I'd have to start with the question: how well is our current approach working for us? Then I'd approach it from a cost/benefit angle. It's not too hard to find articles on alternative, small-scale attempts to attack the opioid abuse crisis that have had pretty good results treating addicts more as patients even if the "patient" has to be compelled by law to get clean. But how much would it cost to implement one of those methods on a large scale? Now compare that to what it costs now to have addicts treated solely as criminals. Is it better to hire more guards or more counselors? What does it cost society to fill prisons with druggies and leave no space for violent criminals so they get ridiculous plea deals?

It's a complex equation for sure. Let's say it does cost more to treat the addict as a patient instead of a criminal. Now look at the recidivism rate on these people. If 7 out of 10 addicts get out of prison and return to their old ways, what does that cost us as a society. They probably can't hold a job so they either go on welfare or turn to crime (theft) to support themselves and their habit (more likely welfare and crime both). Eventually they end up back in prison, dead, or in the hospital costing us more money. Now pretend an alternative treatment plan succeeds 6 out of 10 times. Best-cast scenario, there's 3 more people who become productive citizens again--paying taxes in instead of costing us more and more. How do you think it all works out on paper?