In my opinion though, drug consumption isn't immoral. So dealing in drugs isn't a bad thing I think, its the violence associated with it that is considered immoral.
You would judge someone who dealt in alcohol during prohibition as a gangster or a thug because they had to use violence for business, but when it became legal again and the violence stopped whoever sold alchohol was just a regular guy running a business.
To be honest, I don't think alcohol prohibition was a morally wrong or restrictive law. I mean, come on, what a "big loss" for a person, not to be able to drink alcohol. An reasonable person would just shrugged off and moved on with his/her life without noticing. I agree that it was a stupid and ineffective law though, but NOT because of the "freedom" factor, but because of the impossibility to make it work. However, as ineffective and destined to fail this law may have been, it still had a reason: the problem of too many people drinking themselves almost to death and not working was really there as far as I know. I mean, it's not like they introduced prohibition just for fun of "depriving people of freedom".
Consenting adults should be allowed to consume whatever drug they want as long as does not affect other people.
It DOES affect other people. What do you think the relatives of an addict dead from a heroin overdose feel? Their feelings should always be taken into consideration.
Making drugs illegal does not stop someone buying drugs, if someone wanted to buy cocaine or heroin they could even though it is illegal. Making drugs illegal just causes violence.
You have some point here, but still I think "freedom" is not (or shouldn't be) a factor in this matter. The difficulty to enforce the laws and remove drugs from the streets is.
