Where we find common ground is we both understand the problem is real and a solution is needed. Your solution has been tried countless times and never solved a thing. Additionally, the same types of people that are paid to solve important issues are the most prone to failure.
I will add one other thing; the problem needs solved.
Your entire argument falls flat because, it doesn't solve the root cause, protect the public or the addicts. Let's pretend money was not an issue and we wanted 10000 addicts to recover, they need by your list teeth. My list would add shelter, income, job training, medical recovery programs, someone to monitor progress and adjust treatment. You could add dozens of other expenses and justify them all. The goal of saving almost all of the 10000 addicts would be achievable, after all we are playing make believe.
Now back to the real world, while unlimited money is being spent to save 10000, another 10000 become addicted. Taxpayers at some point will ask what is being done to stop people from ever trying drugs and risking addiction. Other will question the cost. People will find a way to enrich themselves and abuse all the money going to these programs. Media will discover the abuse and make it public knowledge. The abuse will cause a backlash and funding will be cut. Now there are more addicts, no money and the public still suffers. There will also be lawsuits filed by parents and family of addicts that didn't recover.
In the end addicts do not really receive help and nothing changes, sort of like now.
