[troutwine]

Sure, and if you're ideologically opposed to a policy you can make a comment like this. What's needed is data on many alternative approaches, what policies _and_ executions taken as one promote better outcomes? Over what timeframes? Otherwise it's just all shouting into a windstorm.

[jjcon]

No, we should take policy results at face value. If it failed if failed, if it succeeded it succeeded. No need to play no true scotsman.

[troutwine]

That’s… what I’m arguing? There’s a hard problem to be solved with uncertain paths toward a solution — or uncertainty of what “solved” means in this case, maybe, depending on whether endemic is an acceptable outcome — and every attempt at a solution that doesn’t work out, or doesn’t work out sufficiently well, is data added to the project of getting better outcomes for all. I’m not entirely sure what you’ve read in my comment but I’m certainly not saying we shouldn’t view things plainly.

I would also challenge your implicit notion here that there is a binary pass/fail solution to societal levels of drug addiction. Like any seriously hard problem there are policies that have been proposed and implemented around that world that have some positive outcomes in some regards and negatives in others. Incarceration (the Drug War) theoretically makes serious drug addiction absent from public life, a positive, but with the result of growing the police state, a negative. Vice versa for Oregon’s policy, now that it’s run for a while. I think we’re recently finding that Portugal’s approach which Oregon based their policy on also does not have better than expected outcomes, although the data is early yet.

[creata]

Taking results at face value is silly when your sample size is 1.

[fooker]

Oregon is more than 1% of the US population.

That is significantly more than what's recognized as a good sample size.

[fooker]

I am not opposed to decriminalizing drugs.

> What's needed is data on many alternative approaches, what policies _and_ executions taken as one promote better outcomes? > Over what timeframes?

This is where the goalpost shifting happens.

I can not think of a single instance in recent history where a political leader has admitted that a policy they like has failed because it was fundamentally a bad idea.

[brightlancer]

"I'm rubber and you're glue, it's harder to make an argument that saying it's just about you."