No, it's not. Going with your flawed example: having an addiction to heroin should be a socially acceptable problem, or at least one that doesn't land an addict in prison in and of itself. Helping those amongst us who are addicted helps to prevent desperate crimes.
But if you go beat someone up or crash your car while drunk, you're charged with those crimes, whether committed due to your addiction or not. But outside of actual crimes committed against others in society, just being in possession of alcohol or being an addict isn't illegal. Additionally, there are resources for people who want to improve their dealings with alcohol or work out the issues that are causing their problems with it. They can make use of these resources without fear of being arrested because mere possession and use isn't a crime.
I don't claim that habitual use of opiates or amphetamines or whatever is a positive thing but putting someone at risk of criminal penalties and prison because of something that is (at worst) very unhealthy is sort of preposterous when you think about it that way.
That doesn't mean we ought to turn a blind eye to crimes committed under the influence or in search of one's dose but at a minimum, possession and use ought not to be criminal offenses.
In your example, you can turn to the government (or someone else) for help with your taxes. There is no stigma (or law) that makes it difficult for you. That's not the case for a drug addict. It's a lot harder to get help.
I also didn't say that addicts should not be held accountable for their actions. Of course they should.
(...unless you're tring to evade tax...)
If someone does heroin and gets hooked, they get a treatment program.
What is the difference? Why, according to you, should I be punished, while the person on heroin should get all these treatment options opened up to them?
Where is my "parked my car in the wrong place" rehab program?
I didn't say you should be punished for doing your taxes badly.
Your parking example is terrible. If you get a parking fine then you must have ignored a sign or not seen it. It's entirely possible there was no sign and you legitimately didn't realised you parked somewhere you shouldn't. There are appeals processes for exactly this. There are rules and regulation on conditions required to fine someone for parking.
I don't understand how you can compare this to a drug problem.
Someone should get help for a drug problem because it is exactly that - a problem they need help with.
Again, why, according to you, are doing illegal drugs treated as a problem that people need to be helped with, yet other illegal behaviour is the responsibility of the individual? Or aren't you saying that, and in that case, what are you saying?
Legalization itself is partly a moral issue, as the state doesn't really have any business telling me what to eat or smoke or inject, or for that matter what plants I grow on my property for personal use. Coupled with drug treatment programs it is also a practical issue: the cost of treating an addict is lower than the cost to the government of keeping him in the justice system for most of his life, lower than the cost to society of keeping him on the margins for most of his life. It's also cheaper solely from a health perspective. It's good policy because it saves money so you don't have to pay so much in taxes and parking tickets in the first place.
So there's your answer: we don't have treatment programs for people who can't figure out where to park, or how to pay their taxes, because those are dumb ideas with low ROI.
Both [legalisation/treatment-based approach to drug addition and fining drivers parking in the wrong place] are about reduction of harm on society and the individual, and effectiveness of that treatment.
The driver addicted to "parking my car in the wrong place", is not potentially going to die if he suddenly can't park inconsiderately, so a gradual reduction strategy of "parking with just one wheel across the pavement", then progressing to "staying just a few minutes over the allotted parking time" is not required.
The rehab program is the fine.
Giving an addict a criminal record and stuffing him in jail with violent criminals isn't going to steer him in the right direction at all. Rehab might. Plus, it's cheaper than jail anyways!
Taxing drugs would more than pay for any social programme needed to support users. At the moment, general taxation is used to incarcerate users which could be better used elsewhere.
We've all got problems, but for some reason whenever I mess up on my taxes or something, I'm to blame, but if someone else robs a liquor store when being addicted to heroin, "the needle made me do it, mumble ... mumble ..." is an acceptable excuse.