We don't actually want to reduce drug dependency, do we?

This boggles the mind. Let's review the background:

• Heroin is illegal, highly addictive, funds a lot of organised crime and can really fuck up your life.
• Methadone is a legal drug replacement "weaning-off" therapy which is reasonably successful.
• Heroin addicts are unlikely to be able to able to afford methadone.
• Therefore, the government subsidises the treatment.

At this point, anybody who has any idea at all on how my mind works is wondering what the "but" is.

Here it is:

• Pharmacies are charging a $60 dispensing fee, so addicts can't afford the treatment, so they end up back on heroin, on the streets, committing multiple acts of petty crime to fund it, because the government subsidises the drug but not the pharmacy's fees.

You can't tell me that we're really trying to cut down on illegal drug usage. I just won't believe you.

ABC News story here.