Why couldn't private industry or charities provide such services?
Perhaps this is not so evident to non-drug-users, but harm reduction/prevention is a very important component to using drugs safely. Along the lines of, "always use protection," and "don't drink and drive," drug companies can make helpful use guidelines like "don't mix this cocaine with that amphetamine capsule" and "don't share your needles with your buddies" and then implement services/programs to ensure the success of these guidelines.
Ask anyone who's smoked weed for more than a decade (and outside of California) what it was like to buy weed before legalization and medical marijuana became a thing. They'll tell you that you had usually no idea what kind of weed you were getting, and you had to be happy with whatever the dealer gave you. Today? There's a fucking weed strain review startup called Leafly.com and it's helpful!
The point is that as drugs become part of the mainstream due to our ability to perpetuate good use habits, support the procurement of high-purity substances (thanks to the dark net), and the legalization efforts in many parts of the world, harm reduction and addiction support services will crop up to address the new challenges presented. Whether the government forces this upon us, or if the industry does it itself, it will happen due to the huge number of stakeholders that directly benefit from doing so.
Will they? The illegal drug market currently drives prices far above the cost of production. You could probably tax any drug at 300% and it would still be cheaper than illegal alternatives. Legalizing drugs and providing support may be a net revenue generator.
From evincarofautumn's post:
> However, while proceeding with legalisation, we must also establish better social support systems so that people can safely enjoy drugs in moderation.
Those social support systems will cost money. They will have to be funded by taxpayers. Unless they are cheaper than the current system of enforcement and incarceration, people will not support them. Furthermore, it is more politically palatable to punish drug users than to help them. People will be morally opposed to these support systems, and will use them as a reason to oppose drug legalization.
> That's also where the libertarian case falls apart for legalizing cheeseburgers, and motorcycles.
Drug legalization is a political debate. This is about practicality, not pure logical argumentation.
There is no political argument for legalizing cheeseburgers and motorcycles, because they are already legal. Nobody is attempting to change the status quo.
If we want to legalize illegal drugs, we will have to convince people to change the status quo. Changing the status quo, which is the default position, requires evidence that the suggested alternative is superior.