Those anecdotes are more the exception rather than the rule.

Most addicts cannot function well without some outside resource being used up to keep them well functioning.

That is maybe, because most of them start doing hard drugs, when they are already not functioning well. And then Heroin gives them the rest and they turn into messed up junkies and criminals.

And since it is illegal, it is hard to get data on how many people use hard drugs while maintaining a normal life. Those who are successful, don't draw attention. I always thought otherwise, but was surprised a couple of times, by finding out seemingly normal people use heroin on a semi regular basis. So apparently some people can do it.

> Those anecdotes are more the exception rather than the rule.

That is false. Most addicts are nicotine and alcohol addicts and they function ok, in general, without special support. They have plenty of problems, to be sure, but prohibition would only multiply them.

Don't forget caffeine. People brag about being addicted to it.

For sure. Lots of people have developed a chemical dependance on coffee/caffeine, and might suffer certain ill effects of withdrawal if they stopped drinking it. Yet most would not be considered addicts, per se because almost all of them drink coffee simply because they enjoy it, could easily quit if they wished, and are not continuing use despite serious negative consequences.

Chemical dependance is neither necessary nor sufficient for addiction.

Most drug users aren't addicts. You just don't see them because they look just like everyone else.

Millions of people use opiates on a daily basis and live otherwise normal lives.

About 2/3 of American adults drink alcohol. About 0.3% of Americans took heroin within last year, x200 difference.

Diagnosed alcohol vs heroin use disorder: 14.8M vs 1.1M, x13 difference.

Addiction treatment stats: 50% alcohol, 5% heroin, x10 difference (percentages of all addiction treatments).

The sole fact that the two are on the same scale in terms of deaths, delinquency and even visibility should indicate that that per capita hard of heroin and alcohol are incomparable.

You sure can rock a concert while being high, not so much in withdrawal, and you wouldn't want you bus driver, nurse, teacher or pretty much anyone else around you be in either.

But sure, feel free to count yet another dangerous, addictive, yet inexplicably socially accepted psychoactive drug in the same list with heroin - coffee.

> You sure can rock a concert while being high, not so much in withdrawal, and you wouldn't want you bus driver, nurse, teacher or pretty much anyone else around you be in either.

These are problem behaviors with or without prohibition. And prohibition doesn't seem to reduce them. So you have not fixed them with prohibition, you have only imported the additional problems of cartel drug manufacturers, violent drug gangs, purity dosing and adulteration deaths, infectious disease spread through dirty needles, political corruption, an oversized militarized and swamped criminal justice system, and all the crime associated with needing to rob, steal and whore for drugs priced at 100X what they would cost if legal.

> But sure, feel free to count yet another dangerous, addictive, yet inexplicably socially accepted psychoactive drug in the same list with heroin - coffee.

Also pornography, sex, gambling, shopping, etc. Chemical dependance is neither required nor sufficient for addiction to be a destructive force in a person's life. What can't we ban if we decide it is sufficiently harmful?