Why was the punishment for drugs discretionary and not like that for drinking alcohol?

We begin by clarifying the distinction between intoxicants (muskir), sedatives (muraqqid), and corruptants (mufsid). An intoxicant impairs the mind without affecting the senses, accompanied by euphoria and joy. A sedative impairs both the mind and the senses. A corruptant impairs the mind without affecting the senses, and without euphoria or joy. Narcotics emerged in the late sixth century AH.

Scholars have differed on the ruling regarding narcotics: are they treated like intoxicants concerning the mandatory hadd punishment, or is a discretionary ta'zir punishment sufficient? The preponderant view is that narcotics like hashish necessitate the hadd punishment, just as wine does. This is because they induce euphoria, pleasure, and elation, similar to wine, and their harm can be greater than that of wine.

There is a strong connection between narcotics and wine. Ibn Taymiyyah and others ruled that hashish shares the three fundamental rulings of intoxicants: prohibition, impurity, and the hadd punishment for its user, because it is intoxicating. Some jurists went further, explicitly calling certain narcotics "wine."

Therefore, the preponderant view is that the punishment for drug abuse is the same as the punishment for drinking wine.