I don't see any "empirical" evidence for your claim. I think it also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding, of the policies that are implemented by most countr

I don't see any "empirical" evidence for your claim. I think it also betrays a fundamental misunderstanding, of the policies that are implemented by most countries. While "legalization" is the popular term for what is happening, professionals tend to talk of "harm reduction," because that is what is what is intended and also better describes what is actually happening in most cases. Most drugs are still illegal in Portugal and will remain so in Germany. I don't think there is a single country where Heroin is legal, Cocaine is legal only in a small number of South/Central American countries and even Cannabis is only legal in about 6 countries (and de facto parts of the US) worldwide. There is no broad movement that advocates a low-regulation distribution of all/most drugs in any country that I'm aware of. What is happening is that more and more countries treat drug use not as a criminal matter, but a public health issue. With the possible exception of Cannabis (where the risks seem so comparable to alcohol that it makes intuitive sense to many people to treat it at least broadly similar), the debate is not about legalization per se, but about how to effectively reduce consumption and the risks associated with it. This is where needle exchange programs, "drug checks," injection spaces, come from: They drastically reduce the harms associated with the use of certain drugs by improving the health outcomes of drug users. Combined with de-criminilization policies, they also provide the basis for health professionals to engage with drug users and start interventions. I really don't see anything "selfish" or "late empire" in that approach, maybe except that it will reduce my payments to the public health system long term.