I get what you and other posters are saying about weed how the current culture with it encourages borderline perpetual use, especially since its not physically harmful it makes people think being high every day has no consequences to both the mental side of things and the material fact that nothing ever gets done as their fat ass slowly becomes one with the couch, that and frequent underage use absolutely cannot be good for a teen/young adults developing brain. However like alcohol as long as you can moderate and control its use to being once in a while the harmful effects can be minimized to being neglgible, should it be outlawed for all just because a few cant keep control over it? I dont think so but I do believe the smoke every day culture needs to be stomped
The problem is that people generally suck at "moderation" in the sense of keeping some sort of balance between extremes. Instead they will typically trend towards one extreme or another. Hence you have "weed is the devil's lettuce never touch it" versus "it's a magic wonder drug that cures cancer smonk erry day." In an ideal world sure we would find a happy medium between those two but human nature makes that difficult or impossible. You can see this effect in many areas of politics, tolerance of faggotry did not lead to a happy middle ground where everyone gets along, it ended up with child drag shows and trooning children. Feminism has led to wild new heights of female entitlement and mental illness, "Civil Rights" has given way to Black Lives Matter, etc.
So the bottom line is we should probably be erring on the side of "drugs are bad." You ask "should it be outlawed for all just because a few can't keep control over it?", and that is the common framing, whereas I would ask "is the ability to smonk really that important for all of you to keep it around even with all the obvious negatives?" The fact is drug use is a luxury recreational activity even in the very best of cases, you will be just fine without it, but lots of people won't be fine with having it. Behavior is controlled through hard consequences, if you refuse to impose them and take this mindset of "well what's the big deal if you can moderate it," it is inevitable you will end up with the "smoke every day" sub-culture.
I think though that the consequences of outlawing it are far greater than legalization. Illegalization implores enforcing the law, that means more police, more strain on judicial/prison systems, and in the US context giving even more power to the alphabet boys (fbi/dea), think about how much all this must add to the budget. With more power comes more room for abuse either by dirty cops or corrupt politicians twisting the laws (Nixon as an example).
There are two angles here.
First off legal vs illegal is closely tied to underlying culture/values. My view is that abstinence from drugs should be pushed as the moral norm in society in a cultural sense. The ideal is that people would choose not to use drugs and would harshly shame anyone that does. This would lead to drugs being illegal in a bottom-up fashion. It would be akin to how Holocaust denialism is treated today, technically it's legal to deny the Holocaust, but the social consequences and moral castigation are so powerful that it's still very effectively suppressed. The converse, an attempt at top-down imposition in which the government tries to force people not to do drugs with no underlying support in the culture, yeah that has problems and will be much less effective.
The second thing I would say is that one problem with the "war on drugs" is it's never really been that serious of a "war." And you can kind of tell this from how much of a meme it's been made into that has huge swathes of people thinking the "war on drugs" is a terrible idea. Which it was, but again, you could argue it was a failure because it was too cucked and half-hearted. A lot of the country's elites were never really that enthusiastic about it, and it was indeed a partisan political football a lot of the time, as opposed to something like unconditional support for Israel which is actually bipartisan and will get you canceled if you disagree.
A truly serious "war on drugs" would dispense with all the liberal bullshit and just start knocking heads. Death penalty for any drugs dealers, and long prison sentences for addicts. No "rehab," no hemming and hawing about muh non violent crimes, just straight to jail for anyone that gets caught using, with longer sentences for people that clearly have a problem with it. This level of severity would resolve the issue once and for all. However, I recognize that people in the West simply don't have the stomach for it, so the "bottom up" cultural change approach is probably the best you could hope for. But it's worth pointing out because "banning drugs doesn't work" is such a common meme, and it's not really true, it's more like "half assing it doesn't work."
