I struggle with this line of thinking because there are so many legal things people can do to increase their probability of being a burden in the national healthcare system. Alcohol, junk food, working too much, gambling too maybe. I can't wrap my head around a system that would be "fair" and not fall into a black mirror episode dystopian "good citizen" points system. I'd rather just pay more than my fair share, knowingly subsidise people who make bad choices, and not live in the dystopian society.
Theres a separate argument about the drugs increasing crime probability that I also don't buy entirely. Those crimes are crimes already, so making these other "precrimes" also crimes seems a bit weird - not to mention wildly ineffective at reducing harm or use of the substances in question. I'm sure we can identify books and films that increase future criminal probability too.
Bodily autonomy does hold some water for me as an argument, but for me it's more about finding a way to minimise societal harm while maximally hurting the businesses profiting from these dark economies we have created through prohibition. But this brings up another round of tough questions: do we do this for all substances? Forever? Is this really the path of least societal harm? (I honestly don't know)
This seems to happen every time an issue affecting boys and men is discussed. No matter what the data says, the welfare of men is dismissed hastily. It's like people think this is a zero sum game or something.