>I get that some folks want to legalize drugs, but make an argument for it that doesn't involve this twisting of results to match the desired outcome.

Criminalizing drugs has negative externalities like boosting the profits of organized crime, but is often argued to outweigh those side effects by suppressing drug use, which is harmful.

If we found a way to make drug use much less harmful, then why would we not decriminalize drugs concurrently, given that its positives are negated so there's no argument remaining that they outweigh its negatives?

Even if the critical factor in reducing drug use harms was health services, the argument for concurrent decriminalization is overwhelming.