True, but a people who fail to properly restrict the scope of their government are equally at risk to a monster of their own creation. If a people submit to any measure to stave off a potential tyrant, they will simply fall to another tyrant, though it may be one they are more familiar with.
...And as I've argued earlier, in joining ourselves together, we relinquish that absolute freedom which that solitary man "in the state of nature" enjoys. We have formed governments because, although they're an "evil", they're a necessary one. In consenting to form these governments, we consented to be governed by "the will of the majority restrained".
True. In joining society, we give up certain liberties like being able to exact private retribution against those who harm us, being able to take what we want at will regardless of the wishes of others, etc. I do not think we relinquish all liberty to the whims of the majority, however. We should cede to government only that much liberty which is necessary to preserve the remainder.
But the problem is not just with those who wish "to waste away their time and their money getting high in private" - as you yourself admit in Section I. Rather, there are drugs which are so powerful as to pose a threat to those who don't wish their lives affected by them. A man may be permitted to buy enough sleeping tablets to be fatal. But that doesn't mean we'll let him walking around the crowded town square with a vial of volatile nitroglycerin in his pocket.
Yes, and those drugs which do pose a threat to others are precisely the type that I believe the community should be empowered to prohibit. But I don't believe EVERY drug fits into this category. Any substance we ingest can, in some small measure, have an effect on others. But I don't think we want the majority to have unlimited power in deciding what we may and may not ingest. As a reasonable limitation, I propose that restrictions may only be imposed when the matter to be ingested poses a serious and almost certain risk of harming others.
...Where you and I part ways even further is that I go a step beyond the immediate, perceived damage done by drugs. Berzerker frenzies and burglaries and superficial damage. But beneath the crime statistics is the societal rot which brings down nations and cultures...
If we accept something other than rights protection as a legitimate role of government, particularly if we accept something as general as preventing "societal rot" or preserving "community strength", what limits remain on the power of government? Almost any activity can threaten the health and vibrancy of a community. Trash tv is corrosive to our values and to our ability to think independently. Racist speech and behavior are extremely destructive to social harmony and cohesiveness. Crass commercialism leaves us spiritually empty. Gluttony and sloth drag down our productivity and put strain on families. The rise of "infotainment" leaves us ignorant and susceptible to propaganda. Lack of financial discipline leads to dependence and desperation. I could go on and on.
Do we really want our governments to be empowered to regulate all of those things? What liberties would be safe if the community can restrict them in the name of community well-being?