More than 50% of Americans believe drugs should be illegal, according to every poll on it that I've seen.
But this is because of (1) the propaganda apparatus of the State itself, and (2) the costs of such prohibition being socialized and out of sight.
When you register your opinion on what should and should not be illegal, in the wretched process of mob rule known as "democracy," you are acting under the assumption that your mere opinion, so long as it has majority backing, will be enforced by the collective state system that you're forced to abide by and pay taxes to regardless, and that the system will force even those who disagree with you to fund your repressive project.
It's very hard to find many Americans who would even call the police on their neighbors if they found them smoking marijuana, much less voluntarily contribute hundreds of dollars a year to locking marijuana smokers into cages, busting down marijuana smokers' doors, and spying on all Americans to make sure they are not marijuana smokers. When you have to pay the full costs, you are more interested in the details of the success of the project. You'd want to be convinced that your money is doing more good that harm, and is accomplishing what you want it to. This is true of voluntary charity and business. One big problem with socialism is that "we're all in this together, whether we like it or not," and so all sorts of things become funded that would not voluntarily.
40% of Americans think, Yes, abortion should be illegal. But few of them would do anything violent to stop abortion in a free society. Most people assume that it's the government's job to fix all manners of perceived problems on earth, that it is capable and efficient at doing so, and that, while the government is doing X, Y, and Z, it might as well do whatever they want it to do. When most Americans think that government should outlaw this "assault weapon" or that "designer drug," they hardly realize they are advocating a very elaborate program of violence, coercion and inefficient central planning. If they saw, up close, what their desired program involved, and knew they had to pay their full share of the cost, they'd usually reject it. This is all an elementary notion of political economy.
So, in short, I believe that, under market anarchy, no criminal gangs would have enough people brainwashed to fork over half their income to fund programs of aggressive war, prohibitions of all kinds, and massive economic collectivism. Would have you offered two thousand dollars of your own money to help oust Saddam Hussein, even if you knew that your neighbors who opposed the war wouldn't have to chip in? Would have half of Americans joined you in this pursuit?
If, on the other hand, the criminal syndicates did succeed in winning the tacit consent of the people, who came to tolerate and fund the syndicates' activities, they would be states.