I think his magazine created the conservative movement, and there were a lot more people involved besides WFB. But he created the forum for the others to pool intellects. Yes, they were "upper crust," but this was an intellectual movement. Upper crust is where you find those people. I never thought of it that way.
The subject of drug legalization was a huge single-issue that put WFB at odds with the movement.
Conservatives have a great point on drugs. Drugs do great harm to the individuals involved, and because of the extent we've socialized those costs we have to do what we can to stop their use. Keeping them illegal is the means to that end.
Libertarians also have a great point. We made drugs, admittedly a bad societal ill, illegal, but it has done nothing to stop the use of the drugs. Rather, it has fostered a very large culture with no respect of other laws, like Breaking and Entering, Robbery, etc. Plus, because we have socialized the cost of fixing the broken people, we need to stop doing that. No paying for other peoples' self-inflicted wounds.
In WFB's perfect world, where people who don't partake don't pay for people who do, it makes no sense to have laws making criminals of those who do the drugs. Admittedly, we don't live in a perfect world, but that is the world WFB was talking about. That's what theoreticians do.
I'm with you, that's not the world we live in. But it's useful to consider what would work in a world we don't live in sometimes. There's a big difference between our perfect world and the Democrats' though...we don't use the entire country as a great big laboratory. We have fifty labs, and they should be allowed to test hypotheses. And in the immediate here and now, that means the Feds need to stop trying to destroy people in states that are testing things.
California long ago approved pot use for medical reasons. The Feds have busted and financially ruined people for farming to meet that market. While meeting strict State requirements in terms of safety and quality of product (they were strict. No use of certain fertilizers and pesticides, food-quality handling, etc), they were afoul of the Feds. That ruins the laboratory so we don't know anything new abut how things would work.
2. marginalizing the JBS. I think they should have embraced John Birch Society, but they didn't like libertarian. They liked the power structure of gubmint, but they wanted to be the ones wielding the power.
Who pays for those who use is relevant to drug laws only if drug laws reduce use - but there's no evidence they do. What we do know is that they cost tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to enforce, hyperinflate drug profits, and channel those profits into criminal and terrorist hands.