Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and it's better to design regimes that prevent commercial actors from abusing vulnerable populations. Unless we're looking to apply the law inconsistently based on some arbitrary prejudice of "vulnerability", this would seem to be basically what we're already doing. Any decriminalization approach which criminalizes access for addicts almost defeats the purpose according to your own rubric.
Consider that some countries have state monopoly stores for wine and stronger alcoholic drinks, and most no longer allow advertising for alcohol. Similarly, consider the option of regulations like those in place for pharmacies in some countries, that e.g. requires the pharmacist to ensure you are aware of certain risks, but doesn't prevent you from buying. Consider the way some countries now requires tobacco to be ou…
> Personally I believe even drugs like heroin should be legal, on the basis of harm reduction, but at the same time, I don't see a problem with e.g. restricting where it can be sold
Well, if you nationalize heroin retail, then you will need to have a heroin shop in every hamlet, town, and neighbourhood. It hardly seems practical. You'll just end up with a somewhat smaller black market, instead of eliminating it.