> By your same logic, if it rose, they would have said so. They didn't.

No, because they aren’t uninterested, unbiased observers just reporting the facts. The entire linked article is pushing very specific policy, and it is only expected that they will only raise arguments in favor of the policy they are proposing.

> Perhaps it was unchanged meaningfully / statistically significant enough to comment?

No. I looked at the data, and reported it accurately. Drug use went up overall, and if you disregard drop in heroin use (though only among young people, it also went up among those 35+), use increased significantly. Drop in heroin use among youth has offset the growth in use of other drugs.

> No. I looked at the data, and reported it accurately.

You were asked for sources. Instead, you pointed to the article someone else linked, and asserted that it’s biased reporting so the data that they didn’t show backs up what you say.

You still haven’t provided any sources for your ongoing assertions.

They don't provide solid sources because they don't exist. Their claims are untrue in the spirit in which they were posted: That the results of the policy were uniformly harmful.

Will you apologize to me for implying that I’m lying here about the ground data facts on drug use in Portugal, if I do provide the sources? Or are you just performatively asking me for sources, refusing to extend even a modicum of charity, just to disappear after I spend half an hour digging back up the government documents I remember seeing a few years ago, when I looked into this?

I have done this research already, which is why I can in good faith say that you are wrong and reality doesn't support what you say. I'll charitably offer that it is possible that I was wrong, and if you prove that I will absolutely apologise.