I presented several examples, across various races and societies, which demonstrate a positive correlation between harsh drug laws and higher rates of heroin addiction. We can debate the reasons for such, but the correlation is there.
Note the nearly 50% increase in heroin addiction in the US from 1992 to 1999. In the meantime, heroin has become purer and cheaper since the WOD was made a cabinet level priority about 15 years ago.
1. Is it fair to say that the WOD has failed to reduce supply and demand for heroin?
2. Is it also fair to say that the Dutch have a better handle on their heroin problem than the US or Singapore?
>>demonstrate a positive correlation <<
There's not necessarily a correlation. You said "addictions" for one thing. That doesn't take into account all drug users. You also limited it to one drug.
Are all drugs available in all countries?
Are all drugs roughly the same price in all countries?
(Or) do all drugs cost relatively the same (price/income)?
Are all drug laws enforced exactly the same across the board, and is the use to arrest/conviction percentage the same?
Unless you answer yes to ALL these questions, there isn't a correlation since there are virtually infinite factors that come into play that you didn't deal with. Though its pushing the envelope on my side, if all else fails, I can always bring up the differences in genetics that may explain at least some of the difference.
If you really think the Clinton administration fought the war on drugs, you are smoking the product you are advocating. Look at the time period you mentioned and look at who was in office.