"Real" is not an objective adjective when humans process information through a human brain and superimpose their notion of good values on everything. So, we can have our own definitions of "real", if we like. Or, we can understand others for what they mean, if we like.
What I am using as the concept behind my term "real" involves objective outcomes from behavior based on choices, purposes, and changes in the world resulting from our actions. In my view, a "marriage" that produces no children might not be a "real" marriage if the output, or product of the operation, cannot be objectively demonstrated.
I realize that in the world of human imagination, particularly chemical-assisted imagination, the transient feelings might be viewed as the relevant "product" and therefore be considered "real", but since you have no objectively demonstrable outcome to prove things otherwise, I can blithely ignore your claim as merely your own imagination. . . . .
Your "real" joy that requires the world to change can still be enhanced by chemicals and give you the ability to change the world, which is the only way those things are done. Chemicals in your head, which differ from chemicals in someone else's head, allow, motivate and give you perception to be able to change the world. Allowing outside chemicals to change those things can give you the ability, which you might not posses, to follow through with behaviors as well as enhance the amount you get out of them. I would give a few examples but seems like a pointless argument since almost every accomplishment can be attributed to chemicals in some way.
I understand that the term "real" is subjective to the individual and you certainly have a different definition of real joy than I do. I also find your definition to be sad, that joy is only objective for you. I find very real joy in everything around me and certainly don't require the world to change (which is also a subjective idea) to find real joy in it. So, yes I understand how you define the difference between real joy and joy but find it a silly distinguish that causes confusion and pain in people.
But I will say that someone who is not around or has not experienced external chemicals simply has no "real" view or important input into an argument about it. I also find it untrue that certain chemicals that are legal are good and helpful and illegal ones don't allow positive changes in ones life.