One possible way to flip the debate might be to re-frame it as police "War on the Constitution". I'm not sure if it will work, or if there's better wording, but the author tries to do it in the article:
"The Fourth Amendment was a response to the invasive, sometimes violent searches of colonists’ homes by British soldiers armed with general warrants to look for untaxed goods."
I will confess an error in my thinking, in that it's really hard to legally define what I describe, if not impossible. But, as the bible says (paraphrased, and this is probably the first time I've ever quoted it..) "I would not destroy the city if there is a single innocent inside of it." If you can't make the law work, than maybe it shouldn't be there.
Let's rephrase this a bit:
> I mean, if it's a warehouse with criminals doing illegal things in there, then yes, a raid makes sense.
Currently much of the drug trade is managed by criminals, and once you're breaking drug laws you might as well go ahead and break other laws e.g. human trafficking, extortion, etc. But that need not be the case, and it's not hard to imagine a warehouse with "massive ammounts [sic] of drugs in-out", where a raid would be totally unjustified and illegal.
The underlying causes of addiction are medical, psychological, and social, and fixing those is the solution.
Criminal drug prohibition harms everyone. It harms non-addict drug users in an obvious way: by punishing them for a completely voluntary non-crime. It harms addicts by punishing them for having a psychological health problem that should be treated, and the follow-on effects of criminal prosecution further damage their lives (e.g. having a felony) which in turn causes them to be more likely to suffer from further addiction. Finally, it harms society by creating a massive off-the-books profit center for criminals that in turn increases crime and promotes corruption. (I call it the "federal subsidy for organized crime.") It also wastes police resources that could otherwise be available for pursuing more pressing problems.
If drugs are legal, why would organized crime continue to be involved?
I strongly disagree however with your first point, 'Addiction is a symptom of other underlying psychological or neurological problems, not a cause'. You are implying that all addictions start with a psychological or neurological problem. Let's take smoking addiction as an example. In the 60's, almost 50% of the adult population in the USA was smoking. Even today almost 20% is. Not all of those people started because of some underlying mental problem. Other factors such as group pressure, role models or just plain boredom are much more important, whether it is for nicotine, alcohol or any other addiction.
Furthermore, addiction can definitely be a cause to both psychological and neurological problems. The first one, psychological problems because of an addiction, is obvious. But recent discoveries have shown that certain drug addictions (e.g cocaine) also modify your brain structure.