> Instead, I would like to see a policy where your access to social safety nets is taken away when you're a user. You want to risk it all to get high? Go for it

> Instead, I would like to see a policy where your access to social safety nets is taken away when you're a user. You want to risk it all to get high? Go for it but don't leave us with the bill and having to wring our hands that you ended up homeless. I understand the appeal of this posture; it appears to maximize individual liberty while avoiding the moral hazard that comes with a collective safety net. And it kind of works for celebrities and the rich, who can fall back on personal saving, (medical) professionals, and treatment centers when they enter a death spiral. But it is definitely not a solution for the vast majority of our economically fragile citizens, who make such poor long-term financial decisions that we had to institute all sorts of mandatory retirement contributions and taxes to keep people out of the poor houses. At that's not even considering how addiction disrupts long-term decision-making ability. TL;DR: Most people are bad at long-term planning, and are even worse when addicted, so the solution cannot involve only long-term consequences.