Even if, for the sake of the argument, we accept that illegality reduces consumption and that it would thus reduce the number of actively consuming addicts, that is still not a strong enough argument by itself. It depends on the assumption that the reason addiction is harmful to the individual and society is only the drug's effects per se, and not the myriad of other factors that come into play when an addict needs his or her fix, such as trying to get enough money to pay for it, marginality, exposure to criminality, risk of using an adulterated substance—all of which are greatly exacerbated by the drug being illegal.
Does the drop in the number of addicts achieved by illegalising the drug make up for the increased suffering and societal damage caused by the remaining addicts now turning to more desperate measures?
Does the drop in the number of addicts achieved by illegalising the drug make up for the increased suffering and societal damage caused by the remaining addicts now turning to more desperate measures?