution that stands a chance"[1]

I cannot stand this "social contract" approach to rights. In almost every area it is used to abuse the people, not to actually protect them, it is an abrogation of the fundamental principles of the American system, and if we truly adopted it we would only be increasing the speed of decent into authoritarian totalitarianism.

If we were to allow for that approach, there is literally nothing the government couldn't regulate as long as they decided it was in the "interest of the public health". Do you not see the slippery slope of your approach?

Not to mention the fact that the drug war was never actually about protecting the people in the first place, when we have the former aide to Nixon openly admitting that it was essentially the new version of Jim Crow laws. Beyond that, all the evidence shows that prohibition doesn't work, and is impossible to enforce, and it does nothing but enrich and empower the worst kind of people (like cartels and their CIA black-budget drug-gun running butt-buddies)

Furthermore, this approach is essentially an endorsement of thoughtcrime enforcement. By declaring that people who do drugs do crime, and therefor drugs = for criminals in the future, the establishment has essentially codified thoughtcrime into the system via bad law and precedent.

Let me say this absolutely clearly: The government has absolutely no right to tell me what I can and can't put in my body. I and I alone can make that determination. Whether that's lettuce, or sodas, or cannabis, it doesn't matter.

Now having said that, I think the majority of the debate about the drug war is actually a great opportunity to teach the Constitution. So if you look into it, it is mostly the abuse of the Commerce clause that congress has used to get legislation like this passed, but when talking about the health justification position it is worth remember that is a states level issue not a federal one for the most part, and it is actually the states that claim "health" reasons for their drug policies, even though as said before health wasn't the actual reason at all. So to me it is a great opportunity to talk about states rights vs federalism in a modern context. (Such as can the states pass laws that are in opposition the the Constitution? There is actually a lot more debate on this subject than you might expect. One particular writer who takes a position on that I disagree with but find well put and worthy of understanding is Kevin Gutzman. [2])

So in essence, I vehemently reject almost every sentence you just posted, and I strongly warn other Americans against so quickly acquiescing to such an egregiously Un-American position.

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-GZo5Yqlss

[2]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmC1t3F7OJA