One of the most hilariously stupid arguments against legalisation of drugs is that it makes everyone into a junkie. Fact is most people don't do drugs, even if you can buy it in the supermarket.
I suppose you’re excluding alcohol from that pronouncement?
But it's hard to see "tried once in their life" or even "a few times a year" as really falling in an equivalent "junkie" category, so I looked for "heavy drinking" which they defined as "4-5 or more drinks in 2 hours" a few days in a month, where a "drink" is a standardized measurement of ~14 grams of pure alcohol, equivalent to a single 12 oz 5% beer = 5 oz of 12% wine = 1.5 oz of 40% spirits (etc, whatever the percentage is). Just 7% of Americans reported heavy drinking in the previous month.
Alcohol is regulated and taxed, but even so beer & wine at least is pretty trivial for adults to legally acquire in most of the country and relatively cheap spirits (like very low quality vodka) as well. I don't at all want to understate the harm of alcohol abuse, it's very real (and of course can extend beyond drinkers themselves due to their actions). Even so it seems like "make everyone into a junkie" would not be borne out by legalized alcohol. Based on popular culture it's easy to assume drinking is more prevalent to a higher degree then it is, at least personally I would not have guessed that heavy drinking was only single digit percentages here.
It looks like, as in other areas, there is a strongly non-linear curve function in the population where relatively small percentages form an inordinate part of consumption. If that's the case for marijuana as well then it'd suggest we could get far more efficient harm reduction by general legalization focusing limited resources on that smaller slice?