Decriminalizing Drugs In Portugal
It shows positive results, according to a SciAm story by Brian Vastag:
In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem--it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.
"Now instead of being put into prison, addicts are going to treatment centers and they're learning how to control their drug usage or getting off drugs entirely," report author Glenn Greenwald, a former New York State constitutional litigator, said during a press briefing at Cato last week.
Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts--defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use--are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission," an administrative body created by the 2001 law.
Each three-person commission includes at least one lawyer or judge and one health care or social services worker. The panel has the option of recommending treatment, a small fine, or no sanction.
Peter Reuter, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, College Park, says he's skeptical decriminalization was the sole reason drug use slid in Portugal, noting that another factor, especially among teens, was a global decline in marijuana use. By the same token, he notes that critics were wrong in their warnings that decriminalizing drugs would make Lisbon a drug mecca.
"Drug decriminalization did reach its primary goal in Portugal," of reducing the health consequences of drug use, he says, "and did not lead to Lisbon becoming a drug tourist destination."
What is decriminalization (versus legalization)?
Drug legalization removes all criminal penalties for producing, selling and using drugs; no country has tried it. In contrast, decriminalization, as practiced in Portugal, eliminates jail time for drug users but maintains criminal penalties for dealers.
Decriminalization is a start, and I'm glad it's had some success in Portugal, but since it leaves criminal organizations intact it is inferior to legalization. We'd be better off if people bought their heroin or cocaine from an organization that competes with dollars (like your local pharmacy) instead of one that competes with violence (like the mob).
Pseudonym at April 8, 2009 9:37 AM
Hear hear, Pseudonym.
I'm originally from British Columbia, a place that's infamous as a source of high-grade marijuana. It has occurred to me that if we were to legalize it, then the massive profits would start going to law-abiding growers and retailers, instead of to criminals.
I think that legalization of marijuana would really put the squeeze on organized crime by depriving them of the revenue from their most important cash crop. In the short term, I would expect a rise in gang violence as the different gangs fight over a much reduced drug market. But in the long term, keeping money out of the hands of gangsters would make it a less appealing career choice.
Tyler at April 8, 2009 9:59 AM
a 10-day supply is legal? How does one define that? Seems a lot of low-level dealers could get by on that one.
I don't really care to throw people who use in jail-except they are almost certainly commiting crime to get the drugs. Addicts have trouble holding down a job that will pay their housing, bills, and drug habit. Nor do I want my tax dollars paying to get them off drugs-or learning to "manage their use" whatever that means. I say let them be homeless, starve, and OD, personally.
momof3 at April 8, 2009 10:26 AM
Nor do I want my tax dollars paying to get them off drugs-or learning to "manage their use" whatever that means.
----------------------------------
Marijuana Called Top U.S. Cash Crop
The study estimates that marijuana production, at a value of $35.8 billion, exceeds the combined value of corn ($23.3 billion) and wheat ($7.5 billion).
If you legalized and taxed pot -- say a $1 per pre-roled joint. Production cost would be in the <$0.25 per. Give the manufacturer $0.25 each. That's $0.50 that the government gets. figure even half of that number is right -- You could funnel $17.9 billion into drug rehab.
That frees up the DEA, the FBI, a lot of local and state police units. Rehab could be at will for a minimal cost (for multiple substances), and the same laws that apply for Operating under the Influence still apply.
California essentially decriminalized pot. It hasn't gotten substantially worse.
Jim P. at April 8, 2009 12:04 PM
17 words written by Amy, 400 quoted. Nice link!
wordcount at April 8, 2009 12:11 PM
Taking the time to figure out the word count - whether in MS Word or otherwise - in someone else's blog reeks of having no life.
Jessica Kunkel at April 8, 2009 12:33 PM
Pseudonym nailed it. Absent legalization, we still have the crime and violence that goes with the drug trade. We still have the no-knock raids, the corruption of our police and judiciary, and much of the really expensive incarceration of dealers.
Yes, legalization is bad. It's just the best of our bad options.
