One of the issues is the confusion generated by having legal and illegal drugs, where the justification for the status of each is hard to discern if looked at simply in terms of personal harm. For instance, leaving aside constipation and addiction symptoms (withdrawal), heroin is much less harmful than alcohol.
You could take pure heroin for 50 years without destroying your liver, kidneys, heart or brain - but it would have to be unadulterated, not 10% heroin and 90% kitty-litter, glucose, or whatever else it is cut with.
Becoming intoxicated with pure alcohol every day would see you a physical and mental wreck.
Llikewise, cigarettes kill more people than all other drugs combined, and yet they remain legal - for the moment.
And yet such is the hysteria that heroin cannot even be used for its medicinal properties in the terminally ill - despite its superior properties compared to morphine or pethedine (a synthetic opiate). Ironically. methadone is a more addictive sythetic opiate than heroin and heroin was originally used to ween people off morphine, until it became apparent that this "diacetyl morphine" weened them off morphine alright...
However, drug laws aren't entirely about which should be legal based on relative personal harm at all. It is probably a "me generation" thing to think that it is. It is as much if not more about society demanding that people work and be productive. Remember tea ladies, and that cup of coffee we all need in the morning? At the same time, the hard drugs are generally ones where the dosage itself is small and so the immediate harm risks from accidental overdose are greater.
The Opium Wars are a good example of the social effect of widespread opiate abuse - nodding off in opium dens is more enjoyable than working - who would have guessed? Entering a dream-like and euphoric state on demand must be a hard habit to break, withdrawal symptoms aside.
Taking drugs and drinking alcohol is enjoyable, soothing and relaxing (or invigorating) and that is why people continue to do it.
You could buy drinks containing rum, metho and opium at the bar in the early Australian goldfields - that would have a bit of a charge wouldn't it? Many cough medicines used to contain heroin as their principle ingredient, as codeine linctus still contains the heroin precursor, codeine.
However, the argument for legalising or decriminalising all or selected drugs is attractive in the sense that it rationalises the personal harm aspect of drugs by removing some contradictions.
Society could move to the view that all drug-taking is self-indulgent and anti-social, a bit similar to the way smoking has shifted from being portrayed as "the international passport to smoking pleasure" for beautiful people, to a filthy, deadly, habit that smelly, loser, addicts must now do out in the street.
This would at least put drug-taking generally into some perspective, instead of being clouded in ignorance, delusion and hypocrisy, as it is currently.
But once again it comes back to the point about the general good of society, and society wants people to be competent to do whatever the hell they are doing - all the time, if possible, and not have any serious proportion of the population sit just around stoned to the eyeballs all the time. National security anyone? The economy? Pass the pipe.
We also want not to pay the cost of drug abuse of all kinds, and this offends our moral sense of taking responsibility for you own acts (especially other people and their acts!) - especially un-wise and voluntary acts committed in search of a good time - a bit like that old goat who keeps sailing off and turning his boat upside down and wanting to be rescued.
We also want to avoid increasing the number of people having adverse mental reactions to strong drugs. Prescribed sedatives and so on aren't too bad, despite the powerful addictions they generate because the addicts are invisible. For the addicts themselves it is often a personal nightmare. The prescription of amphetamines to so many "overactive" children is a disgrace. Outside the absolutely uncontrollable children for whom it may be appropriate, the prescription of psycho-active drugs to help restless and naughty kids concentrate is appalling. Everyone concentrates better with a bit of speed (Ritalin). Thank heavens Steve Irwin grew up before it became the fashion.
That said, there is too much money in illicit drugs for it to be decriminalised. What about the distorting effects on the economy if this huge money-spinner crashed to the ground? Governments wouldn't be generating that money in their at cost-recovery prices, selling dope from drab, nondescript buildings.
The world economy, and especially the luxury goods market would be adversely effected, and we can't have that...
Luckily, children today tend to be a bit better informed and see that an integrated personality and sport and learning and health and "doing good" are worthwhile things to aspire to, or be involved in and these are interfered with by drug use - whatever their legal status.
I'm full of admiration for the younger generation, who seem much more grown up and mature in their outlook than mine was, but maybe that's just a pampered middle-class observation
I'll stop there, it's too complicated to solve. But lastly, on the alcohol and Italians - I read this is mainly a cultural thing because they drink wine with food and family and frown on drunkeness, unlike their neighbours, the French, who, although they also drink wine with food, have a massive alcoholism problem.
cheers