You know, I've often wondered why people put up with police state treats mere vices as crimes. The more I think about it, the more I realize that the reason is that it's so ineffective; that it's nothing more than a minor inconvenience to those who really want any of the things you mention.
There's a lot of people in prison that would disagree with you on that :- ) I think they are about as effective as stopping vices as they are at stopping crimes. It's an easier task (in general) for cops to stop vices though, but the real problem is that when vices are made into crimes, all who participate are now 'criminals'. And then much actual crime is developed around the business of the vices. One is already a 'criminal', why not do this??
When Prohibition ended, the crimes around producing and distributing alcohol was virtually non-existent - until the excise and luxury/sin taxes began to climb - then some smuggling arose, markets/"turf" protected. I look for the same in the more recent 'legalizings'.
As the Lysander Spooner article 'Vices are not Crimes' points out, vices do not violate anyone's rights (whereas crimes do). But the fuller explanation on morality is from Rand mainly:
"A man’s volition is outside the power of other men. What the unalterable basic constituents are to nature, the attribute of a volitional consciousness is to the entity “man.” Nothing can force a man to think. Others may offer him incentives or impediments, rewards or punishments, they may destroy his brain by drugs or by the blow of a club, but they cannot order his mind to function:
this is in his exclusive, sovereign power. Man is neither to be obeyed nor to be commanded."
“Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice;
he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.”
When the choice to act - that doesn't harm others - is restricted, morality is restricted in that one never learns whether those actions are good for survival/happiness or not. That doesn't mean one has to experience 'everything' in order to have morality - but they should still have the choice to do so when no rights are violated in the process.
No morality exists without choice. To be moral, one has to make a decision to do so. When that decision is restricted/banned, again, there is nothing 'moral' about that.