The usual argument isn't that "all drugs are great". It's that meth, heroin, etc. are harmful, and even more harmful when they're banned, because the second-ord

The usual argument isn't that "all drugs are great". It's that meth, heroin, etc. are harmful, and even more harmful when they're banned, because the second-order consequences of prohibition (funding organized crime, risk of overdose due inconsistent purity, reluctance for user-criminals to seek help, etc.) more than offset any benefit from decreased availability. This is more of a factual question than a moral one. It's hard to get data, but experiences like Portugal's point in favor of at least decriminalization. Even with perfect data, you have to decide how to value lives of Americans who choose to take drugs vs. Mexican civilians caught in drug war crossfire vs. .... Quickly: 1. "Largely prevented as it is now"? Take a walk through SF... 2. If heroin were legal, would you try it? The legal risk is hardly the biggest reason to avoid the stuff now. 3. Lots of addicts are high-functioning even now. The goal is that more would be with lower prices, consistent dosage, public health support with less stigma / legal risk, etc.