[kickopotomus]

> You have a substance that you know, for a fact, a certain proportion of the population will abuse, to the detriment of both themselves and society at large.

I can understand why someone may take this stance, but I think this argument is something of a hasty generalization when it comes to drug policy. For starters, the policy alone (prohibited vs decriminalized vs legalized) does not appear to be the determining factor in the "certain proportion" of the population that use drugs problematically or otherwise. The US consistently has some of the highest drug usage and abuse rates compared to our western counterparts in Europe. I don't know of the exact reason for this. Could be other cultural differences between the US and Europe. Could be the fact that most European countries approach drug abuse as a public health issue opposed to a criminal one, and focus on harm reduction and rehabilitation instead of jail time.

[was_a_dev]

I can think of many potential reasons between the US and Europe that explains the difference.

  1. Europe has a greater emphasis on welfare and has greater social saftey nets

  2. US private healthcare makes it harder for the poorest in society to get drug-related issues cared for

  3. US War on drugs being a historical political selling point to gather voters

  4. Private prisons; lobbying for stricter drugs laws equals profit

  5. Over-prescription of pain medication by US doctors; lobbied by pharmaceutical companies for profit

Some of these points don't apply at all to Europe, or do with much reduced impact.