Short of someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to take drugs, I have to wonder, under what realistic circumstances is free will actually removed?
It's a drag to let people ruin their lives, but it's more of a drag to forcibly restrict their right to choose for themselves once they've been adequately informed of the possible risks.
Assuming we're talking about an addictive substance here and not a mind control device that literally forces mass suicide to the total exclusion of free will, you must remember the most basic rule of economics: humans behave rationally, in their own self-interest. Whether or not you agree with their reasoning, many people obviously consider the short term benefits of drugs to be worth the long term health issues.This wouldn't strike you as a disturbing trend? I think it would be preferable to try and remove the cause for all of this suicide. I typically don't think masses upon masses of people being driven to destroy themselves is desirable.
As I mentioned above, the serious dangers posed by tobacco, alcohol and numerous prescription drugs have been publicized abundantly across the Western world, and yet millions of people still choose to smoke and drink. Who are you to tell them they can't?