The difference is that drugs are a victimless crime. Vast networks can operate outside the law, because no one has any incentive to defect. Outside extensive and ubiquitous surveillance, it’s virtually impossible to disrupt a disciplined drug distribution network. Maybe you get a few lucky hits here or there from random traffic stops or the like, but it’s like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

In contrast victim crimes like theft create a huge surface area of vulnerability. Every time the crime is committed, by definition the criminals are interacting with an adversary who’s extremely motivated to collaborate with law enforcement. Victim based criminal networks are basically unscalable and extremely short-lived for this reason. Unless the political classes are complicit and refuse to let law enforcement do their job of protecting victims.

Well, looks at Japan and Korea for a counter example. There is much less prosecution of low level drug crimes now and an increase in the amount of fatal overdoes from illegal drugs

That just means that it’s hard to regulate criminal activity where the “victim” (buyer) is a voluntary participant.

But laws like RICO—which allows low level goons to be held liable for the whole enterprise’s crimes—absolutely decimated the Mafia.

This is basic supply and demand. Supply side enforcement for drugs is unlikely to be successful. Increasing the enforcement only raises the reward for doing it eventually as the market dictates someone will step in to fill the role as long as supply demands it.

On the other hand the reality is that there is a limited supply of drug users. Demand side enforcement could end the "war" quickly.

Enforcement of sellers is dumb, people selling drugs isn't the problem. It's their usage that's what we want to stop so the enforcement should be on that side.

Not very limited. In my country basically everyone uses drugs. It's a "work hard play hard" mentality.

And no you can't prosecute buyers. They are white middle class people.