(1) We have data from 1971 onward, just shy of 50 years, that shows that the "war on drugs" approach used in most of the world has been an abject and total failure. Drug usage remains pervasive, social harms are clear, and we keep throwing people in jail. No progress is made.
(2) A country was doing terribly on every metric, then they made a bold decision that was the opposite of the failed approach everyone else is using.
(3) The results were spectacular.
(4) Your response is "well that'll never work here." This is an implicit endorsement of the failed status quo, and an explicit rejection of evidence in support of an alternative.
> This seems to contradict your previous point, no?
No, it doesn't. It's not at all related to availability or legality of drugs -- drugs are equally available literally everywhere. Nobody in the US who wants to do heroin has any trouble getting heroin, or any other opioids. Accessibility is not the issue. And nobody addicted to heroin goes "oh, well, it's illegal in America, guess I'll stop."
It's evidence to support that we need to end the abject failure of an approach we've squandered 50 years on, and start a new, public health and community support approach to managing addiction. As evidenced by a place it's been overwhelmingly successful.
We literally can't do worse than what we have now, unless you wanted to make drugs mandatory.
They also returned to their families and loved ones, trying re-introduce themselves to civil society and many figured out that heroin was not helping (illegal or not)
Everyone gets the point you’re making, you’re just not following it through to something meaningful and instead supposing it implies something it doesn’t.
Fits nicely to me.
We have? Can we get a citation on that?
>Addiction has a huge situational component.
Yes, this is exactly what I'm getting at.
>20% of US GIs in Vietnam were addicted to heroin. When they returned home 90% of them stopped using heroin overnight, indefinitely [2].
This seems to contradict your previous point, no? In Vietnam there was of course zero enforcement, outside of the military (I'm being charitable here for reasons that should be obvious), and they returned home to a country where the drug was illegal.
Edit: very interesting, the negative reaction to this comment. What I said is true, so I can only assume that people who are reacting negatively are doing so because they are projecting a view on me that I do not hold.