It depends what you mean by effective and ineffective. Nuking San Fransisco would prevent tons of drug use, but is not an effective way of solving society's ills.
> This only matters in some utilitarian conception where all net suffering or utility or whatever is created equal.
Drug laws not only hurt drug users, but further criminalize nonviolent users who commit more crimes, fund organized crime (here and especially in other countries), cost billions of dollars to society in court systems, prisons, police officers, and lost productivity.
If your solution to that is literally kill people without a trial for drug use then some of those clearly wouldn't apply, but that's honestly a pretty sick worldview. I'm not sure if you're younger or maybe lived a more sheltered life and weren't exposed to drug users or similar groups of people, but you might change your tune if you knew someone affected by it (whether they were a user or the parent/child/spouse/friend).
I wonder what you think of other countries which have much lower rates of drug abuse yet don't impose punishments as harsh as the US?
It’s because their currencies aren’t as powerful. Drugs are a commodity sold in USD like oil. The USA has the easiest access to USD so drugs come here as the product-market fit is optimal for both distributors and users.
That data probably isn't super relevant to this argument though, since it includes alcohol. I don't think alcohol is more easily available in the US than those other countries because of the USD.
Not true and there are many in this thread and elsewhere for years on the internet saying exactly this.
Thank you for conceding my point against the ridiculous argument that "prohibition is ineffective"... that no it is, it's only a matter of degree of punishment, which is what I said.
>more suffering than it prevents
This only matters in some utilitarian conception where all net suffering or utility or whatever is created equal.
No, I think drug dealers suffering is not the same as suffering of normal people wanting to live their lives in a productive and healthy way for their community. But this is what politics is for, conflict over interests, values, worldviews, and societal preferences.
It's also what all of criminal law deals with: justice for crimes isn't viewed the same as suffering of law abiding people or victims.
>a tradeoff exist here
Like the tradeoff exists for the death penalty of murders in that justice for that crime requires "harm" to be inflicted on the perpetrator, yes. But this isn't that profound of a concept.