if you actually thought about what you were reading rather than reacting to it according to preconditioned attitudes, you would recognize that i do not advocate the use of any of the so-called hard drugs.
the theme that i hold to in the drug war argument is that the damage caused by the drugs themselves is insignificant compared to the damage being wrought by the people and methods in control of the distribution of the substances.
people who are well-balanced and have any sense will avoid these things regardless of their legal status. during the prohibition, cocaine and heroin were often easier to obtain than alcohol but that did not cause any significant rise in the number of addicts.
Your "theme" is to have "entertainment venues distributing heroin" to basically anyone who wants it and can afford it...those quotes are your words...
i do think i suggested health care professionals as well as entertainment venue operators.
but yes, so long as a person does not commit any other infraction, i very strongly believe that people have the right to choose their poisons and that it is not the government's right, responsibility or duty to legislate morality or stop people from doing stupid things to themselves.
i am not advocating any kind of carte blanche revocation of the drug laws or subsidizing addicts. i would certainly want to be sure that if drugs were made legal we would have protections from people driving or operating heavy equipment under the influence.
my main points are:
1. prohibition laws have never worked to eliminate the supply or demand of any substance.
2. they only invite a black market to take over distribution of the banned substance.
3. the collateral crime associated with drugs is more the result of the marketeers than the drug itself.