The widespread effects would be catastrophic imo yet at the same time they also conflict with individual freedom as to how one should live their life.

the more general question of whether there is something about recreational drug-use behaviour and cultural effects on the moral-citizen role - not only what citizens vs. authorities think about it - that tends to oppose the popular will as it is actuated in culture. — kudos

People taking drugs are unpredictable. A society of unpredictable people becomes difficult to control, to police, to hold to a production or payment schedule, to recruit for national service and international conflict, to maintain communication with, to collect taxes from, to enforce any kind of law over.

If so, why is unpredictability still to be avoided? — kudos

We presently give money to YouTube entertainers for their unpredictability.

There is a fear of neuro-atypicals, especially among conservatives, who demand and take comfort in conformity. Drugs mechanically induce atypical thoughts and behavior, which must seem fearful to the conservative mindset.

And a 10-minute performance for the camera, however surprised the audience may be, doesn't prevent the performer going to their job, feeding their kids, crossing on green lights or paying their taxes.

Why a simple and seemingly private individualist mental life in the form of altered state of consciousness... has been represented and actualized in society to be aligned or opposed to a proper ethical way of life? — kudos

But in the usual sense of most religious believers it's because of a religious impulse: it's just bad, and that's that.

There are some who take comfort in normal behaviour, but honestly isn't this point a little old fashioned now? You can do pretty much anything nowadays and get away with it more or less. — kudos

OK, it sounds like what you're saying is that drug use should not be illegal, but drug addiction should be. — kudos

twhether there is something about recreational drug-use behaviour and cultural effects on the moral-citizen role ... that tends to oppose the popular will as it is actuated in culture.

We, as a global society, have no problem with the sorts of ideas that drug use perpetuates, such as the idea of excess, lust, gluttony, self-indulgence, hedonism, etc. — kudos

There is no "we" or "global society". There are separate, quite different societies with rules based on very different belief-systems and moral principles.

What about my other points?

It’s sort of a question of whether the state should involve itself in the moral life of citizens. — kudos

That being said, does the state have any duty to guide citizens into a life of satisfaction, fulfilment, and happiness... — kudos

I mean, how many drug users do you know whom you would call satisfied and fulfilled individuals (… be honest)? — kudos

Prohibition is merely the most extreme example of regulation. — LuckyR

All fair points. It’s sort of a question of whether the state should involve itself in the moral life of citizens. Lycurgus of ancient Sparta became known for involving the state in ethical life straight out of childhood where citizens would become normalized to having no limits of love, community, and military honour. For instance, the state allowed adultery if the players were in love, and there were requirements for people of different economic classes to dine together and eat the same meals. The Spartans were highly regarded by some for these as philosophical accomplishments and they endured for many generations after Lycurgus’ death.

That being said, does the state have any duty to guide citizens into a life of satisfaction, fulfilment, and happiness, or should we agree simply to submit that the exceptions are the rule? I mean, how many drug users do you know whom you would call satisfied and fulfilled individuals (… be honest)?

Out of all ethical questions, for some reason there has been one question that has been the most remote and difficult to answer, but also one of the most fascinating. The question is, "What shapes our attitudes towards banning and allowing the use of certain recreational drugs?" I'm sure this has been discussed here before. The number of subjective responses are nearly infinite, with the question almost certain to draw answers shaded by cultural ideologies and empirical beliefs.

I hope instead of discussing pros and cons in a purely utilitarian manner, you can respond to the more general question of whether there is something about recreational drug-use behaviour and cultural effects on the moral-citizen role - not only what citizens vs. authorities think about it - that tends to oppose the popular will as it is actuated in culture. Why a simple and seemingly private individualist mental life in the form of altered state of consciousness, a willful change of subsections of society into sub-groups, exaggerated and distorted neural pleasure-pain or libidinal-aggressive functionality at the social level, moral dislocation from the mainstream role-playing game, has been represented and actualized in society to be aligned or opposed to a proper ethical way of life? — kudos

Note that in most parts of the world this already happens. Consider public education. In your view, the state should back off and thus allow the strongest to determine what the ethical life should be. But isn’t this the very thing you despise most about state intervention: the corruption aspect?

I mean, how many drug users do you know whom you would call satisfied and fulfilled individuals (… be honest)? — kudos

As Spooner wrote, vices are not crimes. If one is not allowed to do what he wants to his own person and property, there is no such thing as right, liberty, or property.

It's clear that policies of interdiction and prohibition are historical and political and don't follow reason.

The impact drugs have on people is often more about why they take them and how they take them.

Its a big statement to say history and politics don’t follow reason. Care to unpack that one? — kudos

And why, do you think, they do take them? — kudos