TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- 5 years of drug decriminalisation in Portugal
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

5 years of drug decriminalisation in Portugal

i dont normally do the drugs debate thing but i thought this was interesting.

quote:

Pop quiz: Which European country has the most liberal drug laws? (Hint: It's not the Netherlands.) Although its capital is notorious among stoners and college kids for marijuana haze�filled "coffee shops," Holland has never actually legalized cannabis � the Dutch simply don't enforce their laws against the shops. The correct answer is Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine. At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy. The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is more expensive than treatment � so why not give drug addicts health services instead? Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail. The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise. The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled. "Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does." Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana. The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well. Portugal's case study is of some interest to lawmakers in the U.S., confronted now with the violent overflow of escalating drug gang wars in Mexico. The U.S. has long championed a hard-line drug policy, supporting only international agreements that enforce drug prohibition and imposing on its citizens some of the world's harshest penalties for drug possession and sales. Yet America has the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world, and while most of the E.U. (including Holland) has more liberal drug laws than the U.S., it also has less drug use. "I think we can learn that we should stop being reflexively opposed when someone else does [decriminalize] and should take seriously the possibility that anti-user enforcement isn't having much influence on our drug consumption," says Mark Kleiman, author of the forthcoming When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment and director of the drug policy analysis program at UCLA. Kleiman does not consider Portugal a realistic model for the U.S., however, because of differences in size and culture between the two countries. But there is a movement afoot in the U.S., in the legislatures of New York State, California and Massachusetts, to reconsider our overly punitive drug laws. Recently, Senators Jim Webb and Arlen Specter proposed that Congress create a national commission, not unlike Portugal's, to deal with prison reform and overhaul drug-sentencing policy. As Webb noted, the U.S. is home to 5% of the global population but 25% of its prisoners. At the Cato Institute in early April, Greenwald contended that a major problem with most American drug policy debate is that it's based on "speculation and fear mongering," rather than empirical evidence on the effects of more lenient drug policies. In Portugal, the effect was to neutralize what had become the country's number one public health problem, he says. "The impact in the life of families and our society is much lower than it was before decriminalization," says Joao Castel-Branco Goulao, Portugual's "drug czar" and president of the Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction, adding that police are now able to re-focus on tracking much higher level dealers and larger quantities of drugs. Peter Reuter, a professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Maryland, like Kleiman, is skeptical. He conceded in a presentation at the Cato Institute that "it's fair to say that decriminalization in Portugal has met its central goal. Drug use did not rise." However, he notes that Portugal is a small country and that the cyclical nature of drug epidemics � which tends to occur no matter what policies are in place � may account for the declines in heroin use and deaths. The Cato report's author, Greenwald, hews to the first point: that the data shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since that is what concerns the public and policymakers most about decriminalization, he says, "that is the central concession that will transform the debate."

http://www.time.com/time/health/art...1893946,00.html

Pretty obvious what the outcome of this would be. Maybe one day this country will wake the fuck up and realize it...

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Pretty obvious what the outcome of this would be. Maybe one day this country will wake the fuck up and realize it...

haha yeah, but its nice to have a case study isnt it?

quote:

while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled - 14,877 from 6,040

and that will only get worse...and it's un-arguably the worst and most fundamental metric to measure against whether complete de-criminalization can be called a "success". only an idiot would see that as a positive.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo and that will only get worse...and it's un-arguably the worst and most fundamental metric to measure against whether complete de-criminalization can be called a "success". only an idiot would see that as a positive.

not if it is combined with the fact that there is less drug use generally. there is reason enough to infer that people have gone from using to seeking treatment, rather than starting out for the first time, getting addicted and having to seek treatment because drugs are now legal.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN not if it is combined with the fact that there is less drug use generally. there is reason enough to infer that people have gone from using to seeking treatment, rather than starting out for the first time, getting addicted and having to seek treatment because drugs are now legal.

ok, but i only see numbers reflecting a decline, albeit slight, in 13-15 yr olds and 16-18 yr. olds. the 60% increase in total addicts is among all ages.

i can give you similar numbers among grade schoolers here in America and we've done squat to de-criminalize anything

that article isn't telling the whole story

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo and that will only get worse...and it's un-arguably the worst and most fundamental metric to measure against whether complete de-criminalization can be called a "success". only an idiot would see that as a positive.

