Your black and white thinking does not reflect the truth. I personally know dozens of people who have turned their lives around as a result of drug court. True, the success rate isn't very high, which is the direct result of the variability of whether each individual possesses the tiny bit of willingness to change, which is essential to the recovery process.
> True, the success rate isn't very high, which is the direct result of the variability of whether each individual possesses the tiny bit of willingness to change, which is essential to the recovery process.
"If our process hasn't worked for you, you didn't want it to work enough" is unfalsifiable and can be used to defend any sort of quackery. Indeed, there's no way to generate a counterexample -- of someone who had "willingness to change" but for whom the drug court didn't work -- because the defender of the drug court can always claim that they "didn't want to change enough".
Pseudoscience of this sort has no role in anything as fraught and complex as drug use/addiction.
> "If our process hasn't worked for you, you didn't want it to work enough" is unfalsifiable and can be used to defend any sort of quackery.
Notably, it is routinely used to defend 12-step programs. The standard set of slogans includes the phrase "it works if you work it" (which I've more recently seen applied to cognitive-behavioral therapy).
Sure, some folks get clean using a variety of methods, many with little research. So what? If the success rate isn't very high, it probably isn't the best program.
We could research this stuff and then listen to the research. Use the methods with the best general outcome for the patient, based on medical proceedings. And perhaps use these things with iffy outcomes - AA, for example - as add-ons or options for patients to choose from, with a medical doctor's blessing.
