The entire premise is exchanging a cost for a perceived personal benefit. The addict isn't looking at whether or not this benefits society enough to not drink

The entire premise is exchanging a cost for a perceived personal benefit. The addict isn't looking at whether or not this benefits society enough to not drink today, they're looking at whether it benefits them enough to not drink today. I do understand that the benefit is 5 + whatever they spend, but people with addiction issues are willingly choosing a financial cost to continue to do something that very likely has negative personal impacts on their lives for a short term fix. The flip side if the government could somehow impose a tax that ended up costing an addict $5/day more that likely wouldn't stop them from drinking, though they may drink a little less, or switch to a lower quality drink.