Surely some people became addicted to it (not that different from alcohol, nicotine, fatty sweets, or various prescription drugs), but it didn't destroy society.
One thing that’s missing in a lot of these discussions is strength and education. What strength was the Bayer drugs vs things available today, and how well informed was the average person that this was a product they could access recreationally.
Now there's more of a safety net (money, foster care, and ambulances/ERs) which is largely good, but provides more opportunity to enable addicts.
1) Not everybody reacts that way.
I've only ever been given high-end opioids when in extreme pain, but I hate the sensation.
My brain feels like it's encased in concrete. A higher dose simply puts me to sleep.
2) What gives you the right to tell people to not do something pleasurable?
Really. Many people have rough lives. We should help them find joy somewhat safely rather than shunt them into the dark.
this is a really good question and I had to think about it a lot. I think if all other variables were equal, I would have no problem with people doing something pleasurable. In contrast to say, a strict religious fanatic who vociferously preaches against wanking or rock music.
However, I think we can both agree that opiate withdrawals are not pleasurable, nor is the change in an addict's personality when they start putting drugs high and above everything else in life. I think we can also agree that there is a continuity between "pleasurable" and "not pleasurable", and opiates give the user so much pleasure that pales in comparison to anything else. Enough to substantially change their personality, for at least the ones who are susceptible to it (as you pointed out, not everyone becomes instantly addicted). So that's where my case for prohibition comes from.
There's the whole "Rat Park Experiment" that I think deserves a mention. Whether the experiment itself has been debunked (I can't remember) is irrelevant. I think it's worth asking the same question of Portland: is there opportunity here? Can someone get an entry-level job and be happy? If not, why? This is a liberal, government-micromanaged city. Why are things so dismal that people are choosing not to work? (If you wonder why I'm suddenly making this a partisan issue, it's because (1) the government has their hands on all the controls so obviously they could fix things, and (2) people are suggesting regulation of dope, so if the gov can't regulate a simple local economy, why would we think they can suddenly be the new dope dealer?). Why don't they double down on their taxes and fees and manipulate the city such that an entry-level, full-time employee at Dollar General or Taco Bell can rent his own apartment, raise a family with their spouse, have healthcare, own a car, have a vacation, and a 401k? The reason is because the far left doesn't actually represent the people. They'd rather distract everyone with gender pronouns and anti-racism red-herrings while their own citizens check-out of the late-stage capitalist hellscape their government created for them.
And, see, this is the crux. You are banning something for everyone even though only a smaller number seem to be susceptible.
The problem is that this applies to a whole bunch of things: porn, gambling, alcohol, etc. Why heroin and not alcohol which, in many ways, is much worse than heroin?
I agree that the base problem is that life sucks for many people, and we need to fix that. However, that problem is going to be slow in fixing, and we need interim, probably sub-optimal solutions in the meantime.