MarkD at April 8, 2009 12:41 PM
Good point Jessica! Likewise, commenting about someone commenting about word count smells about the same. Hi pot, I'm kettle!
wordcount at April 8, 2009 1:06 PM
What's your point, wordcount? Your trolling will work better if you come right out with it.
cheezburg at April 8, 2009 3:39 PM
Anyone remember Bloom County by Berke Breathed? There was a strip where a Senator was out schmoozing a farmer and complimenting him on his bountiful corn crop. Farmer replies, "T'ain't corn, it's dope.", then offers to send some home with the Senator. I can't find it online anywhere.
Man, I miss that strip. Ooop Ack!!!
Juliana at April 8, 2009 7:49 PM
Hey, just remember to get your definitions straight. It's a short step from "decriminalization" to consumers wanting product protections they can find behind supermarket items today.
"Legalization" means regulation - and quite a burden on small-town law enforcement and critical industries, who will have a testing burden thrown on them that doesn't exist today.
Radwaste at April 9, 2009 5:15 AM
"Legalization" means regulation - and quite a burden on small-town law enforcement and critical industries, who will have a testing burden thrown on them that doesn't exist today.
What additional regulation? Look at U.S. State and U.S. Territory Drug-Testing Laws that are already on the books.
And ask a typical teenager which is easier to get, pot or beer? I can guess the answer.
Jim P. at April 9, 2009 6:43 AM
My home state would have zero economic problems right now if pot were legalized. Just think, pot could be the new tobacco! Tax it!!! :D
I say this as a non-fan of the stuff, by the way, and I still think legalization would be beneficial.
Melissa G at April 9, 2009 7:33 AM
Making a product illegal is a poor solution to the problem of excessive product regulations.
Aside from racism and political corruption, drugs are illegal because people are too willing to force their own morals onto others. Not only can we not force somebody to be good, we can't even agree what "good" is.
Pseudonym at April 9, 2009 7:42 AM
This is some interesting info coming from Portugal, since the history of decriminalization in northern Europe (aka Holland) has been mixed at best. I wonder what Portugal is doing different, or if a different culture explains the outcomes.
My goal for a drug decriminalization/ legalization/ whatever program is to eliminate drug-related criminal activity, and eliminate (or at least reduce) both the monetary cost of drug law enforcement, and the human cost. I'm not deaf to the moral arguments, but I'm at the point where I'm willing to put that aside, considering that we've now tried both enforcement concentrating on the dealers (in the 1980s mostly) and enforcement concentrating on the users. Neither has solved the problem, and both have had some very undesirable side effects. I'm with pseudonym in that you probably have to go to full legalization, at least for the more commonly used and less deadly drugs, so that legitimate corporations can shove the criminal enterprises out of the market. And with legalization comes a drastic reduction in the cost of the drugs, so that it becomes less necessary for users to steal or rob to support their habit.
On the other hand, the cynical side of me says that there is no better way to wipe out drug use then to legalize it, and then bring the full weight of the regulatory elephant down on it...
Cousin Dave at April 9, 2009 8:22 AM
Technically, she wrote 22 words, if you include April. 22 Words and 5 letters. What's your fucking point?
kg at April 9, 2009 9:50 AM
5 numbers, that is?
Again...what's your fucking point?
kg at April 9, 2009 9:51 AM
"Legalization" means regulation - and quite a burden on small-town law enforcement and critical industries, who will have a testing burden thrown on them that doesn't exist today."
Law enforcement isn't responsible for enforcing regulations related to other agricultural goods or commodities, why should legalized marijuana be any different?
Criminalization has done little good and a great deal bad. I say legalize the stuff. Cut the criminal element off from it's most important revenue source and give the cops a chance to focus on stuff that matters.
But then, I could never figure out why it was illegal in the first place...
scott at April 9, 2009 2:29 PM
"What additional regulation?"
Friend, the ones that must follow decriminalization and legalization.
For instance, the law that prevents the possession of cocaine everywhere would have to be re-written such that the possession of cocaine would be legal except... {add list of facilities here}. The list would have things like nuclear plants, airports, chemical handling facilities, etc.
If you want a quick, but nasty view of what happens when a legal object is legislated locally, just look at your gun laws. Everybody but the thug has to obey them.
It's plus-ridiculous to think that a change in the law would be a simple thing.
Radwaste at April 9, 2009 2:35 PM
If you want a quick, but nasty view of what happens when a legal object is legislated locally, just look at your gun laws.
