> Problem is, that also requires public money be spent on rehabilitation programs. It's cheaper for the state to just get people high and let them die. This is

> Problem is, that also requires public money be spent on rehabilitation programs. It's cheaper for the state to just get people high and let them die. This is just not true: >> Subsidies for drug treatment are by far the fastest-growing major component of federal spending on drug abuse. Advanced by many policy makers as the key to curbing drug use, federal expenditures for drug treatment have risen by 341 percent since 1986 -- 20 percent faster than the total drug budget, 30 percent faster than spending for drug law enforcement and 700 percent faster than overall federal spending. This year, the federal government will spend more than $1.1 billion on treatment. (These figures exclude spending for drug treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Owing in part to the extraordinary success of drug testing and other drug prevention programs in the military, spending has grown much more slowly in the VA than the overall rate of government spending.) And Drug Czar Bob Martinez is calling for more spending on education and treatment Like most things, you can't just throw money at it and expect it to magically get better. There are a ton of resources out there but there needs to be willingness on the participant. Since there's no stigma attached to public drug use and normalization of being an addict, there's even less pressure for people to get treatment so the money is pretty much wasted on every growing bureaucracy and the administrative class https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/the-case-against-more-funds-drug-treatment https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/the-case...