That might work if drugs were as easy to stop than start. Addiction treatment has a very low success rate with high relapse rate, and its incredibly expensive per user. The best treatment remains not starting in the first place.
This is not shown. Many many people try drugs like speed, marijuana, cocaine and do not become addicted, many only do them a handful of times.
Absolutist policies are the ones that encourage draconian laws and responses because by the very nature of your statement, the first time is the worst time.
How about a recreational drug driver's license? It is how we respond to a situation that matters, not getting into the situation in the first place, esp when that situation is so easy to get into.
Switzerland hugely reduced an endemic heroin problem in part by making it a health issue instead of a criminal issue.
And Portugal has shown a lot of success in decriminalization of most drugs.
Illegal drugs are perhaps the 2nd largest business globally, after petroleum. Prohibition is an abject failure at "not starting in the first place".
If prohibition didn't do anything then we should surely drop it. And then?
But, your comment seems to indicate you are more interested in legal ways you can use them than recognizing the lives that have been damaged.
Pumping money into education about the pros and cons of recreational drug use would likely do a lot to reduce abuse and addiction. However only talking about the harms was already tried and was a failure. Most kids will at least try alcohol or marijuana or vaping nicotine and if you've already lied by omission about the pros they won't trust you anymore. But if you can manage to educate in an unbiased and scientific way that would likely lead to fewer lives damaged. Worth a try at least.