People often cite Portugal in these discussions, but isn't that citing one example out of, what, hundreds(?) of societies around the world that all have different values, contexts, social structures and constructs, etc...

Don't get me wrong, I also believe the war on drugs is probably doing more harm than good overall, but I also don't think that we can naively assume that "let's do what Portugal did" will just work for everyone.

Portugal AFAIK ain't legalizing a thing, just making possession a non-crime. And obviously very limited possession. Which is a progress compared to US' creation of whole jail-for-money industry in the past where few joints could easily ruin rest of your life, but far cry from what consumers really want - just go to shop and buy the god damn thing, legally, with safety and purity guarantees, and all constraints applied (ie age).

Ie if you want to smoke a joint, you still have to go to same illegal drug dealers as everywhere else. Just police won't bother you if they find you with that joint, they will just take it from you (some places like Switzerland can put a fine on top of that, decriminalization has many flavors around the world).

"Work" is a weasel word here. The only relevant question is whether it would be less harmful than the current arrangement. Since the current arrangement involves imprisoning people on a massive scale, and experience shows that deterrence is minimal anyway, the drug would have to be very destructive to match the harm caused by enforcement.

But if you want another example, how about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Hemp_Drugs_Commission? Not only it's a very different society than Portugal, but it's also more than a century apart. And yet:

"In regard to the physical effects, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all."

"In respect to the alleged mental effects of the drugs, the Commission have come to the conclusion that the moderate use of hemp drugs produces no injurious effects on the mind."

"In regard to the moral effects of the drugs, the Commission are of opinion that their moderate use produces no moral injury whatever."

"Viewing the subject generally, it may be added that the moderate use of these drugs is the rule, and that the excessive use is comparatively exceptional. The moderate use practically produces no ill effects. In all but the most exceptional cases, the injury from habitual moderate use is not appreciable. The excessive use may certainly be accepted as very injurious, though it must be admitted that in many excessive consumers the injury is not clearly marked. The injury done by the excessive use is, however, confined almost exclusively to the consumer himself; the effect on society is rarely appreciable. It has been the most striking feature in this inquiry to find how little the effects of hemp drugs have obtruded themselves on observation. The large number of witnesses of all classes who professed never to have seen these effects, the vague statements made by many who professed to have observed them, the very few witnesses who could so recall a case as to give any definite account of it, and the manner in which a large proportion of these cases broke down on the first attempt to examine them, are facts which combine to show most clearly how little injury society has hitherto sustained from hemp drugs."