Why does america still use the war on drugs method, when harm reduction is better?...................?

There are many factors that play into this, a lot of them related more to politics than evidence.

There are still very strongly-held views that drugs are bad and that we should stamp them out wherever we see them. It's easy for governments to pander to this sort of thing. Something like harm reduction can be politically more controversial- for one thing, it can be constituted as admitting defeat against drugs, and also it can look like the government is wasting money on drug addicts, which can be used politically against them. Furthermore, although harm reduction works better in the long run, this is often a harder message to sell. Showing off a big drugs bust can easily give the impression you are doing something about the drug trade more easily.

The thing to remember about governments and policy is that there are lots of factors that come into play, not all of them related to any objective consideration about how effective the policy is. Politicians are also interested in winning elections, being popular with their constituents, and pandering to whichever political group they represent, and these often trump the evidence. That and different political factions often make up their own mind as to what the evidence tells them- if you look at the ongoing political fight about gun control, for instance, both sides are convinced that the evidence supports their views on how good an idea gun control is.

In addition, it's also very easy for policies to become quite entrenched and have vested interests supporting them, which makes them harder to replace, and there are a LOT of agencies involved in the war on drugs that have a vested interest in keeping it going. This can happen for other policies and laws as well. To use a somewhat random example, take a look at medical malpractice. In the USA, if you think a doctor caused you harm due to malpractice, you have to sue them in court. This can take years, costs a lot of money for all parties involved, and is frequently a very bitter and unsatisfying experience for all involved- patients frequently find it frustrating getting any acknowledgement or compensation for what happened to them, doctors tend to find the malpractice process very humiliating and degrading, and it leads to millions of dollars being wasted on "defensive medicine", which is where doctors order extra tests, referrals, and so forth, to avoid appearing negligent and hence avoid being sued, not because they are medically necessary. And yet, everyone expects malpractice lawsuits are what you have to have in the health system.

Oddly enough, some countries have actually replaced them with a much better approach. New Zealand has a "no fault" system, where you don't have to sue doctors at all (in fact, you usually can't). What they have instead is a central agency that pays out compensation claims, and all you need to do is apply for it, and a panel of doctors determines if you were injured as a result of medical treatment. You don't have to prove that the doctor was negligent (even if their treatment was reasonable, but still caused harm, you still get compensation), and the doctor doesn't pay out the compensation directly, the compensation agency does. Anyway, their system is vastly more efficient than the USA's- it takes only a few weeks to get compensation, administrative costs are a tiny fraction of the USA's, and even though more people are entitled to compensation than in the USA, the total costs of the system are much less, and to top it all off, there's no bitter or resentful hearings where both sides have their credibility and integrity called into question. All in all, it's an objectively better system in every way, so you'd think the USA should be using it. But it doesn't, partly because it would require major legislative changes, and healthcare is a politically-sensitive issue, and also because every parasite, sorry, compensation lawyer in the country would be out of a job, so they'd lobby very hard against such a system, even though the current system is vastly inferior.

But that's just how governments and policies work, unfortunately.

It's the same country that believes abstinence is going to solve all their unplanned pregnancy issues.

The government, for the most part, hasn't evolved enough to understand that drugs, like sex, will be around forever and has been around forever. It's better to treat it and ensure people using it are using it as safely as possible (ie: birth control) as it costs far less to do that...than say pay for abortions or law enforcement, trials, jail etc.

It's just archaic thinking. Also, with how many Conservatives there are and lobbyists like gun lobbyists, it's far more profitable keeping the war on drugs than it is to change it to something more effective.

Harm reduction completely and totally denies all of the bloodshed that takes place in the manufacture and distribution of drugs.

Which is why it cannot work as a real solution.

Jobs, a lot of jobs are created by the war on drugs.

Legalize pot 2016 cali

your opinion. mine differs

Not all do.