Honestly you're making my point. We (as in civilization) tried criminalization, and it is more expensive (and has other added downsides) compared with decriminalization/legalization + taxation and treatment. How do I propose to get people not to think drugs are their best option? Ha. Okay sure, in response to that straw man here's my stab at fixing human society to help reduce the number of people that go that route (since that's what it would take). UBI + free healthcare (including all procedures that may be used to either assisting with a miscarriage or causing an abortion) + free contraceptives + free childcare + additional assistance for parents + free school lunches + free higher ed + strong labor protections / unions (+ -- US specific -- constitutional amendments to allow for regulation of firearms, getting monied interests out of politics, lessening the influence of extremists in politics including ranked choice voting or similar, making public money available to third-parties, I'm sure there's more). I'm sure what I've missed could fill an encyclopedia. My point is that the problem isn't simple, so if you're going to try to "solve" it, you're wasting time debating whether incarceration is better than legalization.
The point others are making is that it appears to be a zero-sum game, i.e., we're paying one way or the other, so the more compassionate option with better outcomes should win out. As I have seen it stated, the options appear to be to pay for: (i) criminalization and its effects/expenses, e.g., court system burden, incarceration, etc.; (ii) de-criminalization (potentially with legalization/taxation) to offset the cost of keeping cities livable by mitigating its effects/expenses, e.g., treatment and housing for addicts that may become homeless; or (iii) de-criminalization without paying for mitigations, leading to unlivable cities. Your comment reads like you see some way of simply not paying to deal with addicts, while also not having the consequences of a bunch of (potentially homeless) addicts living in society. If that's an accurate description of your point, how does that work? If it's not, then what do you mean?
Apple does use X a lot in product names, but (i) the use is never on its own, so the comparison of the marks is, e.g., X vs Mac OS X, and (ii) Apple generally uses X to denote "10" so that portion of the mark is arguably descriptive or generic as a version number (see https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/print?version=current&href=...).
Regardless of whether or not any party has a registration for a particular trademark/service mark identifying certain goods/services, the question about whether the marks should be allowed to co-exist depends on whether there is a likelihood that there will be confusion between the 2 marks in the marketplace (defining the appropriate marketplace is part of the test for any given likelihood of confusion analysis). There are some other concerns, such as dilution with respect to famous marks that may or may not come into play, but likelihood of [consumer] confusion is the root of it.