Maybe, but there's clearly and consistently no correlation between enforcing said illegality and addiction: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-bri.... In both of the specific cases mentioned in the article and my comment, it's a lower jurisdiction stopping enforcement of a higher jurisdiction's laws. Marijuana is still illegal in Colorado, but everyone knows that the TSA are the only ones enforcing it.

There's also the fact that a lot of black-market stuff only ever happens because it's illegal, which is why countries that decriminalize prostitution and take a treat-instead-of-prosecute approach tend to see benefits in addition to fewer people in jail for the associated crimes. I know there are people that won't break the law, but there are also people that make beaucoup bucks breaking the law because they're good at it. Which one wins out? No idea. Not sure if there's a way to get data on that beyond the enforcement vs. addiction studies.

Look, you prefaced your comment with a question that has a simple answer. You don't like that answer because it doesn't fit your premise that the law is never helpful to anyone. But it is the answer.

There is plenty of room to discuss the effectiveness/costs of making drugs illegal and how (potential) enforcement should be handled. To whit, your response is answering an entirely different question than the one you originally posed!

EDIT Response to below. I can't understand your position. How is the data we do have even remotely relevant? Its a study about enforcement and so presupposes a population that is excluded by the very question posed...

No I don't like your answer because you have zero data to back it up and it contradicts very closely related data that we do have.

There is also a population that will do it BECAUSE it is illegal.

And no data that I'm aware actually points towards prohibition having significant effect.

The question is not 'Is the number of people doing drugs affected by its legality' (though I think its quite likely there is a fairly large effect.

Its 'Are there people who would do drugs (and become addicted) if they were legal but will not currently because they are illegal'.

Or in real life, how many potential alcoholics will be better off with cannabis as their drug of choice? Clearly the lifetime outcomes for heavy drinking are worse than for heavy cannabis usage, and they seem to be strong substitutes for each other.

What the discussion here is missing is that it would be nearly impossible to abuse mushrooms, and that mushrooms seem more likely to get people out of other addictions than push them into one.

I see people breaking the law hundreds of times every week. People jaywalking, smoking too close to a building, texting while driving, double parking, taking a piss in public, theft, buying drugs, dealing drugs, selling sex and assaults. I would in fact be shocked if there is anyone out there who does not break at least one law per month.

You (probably) do not see people breaking the criminal code every day. You see people breaking the civil code. There is a difference, and yes people are aware of what will get them a ticket vs. sent to prison.

The question is whether that same population do the thing if it were not illegal? Certainly not everyone in that group. I'm not sure it's even possible to collect this kind of data, but it's a relevant question.

Of course its relevant to understand the scope. But the question is `Does making something illegal have any ability to prevent addiction?` The answer here is an incredibly clear yes.

I don't think it's "incredibly clear" at all.

You've never met anyone who won't do something because its illegal? I suppose thats reasonable. In any event, I can assure you they exist.

Ok, let's put this a more complex way. There are problems caused by drug prohibition that have nothing to do with addiction - namely, the black market. Prohibition creates a market where courts and the legal system cannot be used to settle disputes. Hence, drive-by shootings, money laundering, and a host of other ills.

And the more you crack down, the more valuable this market becomes. Market forces don't care that something is illegal. Supply and demand.

So here's the question for you... even accepting your premise that some portion of the population is kept from using drugs simply because they are illegal, does that justify the social cost incurred by the creation of the black market?

I understand the broader argument. Mine truly is as narrow in scope as my text: I do not think it reasonable to say the illegality of some addictive drugs has not prevented addiction for some people.

But that's just being narrowly pedantic.

You're asking if we can; I'm asking if we should.

To be really ugly about it, suicide is a 100% effective way to prevent cancer. Doesn't mean it's a solution, because cancer isn't the real problem - early death is the problem. Likewise, the problem of opioids isn't addiction... it's harm to society. And it's completely obvious that the very existence of prohibition causes harm - a black market that handles business by violence and corruption, a police state that keeps further encroaching our rights in the name of "war on drugs", and innocent victims caught in the crossfire. Worse, user-level prohibition keeps otherwise peaceable citizens from seeking treatment for addiction, pinning them in the arms of both the addiction and the criminal enterprise that provides their fix.

Being "narrow in scope" is not only ignoring the external costs, it's ignoring the actual problem at hand.

No, its not pedantic. There are real people who will have real and negative health outcomes if drugs are legalized. Ignoring this in the conversation about legalization is to our (society's) detriment. The post which began this chain wasn't only ignoring this outcome, it was asserting that it is not a possibility.

Yes, there are more people who are more negatively affected by the current state of affairs. The law should change. But we should also be cognizant of the consequences of that change.

Your arguments are stupidly repetitive and anecdotal. I can also assure you that people exist who make a lot of money pushing drugs because it's illegal and they're good at breaking the law. You've posted far less data and just complained about semantics of my first sentence being different from the data I've posted.

I think it's healthier and more reasonable to think of these problems (and their solutions) as existing on a spectrum and not in black and white.

It may or may not be illegal to jump off a cliff, but even if the government declared it explicitly legal tomorrow how many more people will start doing it?

If it's true that "most of the data in the US indicates no correlation between enforcement and addiction rates" then that just means a somewhat different group of people is doing it, while still being about the same number of people.

This doesn't follow at all. Enforcement may not deter addiction, but illegality does in some subset of the population.

I'll grant "some subset" but does it change overall addiction rates? It's entirely possible that it increases addiction in other subsets, e.g. by making treatment less available.

And if you claim it does reduce overall rates, can you provide a source? Portugal's drug addiction rates have plummeted since they decriminalized: https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/04/18/524380027/...

Yes agreed. Though I think it's not a panacea.

There was an article/interview that I can't find discussing the lack of available services for those with addiction in a Scandinavian country post decriminalisation. I don't remember it all that well but the jist was that now that drugs were legal, it was a personal problem rather than a societal one; the 'treat it as a medical condition' aspect of the broader argument never actually materialized with services for those in need