Do you consider it to be a valid use of taxpayers’ money to essentially bribe Meth addicts not to do more drugs?

Do you consider it to be a valid use of taxpayers’ money to essentially bribe Meth addicts not to do more drugs? Would you consider it possible that these payments not to use Meth might instead fund use of a different drug not being tested for? Would it not also be easier to just bribe the cookers of meth not to produce any product? What about people who drink and drive? Why not pay them not to drink to save lives? Come up with other examples where this policy could be used.