That's kind of a bad analogy, given that Russia only ever got half way through the communist process. Also, would the Netherlands count? There are restrictions on where you can use drugs, but they might actually be less strict than those governing cigarette smoking in California
I guess it counts if compared to your analogy.
Well, I was being kind of glib, but I might as well blabber on.
The Netherlands came to mind, but I think they don't count for several reasons: Some drugs were still illegal there and use was restricted to very defined areas. Also, the Netherlands is one of the more populous small countries, but it's still a smaller country.
But actually, to my mind, the most damning thing is that the Netherlands is a wealthy, often permissive country. They have had some trouble with drugs like any western nation, but nothing like the endemic issues faced in the US, Mexico, (to a degree) Canada, Britain or other places deep in a 'war on drugs' mentality. Any real experiment would need to be applied in those countries.
Will wider availaility over time lead to a decrease or increase in consumption? An increase or decrease in crime? Will decriminilization of consumption across the board allow for better treatement programs or will it just make things worse? I think that for any experiment to be useful, it will need to be much wider-ranging (for all or almost all drugs), in a larger country, and in one that already has a drug problem.
Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post. Hm, that's certainly relevant. One thing that should not under any circumstances be overlooked is the increase in treatment as money was shifted away from enforcement and prosecution and over to recovery.
It's such a horrible cliche, but I honestly wonder just how much of the allure of drugs has to do with its forbidden nature.