One of the things we've learned up here in Canada over the last couple decades is the need to understand that some people just cannot be sober. They will not be, and they will do anything to not be, ranging from the familiar drugs to whatever they can find (gasoline, inhalants, etc). Obviously, there are worse and better choices in this range of options, and there are more and less self destructive outcomes. Harm reduction has become a key strategy; what can we do that will help keep these people from hurting themselves and others?

We've achieved some manner of success helping prevent people from OD'ing, getting needle-transmitted drugs, etc. which helps them and helps all of us at large (in the most utilitarian sense, it keeps social healthcare costs lower). What we've failed at is preventing them from hurting others, unfortunately.

In the long run, I think that what we're going to need is better drugs. We have to find something that makes people feel as good as they need to feel, without all the massively negative side effects of heroin, meth, etc. that result in wrecked lives. Healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry should seriously be looking at it this way; not just working on antidepressants and other clinical meds that are trying to get people to a stable "normal", but drugs that actually make you feel good so that they can displace heroin / fentanyl, without the downsides.

Yes, we would still see people addicted to that.... <sips coffee> <watches guy across the street smoking>

No, I am not asserting that.

I think the first thing to clear up is our definitions. My main point would be that a market that is controlled by a monopoly is not a free market. I would define a free market not as a market that is free from government interference, but a market in which all of the actors are free to participate on a fair competitive playing field.

I think that lassaiz-faire, with the meaning of "hands off" may be a more precise way to describe what you are saying when you say "free market".

I think that a fair competitive landscape is ultimately what we want out of markets. I agree that it is bad when government actions interfere with a fair competitive landscape. But it is not inevitable that all goverment actions will do that, and in many cases government action can help rather than hurt. And similarly, plenty of actions by non-government actors can interfere with a fair competitive landscape as well.

I think it comes down to the category of item being offered in the market. Some things naturally lend themselves to monopolies; it feels like perhaps it's based on factors like the difficulty of entering the market with a new product at all, the amount of coordination and manpower required to field it, and the cost efficiencies of having a singular producer vs. many.

There are certainly cases where we see duopolies or triopolies etc. where one really-well-run company might be more efficient, from a labour standpoint; but then, in turn, we all benefit from having a redundant array of supply chains.

There are other cases where we absolutely want a monopoly, such as with policing, or (in many countries) with healthcare, because they apply to everyone and being a consumer of the service is not exactly optional.