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)?
>>Of course there is. I think what you mean is that there is not necessarily a causal relationship<<
No, I said what I mean, and what's true: there is not necessarily a correlation. There's not necessarily a correlation between the laws and the number addicted to ONE drug since there are literally hundreds of factors at play.
>>That was my point; to compare the heroin addiction rate<<
But you misunderstood my point: you used one drug as an example to correlate "drug use" in general. There *might* be a situation with heroin that fits under your point without there being the same situation for marijuana, cocaine, crack, LSD, etc., not to mention designer drugs. Give me the same type of statistics for the exact same countries you previously mentioned for Ecstasy.
>>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?<<
Again, you didn't understand my point, and this relates to the correlation deal above: you have to take into account supply, demand, ease of access, and type of use, among other things. What if, for example, I can shoot up with a friend that has an unlimited supply the cops, for whatever reason, will never find? My friend is either wealthy, or gets the smack for free -- or gives something he has a lot of in return for it. Anyway, there is little to no chance of getting caught using it. You can't relate that specific scenario to the purchase of crack openly on the streets of either LA or even somewhere in Singapore. Undercover police officers, raids, etc., make certain areas riskier than others to purchase and/or use. Hell, some people grow or produce marijuana (and, I'd venture to say, other drugs) without anyone ever finding out about it. Virtually unlimited supply and very little risk of capture. Would these people do that if they had to go into South Central to get their fix? Probably not.
Further, my point also includes the availability of other drugs relative to the abuser's desires, not just heroin. Let's say someone is content with using Marijuana and it alone. That's fine, but what if the particular availability of grass is different in one locale than the other. Thus, to get high, they have to use something else or quit using. If smack is available, perhaps they use that, or they go with coke, or whatever. The point is that there are so many different situations and different reasons for use and/or sale, that you can't limit your equation to one or two factors and call that complete. Your statistics could be flawed because they don't include all drug use, and comparing the use of one drug across totally different supply and demand lines is misleading. If a crackhead is content with that, can get it easily, but would do heroin if they had to, your stats don't take that person into account, and if they did, the numbers might be different. We just don't know.
>>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.<<
Maybe, but this all but admits they are dealing with totally different supply and demand curves in those countries than they are in the US. You've got to admit it has to be easier to get drugs into Malaysia than into Singapore or Iran. When it becomes easier, then the numbers are meaningless as there are people out there doing grass because they can't get or can't afford something else.
>> I think we can assume that Iran, Singapore, and Malaysia enforce the laws rather strictly.<<
This is (one of) the problem(s): we CAN'T assume this. The state can enforce all the laws they want, but that assumes arrest, conviction (which varies by country's legal system), evidence, etc. Have you always been ticketed when you drove above the speed limit?
>> Once again, I think you are confusing correlation with causation. <<
Give me a break. I have about 18 semester hours of statistics/econometrics, including 6 graduate hours. I'm still in therapy due to it!
>>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.<<
This proves my point: if the number of arrests was static, given the increased use (which you admit), enforcement was terribly lacking.
I've already addressed your first question with the above Clinton reference. As far as the Dutch, I don't know enough about their situation to comment.
I don't think the US drug war has been fought effectively at all. I think it is just a bunch of rhetoric in Washington. We've been half-assing a bunch of different strategies. One minute we focus on supply, then on demand. In my opinion, we've done little but talk. If I had my way, the military would play a large part in decreasing drug traffic to the US, and would keep playing that part until successful. I wouldn't mind obliterating the ability of several South American countries to grow the product. If that means war, fine with me.