They do work for health benefits though. Tax on tabacco for example does limit the number of people who smoke, which does in turn limit the number of people with cancer and public spending on helping them.
Actually reducing tobacco use can increase public spending on health. Lung cancer tends to take people out pretty quickly, while those who live longer run up higher costs.
Lung cancer caused by smoking took about a generation to show up in the statistics. That's very much the converse of "takes people out pretty quickly".
That said, most drugs that are schedule I have much more immediate side effects.
That's not what I meant by "takes people out quickly." I mean that once someone gets symptoms of lung cancer and needs health care as a result, they die more quickly than someone who is starting to see the symptoms of old age and needs health care for that.
I.e. someone who dies at age 60 from lung cancer is less cost to the system than someone who live to 95 and dies of "natural causes."
That's not saying lung cancer is good, but it is saying that reducing health care costs is not a good reason to try to reduce smoking.
They do work for health benefits though. Tax on tabacco for example does limit the number of people who smoke, which does in turn limit the number of people with cancer and public spending on helping them.
Same for sugary drinks tax and obesity.