> you could have "functional addicts" that cause little or no societal harm Yeah, I don't know about that – plenty of "functional alcoholics" around, sure, but

> you could have "functional addicts" that cause little or no societal harm Yeah, I don't know about that – plenty of "functional alcoholics" around, sure, but also plenty of not-so-functional alcoholics around, as well as the wife-and-kid-beater alcoholics. Heroin is not alcohol and doesn't induce aggression in the same way, but it's also a lot more addictive, and especially at low wages getting your daily dose can be a challenge – so "junkies" will not be eliminated outright. I consider it an open question whether they will be reduced – it's very possible (perhaps even plausible), but I certainly wouldn't consider it a forgone conclusion. > My friend's relative was a functional addict on and off for 20 years. Dick van Dyke was a chain-smoker until well in to his 70s and he's currently doing well at the age of 97. These are the sort of things where you really need to look at overall effects and statistics, rather than individual cases.