For centuries mankind did all sorts of shit, we've never had to worry so much about this technological advantage the authorities have. You did your own thing... but there are 3 factors leading to the decay of societies; democracy which encourages special interests groups to contribute, and as a result fuck things up for those too busy to complain, capitalism which is the driving economic force between modern society, it finances the bureaucracy and the trade off for our souls is delicious food among other things, and the growth of government in general stemming from the first two problems.
Here is the ultimate line, which I will draw for you if I may, and let's see if this would be universally acceptable.
You'll remember the temperance movement of the late 20's, which was the result of rapid industrialization and the unacceptable social conditions that followed. The major force behind that movement, excluding religious nuts, was women who were upset at the condition their men fell into from drinking. And when they got their dry spell, well the country had a major withdrawal and eventually went back to the status quo, it's addiction.
The problem with any drug then is it's effect on the family. Just consider the difference between what Prozac does to a person and marijuana. Prozac zaps your personality, marijuana highlights it. And of course, you have to look at family structures as only being as functional as the people themselves, which isn't saying a lot in many cases, so of course with everything you take it on a case by case basis.
Is marijuana illegal for the health implications? Negative; it's the social aspect of it's use which scares the system.
Anyway, my point is just this: There should be no lines drawn. That's not what the government is for, to promote the general welfare of the nation is not the same thing as waging propaganda warfare on recreational or medicinal substances.
The problem is that the government is busy stuffing it's fat pockets with tax money for it's police forces, it's busy combating gangs and african american violence in large cities, and it has no time for personal freedom.
Where do we draw the line? That question supposes that "we" refers to we the people, as if we actually had a say. It's like, you want the government to do the right thing, it seems so obvious most of the time, and if there is disagreement you would THINK the solution would be the one that promotes the least government interference, but it's a fact that the government cannot shrink itself because, well who wants to give up power? People don't make decisions for themselves, the government does, you see how this is the actual line you've drawn by assuming that the government should be involved in regulating morals in such a negligible case?
War is a biological necessity of the first importance, a regulative element in the life of mankind which cannot be dispensed with, since without it an unhealthy development will follow, which excludes every advancement of the race, and therefore all real civilization.-Friedrich von Bernhardi
What can be said for a man who would allow his home to be invaded by strangers who demanded they be fed, clothed, housed and granted the rights of the first-born? What can be said for a ruling elite that permits this to be done to the nation, and who celebrate it as a milestone of moral progress?-Pat Buchanan