There's no indication that Mr. Hazel was a drug dealer -- that's just your own prejudice talking. According to this article he was originally convicted of methamphetamine possession. He was a user, not a dealer.
Then Mr. Hazel was sent to prison in violation of California's Proposition 36, which requires that drug users be allowed to enter a rehabilitation program. Officers arrested him after finding him in possession of an unopened bottle of whiskey (see article for more details). Since then the State Court of Appeals has vindicated him, saying he shouldn't have gone to prison in the first place.
Mr. Hazel's rights were violated multiple times, and it sounds like he definitely deserves to win a large chunk of money in his lawsuit against the government. Do taxpayers deserve to have to pay out that money? The only taxpayers who deserve it are the ones who support the War On Drugs, with all the abuses that the WOD entails.
In other words, you deserve to pay out your taxpayer dollars to Mr. Hazel, but I don't.