Fwiw I have two degrees in Forensic Psychology. My first degree was general Medicine. I deal with people who have come into the criminal justice system through their alcohol or drug use, and provide reports on their mental and physical state and where they range on the standard clinical psychological measurements. FWIW, from 30 years observing how the system works, I think all drugs should be legalized, controlled and sold to generate tax revenue, which will in turn pay for the treatment of the few people who actually abuse them. There is very strong evidence to support this approach from Canada. There, you can only purchase alcohol over 8% , ie wine or spirits, from the SAC (a state run booze hypermarket), which is a government distribution body which collects tax revenue at source, and feeds all profits back into the health care system. It's an excellent response to alcohol problems, and costs the tax payer nothing. I would do the same for all currently illegal drugs. Sell them at quality where there is no opportunity for overdose or poisoning, and take a tax revenue from it. Which in this country would amount to a very steady income for the NHS.
Contrary to popular belief, cocaine, ecstasy, speed, marijuana and other drugs do little it no harm to the user, unless taken to extremes. No more dangerous than 40 proof spirits. They say that if alcohol was introduced tomorrow as a new drug, it would be immediately banned. Heroin is an exception, but as I've said up thread, up until 1969 anyone could ask their local GP to prescribe, legally, medical heroin for personal use on the NHS.
I'm not a libertarian as such, but I can see the massive inequality and absurdity of making these recreational drugs illegal. It criminalises people who do not belong in the system at all, and punishes those at the bottom of the chain of supply, where the real culprits normally get off Scot free. There is absolutely no cost/benefit to criminalise a user, when the money could be much better spent on prevention and ultimately a cure.