Which parts of GP aren't clearly true? That those countries are smaller, more homogenous, have much more history and common ancestry and culture and community than the US, which is often literally called the "melting pot" [of immigrants from varied backgrounds]?
Not referring to that (which is true), but referring to the next idea that being a melting pot precludes social intervention strategies that treat addiction as a mental health problem instead of a crime, implied by “There is very little of use that can be gained from comparing Scandinavian countries to the US”
That I’m not sure is true, in fact I’m pretty sure it’s false.
Edit: I mean, further up the chain we are saying this method is partly inspired by studying rats! Because Scandinavia has a more homogenous culture we’re too different to learn anything? But Scandinavia can learn from rats?
What's not true is his synecdoche. He says they are more X, Y and Z, but then he slides eloquently to assume that they always were and that the degree of difference always was significant.
