>>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.
Of course there is. I think what you mean is that there is not necessarily a causal relationship, but there is a correlation.
You said "addictions" for one thing. That doesn't take into account all drug users. You also limited it to one drug.
That was my point; to compare the heroin addiction rate to the harshness of drug laws:
"I presented several examples, across various races and societies, which demonstrate a positive correlation between harsh drug laws and higher rates of heroin addiction."
Are all drugs available in all countries?
Heroin certainly is in the countries I cited. AFAIK, mj and other drugs are as well, but what has that got to do with the correlation I demonstrated?
Are all drugs roughly the same price in all countries? (Or) do all drugs cost relatively the same (price/income)?
The heroin traffickers are in the business to make money, and the price is set by supply and demand. It is clearly affordable and profitable in Iran, Singapore, and Malaysia, otherwise the demand numbers wouldn't be so high, and the traffickers wouldn't risk the rather stiff penalties.
Are all drug laws enforced exactly the same across the board, and is the use to arrest/conviction percentage the same?
I think we can assume that Iran, Singapore, and Malaysia enforce the laws rather strictly.
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.
Once again, I think you are confusing correlation with causation. You do understand I'm not claiming that harsh drug laws necessarily cause higher rates of heroin addiction, right?
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.
The number of arrests for cocaine/heroin offenses during the Clinton years remained at about the same levels as during the Bush I and Bush II years. And the amounts seized during the Clinton years did not decline:
http://www.briancbennett.com/quick-look.htm
A little off topic, but interesting nevertheless, is that rape and sexual assault declined substantially during the Clinton and early Bush II years as well:
"Since 1993, rape/sexual assault has fallen by over 65%." [2003 figures] -- http://www.rainn.org/statistics.html
__________________________________
I think I addressed your points, so how about my two previous questions:
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, at least in the mid-late 90's (latest figures I could find)?