But in the US, which does not have public healthcare, the burden "to bear the consequences of consumption" does already fall on the individual in those cases.
This pro-prohibition argument is more impressive when made in countries that do have public healthcare, although it still falls short when trying to explain why doctors should mend bones that people break while engaging in some high-risk activities (like skiing or mountainbiking), but should not heal ailments that people incur while engaging in other high-risk activities (such as smoking).
Banning drug consumption in public spaces, where they might harm others, is a different issue, and the drug that is most problematic here - tobacco - is in any case one of the least restricted ones.
This is not true, in a number of ways. The most obvious example: A person overdoses on something and is taken to the emergency department, treated, and then asked to pay. If they don't have the money, well, tough -- that cost simply ends up borne by the hospital. They also take up scarce resources (a bed, and the corresponding attention of medical professionals) thus delaying the treatment of other patients.
It's not only a matter of medical insurance: it's also, and most important, a matter of driving while intoxicated, or putting yourself into such miserable conditions that you will forget any human decency and commit petty and/or dangerous crimes to get your next dose.
Generally if you’re sick enough to need the ER you’re too sick to drive. Further, did you know that there is such a thing as legally impaired driving?
> Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free.
Notice how that doesn’t say “only if they do what I say”?
What about putting yourself in such miserable conditions that you will forget human decency and commit the non-petty crime of violating everyone's constitutional rights?
This pro-prohibition argument is more impressive when made in countries that do have public healthcare, although it still falls short when trying to explain why doctors should mend bones that people break while engaging in some high-risk activities (like skiing or mountainbiking), but should not heal ailments that people incur while engaging in other high-risk activities (such as smoking).
Banning drug consumption in public spaces, where they might harm others, is a different issue, and the drug that is most problematic here - tobacco - is in any case one of the least restricted ones.