Actually, I'm no longer completely convinced that it's necessary to change the supply in order to address the drug problem. I saw something on the TV not long ago about Portugal, that -- who knew?! -- apparently was facing a much worse drug problem that what we are currently facing in the US. They decriminalized drug use (just the use -- not selling or manufacturing) and poured the money they had been spending on law enforcement (police, DA's, wardens, parole officers, cost of room/board in prison, cost of court time, etc) and spent that same amount of money instead on community programs, mental health, job creation aimed specifically at former users/high-risk individuals, and the like. They addressed the social-emotional risk factors for addiction and saw a huge decrease in drug use as a result. As demand fell, supplies eventually fell to roughly match the demand.
It actually kinda makes sense to me. The AA/NA model is quite similar, just on a much smaller scale. Yes, heroin & versions of fentanyl are both highly addicting ... and I, too, sadly have had friends lose their battle with addiction ... but there are people who are able to either avoid trying drugs in the first place, or able to somehow avoid temptation and win their battle day by day. So I can't help but wonder what we could do as a nation if we started spending the amount of money we currently spend on the "War on Drugs" to instead help build people up and care for them in their time of need. What if instead of trying to eliminate the illegal drug trade, we could eliminate many of the factors that drive people to use in the first place?