I've had to learn to be objective on this, in order to survive. What is the fundamental difference between your wealthy clients, and the street user? Are your clients possessed of a better morality? (I suspect not) Are they any more intelligent? (I doubt it) More ruthless? (possibly) The main difference is that they are wealthy. They need their drugs just as much, but they don't have to spend 8-10 hours a day running around stealing or whoring to find the money necessary to maintain their addiction. They don't have to suffer the consequences attendant with such a lifestyle. The health issues, the morality slide, the constant daily assault on their self esteem. Even the risk of prosecution is lessened by their wealth. Access to private Healthcare, and Doctors who will prescribe for them instead of street dealers, access to good Lawyers if they should fall foul of the Law, these are the factors that separate the two groups. Take away the wealthy addict's access to his bank account, and you'd be surprised at how quickly that would level the playing field.
So by this reasoning, if you remove the question of having to find the money for illegal drugs, the street addict would be able to function in a normal way, work, raise a family, have the same options as the rest of us.
All of those things that people despise them for, would suddenly not be factoring in the equation. They would no longer be disenfranchised, incarcerated, or ostracised. The advantages of this to society would be immense. Crime levels would drop overnight, the streets would not be stalked by desperate people, Prison populations would plummet, thereby reducing the amount of people who would otherwise be getting trained up into a life of crime.
So, if you truly look at it objectively, "drugs" are just another false flag tactic, deliberately maintained in order to divert people's attentions from the real problem, which is poverty, and the rich/poor divide. The major drugs of addiction are not costly or difficult to produce. But when production, distribution, and possession of these drugs are criminalised, the earnings potential to the person prepared to disregard the Law are phenominal. This more than negates any Laws put in place for their prohibition. And costs the Authorities (and therefore, the public) absolute Billions. And the cost is rising every year. And that's not even including the price of human misery such a set-up takes on people.
Ostensibly, the Laws against drugs are put in place to protect people from the 'ravages of addiction'. So these must be the only Laws, that are implemented, in their most draconian form, against the people they were set up to protect. So now, either we need new Laws to protect people from the Laws that were set up to protect them, or a sensible, practical policy of tolerance, regulation, and availability for those who suffer with addiction.
How's that for moral objectivity?