I wish you would just make the libertarian argument that people should be allowed to do whatever damage they want to themselves, as long as they don't damage others, and be done with it. I can understand that argument, because it appeals to the idea that government action intended to stop one bad thing can lead to something much worse.

But you seem to be actively defending the idea that there is nothing immoral in a vocation that will inevitably destroy the lives of many people. You point out that the people being destroyed are complicit in their destruction, but I do not see that as a fully qualifying factor. If someone was contemplating suicide, and someone else happily persuades them to go through with it instead of trying to talk them out of it, that's a morally neutral choice?

You also seem to be equating bad camera work and writing with drug dealing, which I will assume is not what you meant because that would be pretty silly. Now, if you are just re-iterating the point that you do not want to incriminate drug dealers, that position can be defended. But if you honestly believe that there is nothing morally wrong with intentionally and actively enabling people into addiction, I doubt that the gap between our views on morality can be bridged.

I suspect there is some misunderstanding about where you are arguing for not criminalizing activities versus defending their morality. If so, could you clarify?