This is the common right wing anti-drug argument. (It's also something similar to how they would spell it, too, but I'll not go there.)

However, I doubt that this would be the case. First off, you do have underage drinkers and smokers. However, especially in the case of drinkers, they usually aren't addicted. Why? Because of one really simple reason: They can't get their hands on enough money to support long-term use of it. Guess what happens when they stop using it all of a sudden? Yeah. If it's something like heroin, they're probably not going to keep it up by doing enough to get addicted, or they'll suffer the consequences.

But what about other drugs, like weed, LSD, or shrooms? Pretty simple here, folks: they'll have the time of their lives, and there's no risk of addiction, so it doesn't matter. In the case of LSD, it has rapid tolerance factors, even though it lacks addictive qualities, meaning that if kids try to mess with it too much and too often, they'll find it won't work, and will get expensive, and will generally discontinue use for a while. Weed flat out isn't addictive, and will probably be the cheapest one around for heavy use. If they wanna have fun with that, let them have a blast. We'll punish them when they get caught just like we'd punish kids who smoke or drink underage, but nothing extra special about it.
Go right ahead.