It actually makes sense to me - if drugs are legal, there's no stigma attached to going to rehab for something illicit. Rehab becomes like an AA meeting - more or less mainstream. I imagine that more people that might need help would seek it out in such an environment.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov It actually makes sense to me - if drugs are legal, there's no stigma attached to going to rehab for something illicit. Rehab becomes like an AA meeting - more or less mainstream. I imagine that more people that might need help would seek it out in such an environment.

You really think the only thing preventing addicts from going to rehab is the stigma of actually going?

That's a rhetorical question btw. Of course you don't think it's the only reason. That would be stupid. But do you think it would have that much of an effect to the upside?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo You really think the only thing preventing addicts from going to rehab is the stigma of actually going? That's a rhetorical question btw. Of course you don't think it's the only reason. That would be stupid. But do you think it would have that much of an effect to the upside?

Of course not - that's why 6040 people went to rehab even before legalization.

The penal classification of drug use does nothing to prevent drug use in the US, in my opinion, for a few reasons:

1) users view drug use as a victimless crime (which I agree with);
2) to a certain extent, drug use is cultural (people in the US are inundated with marketing that tells people that chemicals can solve all their problems);
3) drug prevention is related more to education than enforcement of draconian laws; and most importantly
4) using drugs is plain-old fun.


The issue of decriminalization is more important for budgetary (keeping people out of jail) reasons and issues of personal liberties.

I've heard about this. Well, the way I look at it - people had their chance. A country gave a chance to people to realize their free choices for drugs and responsibility. Unfortunately, or fortunately (I think), we realize that the human nature of things is very predictable, and there are few individuals out there who will use this law appropriately. Eventually, the law will end, because it is failing - because people don't understand the opportunity to prove that they can use drugs appropriately if given freedom to do so.

We need to develop a conservative plan to deal with drugs, scrap the Drug War (which is failing) at the same time. I alwaws thought that setting up a separate system for people associated with drugs would be appropriate. We shouldn't be treating murderers (real criminals) the same way we deal with those associated with drugs.

There should be some provision with marijuana though ... its pretty harmless, but we cant give it free reign either.

I thought the answer to the pop quiz question was Denmark??

maybe thats regarding cannabis specifically.


I also don't like to expend to much energy on this debate, its a "get with the fucking program already" type deal for me. The evidence for legalization having positive externalities is overwhelming. what are people clinging on to, the war on drugs, prohibition?

I think if any realistic results are going to be achieved, alcohol and tobacco should be put on the same playing field as illicit drugs. By putting everything together in a package and giving the public an ultimatum, I wonder what the results of that referendum would be(to make everything illegal/legal).

If the government legalized and started farming marijuana, then released it with a tax that brought the price up to near black market levels, they would make a shit ton of money. The stuff must only cost $5/oz to make, yet they could sell it for 20X that amount. Combine the tax with the huge savings from not incarcerating users and dealers, and our budget deficit would be history. The cost would still be too prohibitive for children and most adults to use very often so complaints should be minimal. It would still be a casual indulgence for most..and like magneton says, it is pretty damn harmless especially when you compare it with the most widely used legal drug, alcohol.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo ok, but i only see numbers reflecting a decline, albeit slight, in 13-15 yr olds and 16-18 yr. olds. the 60% increase in total addicts is among all ages. i can give you similar numbers among grade schoolers here in America and we've done squat to de-criminalize anything that article isn't telling the whole story

I think that money saved from prosecuting people for possession and then holding them in a box for several years would be far better spent not only providing "free" substance rehabilitation programs [as per the article] but also completely reforming the D.A.R.E. program or something to the effect. The massive cultural stigma on substance abuse isn't completely unwarranted, but it also has the annoying factor of casting illusions and half-truths about drugs, not to mention unnecessary fears. Yes, it's completely realistic to consider that some substances are truly harmful to people and I am also leery about fully decriminalising things like meth and heroin, but a thorough, nationally-supported drug education program for all levels of school would do a lot of good if implemented right (yeah, I know...). People should know the ins and outs of what they are putting in their bodies, what to expect, what's a fucking myth, and most importantly, what sorts of devastating harm certain chemicals can rack upon your body if used/abused.

