I commend you for having the heart to help those in need. But, the fact that some people are predisposed (genetically), or situationally, doesn't justify the completely insane war on drugs. People still huff paint, glue, dental sedation gasses, etc. Simply making something illegal, and investing trillions (globally) will not somehow prevent abuse.
What we do know is that the number and severity of problems that arise from making drugs illegal are FAR greater than the problems the drugs themselves create. I won't bother preaching (and I'm already sorry for hijacking
@bababouy topic) what all those 'unintended consequences' are, but if drugs were legal, and we invested just 5% of what is currently being spent on enforcement (DEA locally, state, nationally, globally), judicially (mandatory sentencing), and incarcerations (with only 5% of the worlds population, the US is home to 20% of the world's prisoners), we could actually provide care to those those addicted at a level that exceeds even the most optimistic hopes.
50 years ago, the THC compound in marijuana (the component that produces the high) was, at best, about 3%. Today, there are strains that are over 30%. Likewise, the purity of most illicit drugs has become increasingly more potent. Why? Because with mandatory prison terms and ever-increasing penalties for getting caught, the war on drugs has incentivized higher potency. A dealer who gets charged with 10 lbs. of weed gets the same penalty for 3% THC or 30% THC. So, rather than carry 10 lbs. at 3% (which has a greater chance of being discovered), a 1 lb. brick at 30% provides the same effective return, with a smaller, more concealable form.
So not only has the war on drugs been ineffective, it's actually made the concentration and potency of what exists stronger - and arguably more dangerous. And after trillions spent globally, can anyone honestly say that drugs are any less available now than they were 30 years ago (before the war on drugs began)?
I'm not saying that legalization doesn't have it's own risks - clearly it does. But when you consider what we know we're spending on a program that we know doesn't work (and makes things worse), at some point we have to step back and admit we've come off the rails.
As
@drew91101 pointed out, in 1918, the Federal government decided alcohol was too evil, too dangerous for Americans to have. They went to each of the existing state, and convinced each state legislature to ratify the 18th Amendment. A year later, alcohol was illegal. It gave birth to organized crime, and a whole slew of other much-more-serious problems than the alcohol every had. It got so bad, that in 1932,
the Feds realized that the demand for alcohol couldn't be legislated away, and they once again went to the states to repeal their previous Amendment. By 1933, alcohol was once again legal. Regulated, but legal. 13 years of prohibition - and .gov wised up. What happened between then and now, that we're are so incapable of seeing our follies?
Sorry to go so far OT. This is just another prime example of how government can make a mountain out of a mole hill. Everything it touches just absolutely turns to crap.