That possibly desensibilize the user for violence, and give them a reason to need an unbreaking stream of income? That's another reason the black and white them

That possibly desensibilize the user for violence, and give them a reason to need an unbreaking stream of income? That's another reason the black and white them versus us image is misleading. Many of the criminals are victims, and vice versa, moral hard liners tend to criminalize use for the same reason. This also means that it would be a runaway process, and that the elites have to practice abstinence or at least self control. That's what I'm really unsure about, the physical and psychological addiction potential and an extreme stance which would take it as justification, that the victims are weak of will. The eugenics argument would even encourage this as a way to selection for fitness. IMHO, the physical addiction is countered by the adverse effects of the come-down. I hold some arguments against it, but consider the psychological component much more important. 30% of first time heroin users became addicted in the last German federal report on domestic drug use. I'd say only 30%, in contrast to the myth of the immediate addiction--which is real in a sense, for if addiction-affinity is considered, it's effectively correct. Arguably, understanding the history, these people must be extremely racist, fascist, socialist, liberal, you name it, basicly selfish egoists in any sense you might find offensive. Simple adversary population dynamics settle at an optimum in the infinite limit (I've watched a video by numberphile or so on the Logistic Function, haha). If the government is a regulator, it should seek to estimate the optimum. The pretense that the optimum is the extinction of drug use and users is ... I have no idea what I'm talking about, lol