@Lorajay mentioned Portugal earlier, this is from a Michael Moore film -- cueued-up :

Details matter, competent adults should be able to buy and use any drug but consumer product suppliers are also responsible for accurately representing their products. Unknown purity of street drugs leads to problems. Drug users are accountable for their individual action; taxes should be levied for the purpose of ameliorating the harm to society, freedom isn't free, especially when a dollar amount can be assigned. I think the current alcohol model for all drugs is much closer to sanity and is less harmful to society as a whole than either draconian penalties or an unregulated free for all.

To those saying it's unlikely, they are opening up clinics now that provide for safe administration and treat overdoses, so it is likely to be implemented in at least more progressive cities and states. The whole mindset that chemicals that cause pleasure should be banned is so pervasive, even among agnostics and atheists.

I think England did it years ago but they've switched back. I've often wondered why they change their policy.
I read that Portugal is trying it now.

I think there are lots of bans than have an effect on the behavior they're trying to control. Do you have any idea how fast my 600hp Cobra can go? Neither do I, but I'd find out the same day they abolish speed limits...

It's very profitable keeping drugs illegal, despite the fact that it is pointless. Those who manufacture transport and retail illegal drugs would be out of business the day they became legal and that money flows down to a lot of influential people and places, from Mexico, the golden triangle and afghanistan. Billions per year are spent on the "war on drugs" which everyone acknowledges as lost. So who receives those billions and what departments would lose, never mind that the money could be repurposed to support the many underpriviliged who live in the "richest"(what a joke) country in the world. You could even afford public health. Similar things are true in aussie. Legalising would mean taxing and controlling as well, in a far more effective manner. Keeping drugs illegal is particularly farcical when the drug responsible for most deaths, most accidents, most violence and the most domestic abuse, is freely available to anyone over 18.

Some countries have tried it to a limited extent, ( Holland and Scandinavian counties especially. ) and it seems to work yes. But of course those are countries with fairly good national health and welfare support networks, whether it would work so well in somewhere like the US is another question.

And cheaper too!