>>Our social contract is about protecting ourselves from each other, not from ourselves. Drug use that negatively impacts the lives of someone other than the user should be illegal
I kind of agree with you there, but where do you factor in healthcare and other costs that need to paid by all due to addicition? How should they pay for their treatment?
Prisons are fantastically expensive. Just by diverting people out of the criminal justice system you save a bunch of cash that you can use for health care.
People engage in stupid stuff every day. We provide treatment for the jaywalker who didn't look before they crossed the road; we provide treatment for the clumsy window cleaner who falls off a ladder; we provide treatment for the school children injured in poorly supervised school sports; we provide treatment to people who've smoke tobacco; we provide treatment to people who are addicted to alcohol (and also the drunk people who fall over); we provide treatment to obese people; so providing treatment to people addicted to drugs fits in with providing treatment to people who've made all those other unwise choices.
With proper regulation we should expect some of the negative consequences to go down. Heroin deaths (for example) are largely related to illegality - unknown quantities and ingredients, contaminated equipment etc. Cannabis is considered a less harmful alternative to alcohol by many people.
In a social system like the one in the UK, I don't think drug users should be penalised over anyone else - taking ecstasy has roughly the same harm profile as horse riding. Do we tell equestrians we won't treat them?
I kind of agree with you there, but where do you factor in healthcare and other costs that need to paid by all due to addicition? How should they pay for their treatment?