More than 20 years ago, I seriously contemplated drug use, and I set myself some rules, before I started doing anything. I've stuck to them, and I've put thousands of dollars over the years into getting high. Yes, I know addicts.

People, even addicts, are responding to incentives. It's been shown that making people's lives less shit severely reduces addiction; I'm willing to bet that said meth capital is not somewhere where life is generally good, is it? That's the place to intervene, in quality of life, if you want to reduce addiction. It's also a very good idea to provide doses of a non-lethal size and known purity in a safe, sterile, nonsexy environment. Do you think people would have gotten into it in the same way if there were no dealers because the addicts were getting their doses at the hospital where you went and chilled for your time high, instead of providing an economic incentive for people to produce and sell it out of garages (periodically detonating a residential home in the process)?

You're arguing for an older model of addiction that doesn't resolve the issues, out of a reaction to the fucked up things you've seen. Please don't misunderstand me; I don't want the world you've seen any more than you do. I just think that there are ways to solve this problem that are demonstrated to be better than the criminal model, which is incredibly destructive both on an immediate level, with gangs throwing bullets indiscriminately, cops throwing bullets indiscriminately, and the incentive gradients leading towards worse outcomes for users.