Your logic doesn't follow. Even if we entertain your (wildly baseless) assertions that substance use impairs your rational abilities to the point of muddying yo

Your logic doesn't follow. Even if we entertain your (wildly baseless) assertions that substance use impairs your rational abilities to the point of muddying your ability to differentiate between right and wrong, it does not follow that that makes them wrong: plenty of people are perfectly happy to do evil unimpaired, just look at the billionaire class, or the right wing. If someone had a predilection towards evil acts, then a muddying of their perception of right and wrong would be a good thing, as they could just as easily be swayed to inadvertent good as a person predisposed to good could be swayed to unintended evil. Your argument also relies on a curious, self-contradictory framing of ethics. Are acts evil in of themselves, or are they evil because of their consequences? Arguing that the frustration of one's rational faculties is evil because it increases their likelihood of committing other evil acts asserts a consequentialist framing, but you then proceed to vilify the act in of itself, in isolation from any further actions. If it's evil because it could lead to evil acts, then it shouldn't be evil if the effects are weathered in isolation from potential victims. If it's evil in of itself, then it can't be argued to be such due to its potential consequences.