Either let people do drugs and let them worry about the consequences, or, if society is going to be on the hook for the consequences, don't. There is no feasible way to hold both positions at the same time.
If I may try to thread this needle:
- drug use has serious consequences for users directly and for society
- imprisonment is not effective at curbing drug use in individuals or systemically, because illicit drugs will always be available, see prohibition for the strongest case here
- illicit drug trafficking increases other criminal elements like gang violence, petty theft, etc, incurring high costs on society
- it is believed that addressing the causes for hardcore drug use as a mental and physical health issue may actually reduce drug use
- that work may be expensive today, but is expected to become a net positive over time as drug use declines
The idea is literally investing to fix a problem properly, rather than slapping on ever more expensive band-aid solutions as the problem gets worse.
If you don't believe health care can reduce drug use, that may be a sound position to hold, but if you believe it is effective it is absolutely not at odds to both desire investment in it and to seek decriminalization.
I disagree that hardline policies can't work. In China, there is no social safety net for drug users (nor much for anyone else), nor is there much sympathy for it, therefore...drug abuse happens for sure, but it just doesn't survive very long (one way or the other).
But regarding more permissive western cultures: imprisonment in the American system of "we put you away and don't bother with substance abuse treatment in prison" doesn't work, but there are definitely alternatives to that (flood prisons with substance abuse treatment programs).
As a tax payer it's perfectly reasonable that I don't want to pay for that, though.
If after a decade it ends up being very expensive but very effective, or moderately expensive and moderately effective, or expensive and not very effective, we can make better informed decisions -- rather than stick with prison by default, just because it is cheapest for now.
Say we put someone in prison then treat them for drug use and it works. This person is cured, found jesus, and will never touch another drug in their life. Why would you still keep them in prison? They’d have been sentenced to a time in prison regardless. Why? Would you propose a system of early release for cured drug offenders?
But we can’t really go there as a western country, so we try to socially reduce the consequences of drug use: not only are we not going to throw you in jail, but we are going to make sure you don’t starve/freeze to death and we will even try to cure you (even if we are going to fail at that most of the time).
If we had drug treatment in prison that worked, we would be horribly stupid not to just lean in on that. I’m totally for “go to prison but get out of you get clean.” Who wouldn’t?
Nobody’s a victim when a kid falls and breaks an arm while skateboarding, but we have programs like CHIP to help kids have access to healthcare to get that arm treated, regardless.
The kid is going to be fine after they are in a cast for a few weeks/months. A fentanyl addict, even with million of dollars over a few years of treatment, is more than likely never going to be OK again. Both involve moral hazard (if society is responsible for the consequences), but the consequences of both aren't similar at all.