In essence, the current U.S. goverment is nothing more than an organized and very powerful union of criminals and thugs, nothing more. And it has the "protection racket" down pat.
I don't think in terms like that.
But this is probably due to our different perspectives. I literally see living under some kind of government as the natural state of human beings as we evolved. So I see freedom emerging from that. Not government being imposed on a natural state of freedom. And this evolution toward freedom is not an on-off switch. It takes time. Lots of time. Hell, the USA had to fight a brutal civil war just to get rid of slavery.
To me, the USA government was an improvement on what had gone on before. And even with its imperfect development, it is still an improvement over the system of kings and queens. I do not believe it is a cartel of thugs and nothing more. (As you know, I am a big fan of checks and balances just for one positive thing.) I do agree there are thugs in the government, though.
Right now we have a slow creeping statism in the government that needs to be dealt with. The freedom that the USA has enjoyed since its founding has produced a wealth the likes of which the world has never seen. Obviously, this enriched the government, too. It has had quite a party and it wants more, but the party is coming to an end. We have a system that can check it--and halt the creeping, so I say let's check it. I support efforts that move in that direction (like Glenn Beck, but there are others). It's a fist-fight and a long slog, but since when has that been different?
Within that context, the drug issue is a bit complicated. I am not in favor of drug laws for a host of reasons (most of which are similar to yours), but I would be in favor of keeping an eye on the children of hardcore addicts and punishing people who turn small kids into addicts. (God knows I bought enough crack from the hands of them so I have seen this crap up close. I am loathe to use the word "sin," but it is a sin to string out a young kid on crack.)
I don't accept the implication of hypocrisy (neither for me nor for others) for expressing less intense disapproval of drug laws than I would for censoring reading. Everybody reads. Not everybody uses recreational drugs. I don't have to get all bent out of shape over the drug issue to feel totally correct in disapproving drug laws at my current intensity. I'll vote to abolish them if I ever get the opportunity, but I won't spend my time and energy campaigning for this. At least not at the present. The future may change that, who knows?
There's an old saying I try to follow--I have to choose my fights wisely. I am not eternal. I believe most people who love freedom are similar. That doesn't make one a hypocrite.
Now if you want to talk about people who truly want the government to arrest pot smokers (for starters), yet talk freedom, that is a whole different can of worms. I generally let such people know that we might agree on certain issues, but at root we are not the same animal, that we have some striking fundamental differences.