> The real issue here that people don't seem to want to face is the WHY.
Drugs get you high. Ants get drunk, goats chase psychedelic lichen, and dolphins pass around puffer fish like a dutchie.
> Why do so many people want to check out of life completely by abusing medicine
The short term benefits always outweigh the short term costs, but we're moving to a point in history where even it even seemingly outweighs the long term costs. There's no real disincentive anymore.
I think a case can be made that Martin vs. Boise had the most to do with this. That ruling was meant to push cities into creating the necessary facilities and number of beds to correctly address their homelessness problem; instead, it seems that many cities have used it as a way to entirely ignore the issue.
Instead of building the facilities, they're just throwing up their hands and allowing the kind of "public camping" that quickly turns into public open-air drug markets. Unsurprisingly, the population and markets grew.
> A lot more empowering than just "submit to a higher power" which is clearly not working for the majority of users.
The twelve steps are about quite a bit more than "just" that. They're also targeted towards a person that is at a specific stage of addiction _and_ willingness to address it. It's not general purpose and you can't force people into it, particularly when their drug of choice is so easily available and socially acceptable.
You have to reduce the inflow of drugs. You have to stop drug markets from forming. You have to convince addicts to seek treatment.
On the last point, I think the most effective strategy would be confiscation. If you are caught with drugs for personal use, they should be taken and destroyed, and you should be given information and transportation to a treatment center if you desire. Otherwise, you should be free to go. If the state doesn't interject itself at some level then I don't think you stand a chance.