What's NOT ok - and hasn't been for quite some time - is having a fucking COP, of all people, come into your 5th grade class once a week to tell you all sorts of tales about the dangers of teenage marijuana use (and that's all). Fuck. People, as a whole, are not "mature", but you cannot expect an iota of maturity from a populace you systematically mislead and then punish.

quote:

Originally posted by secked I think that money saved from prosecuting people for possession and then holding them in a box for several years would be far better spent not only providing "free" substance rehabilitation programs [as per the article] but also completely reforming the D.A.R.E. program or something to the effect. The massive cultural stigma on substance abuse isn't completely unwarranted, but it also has the annoying factor of casting illusions and half-truths about drugs, not to mention unnecessary fears. Yes, it's completely realistic to consider that some substances are truly harmful to people and I am also leery about fully decriminalising things like meth and heroin, but a thorough, nationally-supported drug education program for all levels of school would do a lot of good if implemented right (yeah, I know...). People should know the ins and outs of what they are putting in their bodies, what to expect, what's a fucking myth, and most importantly, what sorts of devastating harm certain chemicals can rack upon your body if used/abused.

first off, i'm all for dramatic de-criminalization of weed at all levels of government but that quickly becomes a federalist issue and i'm not going to waste my energy here making that case.

that said, everyone here keeps focusing on the econonomic outcomes of prosecuting or not prosecuting a "war on drugs", and thats great and all, but no one wants to address the human impact of de-criminalizing narcotics. ignore it at your peril, i say.

Seeking treatment for drug addiction is a very positive thing.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Seeking treatment for drug addiction is a very positive thing.

i totally agree...for the individual. but we're not talking about the individual.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo first off, i'm all for dramatic de-criminalization of weed at all levels of government but that quickly becomes a federalist issue and i'm not going to waste my energy here making that case. that said, everyone here keeps focusing on the econonomic outcomes of prosecuting or not prosecuting a "war on drugs", and thats great and all, but no one wants to address the human impact of de-criminalizing narcotics. ignore it at your peril, i say.

Your fear is nearly palpable.

quote:

Originally posted by secked Your fear is nearly palpable.

your insight is nearly relevant

Ah yes, fear is only relevant when other people react with it.

quote:

Originally posted by secked Ah yes, fear is only relevant when other people react with it.

listen Jim Cunningham, don't you have a kiddie porn dungeon to rebuild or something?

Yea, but I have at least 2 decades before the comet gets here.

It's ok to cry, cue-five. I just wanted you to know that.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo that said, everyone here keeps focusing on the econonomic outcomes of prosecuting or not prosecuting a "war on drugs", and thats great and all, but no one wants to address the human impact of de-criminalizing narcotics. ignore it at your peril, i say.

Thousands of people who are labeled as 'criminals' will instead be able to remain free to do as they damn well please, while happily killing themselves with harmful drugs, but not bothering anyone else?

When I last checked, it wasn't a crime to destroy yourself. You got thousands if not millions of them doing just that with alcohol, cigarettes, and prescription drugs. I find it hypocritical that the government can say, "Well these drugs are okay to take (Vicodin, Adderall, Oxycontin), but you can't do these ones, that's for your own safety!"

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Thousands of people who are labeled as 'criminals' will instead be able to remain free to do as they damn well please, while happily killing themselves with harmful drugs, but not bothering anyone else?

you're under the false impression that becoming and being an addict doesn't put anyone else under unnecessary burdens.

maybe you've never been around addicts, maybe you have and just never paid it much attention but the fact remains - the burden of addiction will always become someone else's problem regardless of law.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.