And honestly, the correct answer (in my opinion) is that one should do both. As much as I'd like to believe better in society, the truth is that not everyone thinks things through. Not everyone gains information before they do stuff.
Some drugs should have restrictions. Age limits are prudent, for example. I don't trust folks to take most prescription drugs correctly. Antibiotics and most treatment-only drugs are like this.
I'd rather folks do opium than heroin or opiate pills. If there is still a market for them after legalisation, I'd rather the opiate pills that are available to the public be the mild variety. Push folks to do occasional cocaine rather than crack. Avoid meth if possible, mostly because it is hard on folks. Heroin or anything else that one injects are only available at a clinic, where you have to consume there.
And above all, drug addiction treated like a medical condition... and free of charge.
Here's some blog posts arguing the ACA actually increased the severity of the opioid crisis:
https://spottedtoad.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/some-stronger-e...
https://spottedtoad.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/its-opioids-not...
I'm (nevertheeless) pro-universal healthcare, but our idea of healthcare should probably not include these drugs in any but the most extreme and limited circumstances (like, I'm lying in a hospital bed). They're too dangerous.
Having doctors actively prescribe them, under incentives from pharma companies to sell them, seems to me predatory in the same way we think of street dealers stalking schoolyards as predatory.
Chris Arnade has done a great job documenting the crises at a personal level. I highly recommend checking out some of his articles and tweetstorms. It's gut-wrenching stuff (and obviously the problem goes way deeper than simple access).
But pharma/doctors/govt pushing drugs isn't helping, and is probably making it much worse.