Another example is the legalization of pot in California. The Fed is still doing raids, but CA isn't. And looking at your example of guns -- the Fed says these guns are legal, those are restricted, and the last set is illegal. Then every state has their legislation on guns, then most cities/local gov't decides if they will use the fed/state or come up with their own local laws. Some do (NYC, D.C., Chicago, etc.) and some don't bother.
It still boils down to that we can either continue to piss $19 billion per year down the rat hole of failed prohibition, or spend, probably combined among government agencies, about $1 billion or less a couple of time to legislate it.
It will probably also significantly change the population of our prisons. If you can get a drug legally, at a set price, with little hassle -- begging on the street becomes a lot more reasonable than breaking into houses, cars, etc to get the price of the next fix.
It also takes the money out of criminal cartels and puts it the hands of taxpaying companies/citizens.
Where is the freaking downside?
Jim P. at April 9, 2009 3:14 PM
Jim P. - downside?
Well, name the substance. There are drugs out there that people use that have serious short-term effects; some have long-term, and some might have heritable effects. Which ones do you pick? If your reasoning is correct about the availability of legal pot lessening the number of drug raids and fatalities, shouldn't it also be true for cocaine, heroin and PCP?
Let's say you're the Shift Supervisor at Diablo Canyon, and you're giving your shift the eyeball before they take over running the plant. Can you tell who's under the influence? You make a decision, and send the guy to the lab for behaving strangely, starting an inquiry of both of you regarding fitness for duty. The lab finds something. What's the legal limit for this substance?
-----
But you want to know two of the immensely ironic mind-boggling ideas I see on this issue?
One is when alcohol is made to be the example of how to do this. That's ~18 thousand deaths a year just in traffic, and that's a success?
The second idea is that drug users will be responsible members of society if they can get legalized drugs when they go to great lengths to break laws to get them today. Wait. What?
-----
Since when has cocaine encouraged people to keep their money, health and family? Since when is pot "safer" to smoke than tobacco?
Radwaste at April 9, 2009 3:55 PM
Rad -
I asked a pothead that question. What makes pot better than tobacco?
The answer was basically "Shut up, that's what".
I've found that the legalization crowd believes that it is (1) acceptable to have vagrants begging on the street so they can buy their newly affordable drugs, and (2) people will self-medicate responsibly to not be a burden on society. What they are really saying is "I want to get high, and I don't care what you think, or who I burden."
My response is always the same. If you cause someone to be injured or dead on account of your drug use, you either spend eternity in a room with striped sunlight, or you get one last needle.
brian at April 9, 2009 6:45 PM
Here's news, today which should illustrate the problem.
Do you want uninspected, unapproved drugs to be freely available?
Of course you do. You just want to get high.
Being the type that finds the real world endlessly fascinating, I can only call that selfish, whatever the supposed benefits are.
Given the lamentable attitude of the public regarding responsibility and litigation, I can say with some confidence that the first instance of personal injury under the influence of a newly legalized drug will result in a lawsuit against the company which made it - for doing what it was designed to do. People still have problems with the concept that bullets come out of guns, despite their having done so for over 400 years.
Please be aware that I stand against some truly ridiculous laws and regulations, but they are not exactly the same issue.
Radwaste at April 10, 2009 3:48 AM
The side that says all illegal should remain illegal can never explain why the Twenty-first Amendment exists.
Prohibition doesn't work.
So you have some guy caught with four ounces of weed going to jail for multiple years. You have a quarter of your police looking to kick in the door of the guilty and raiding grandma's house. You have a sheriff in Arizona with storm troopers burning down a house and killing the families puppy. For what, supposedly having a gun and some drugs?
That is a real effective use of resources.
Jim P. at April 10, 2009 5:49 AM
But then, I could never figure out why it was illegal in the first place...
Because it makes white women want to have sex with black men, according to congressional testimony from companies with competing products.
Since when has cocaine encouraged people to keep their money, health and family?
Since when is it OK to threaten me with state-sanctioned violence if I don't do a good job of managing my money, health and family? It's my money, my health and my family, thankyouverymuch.
For the record, if drug legalization occurred I would buy Claritin D in bulk to save money. Allergy season is coming and that stuff clears me right up.
My response is always the same. If you cause someone to be injured or dead on account of your drug use, you either spend eternity in a room with striped sunlight, or you get one last needle.
I'm fine with that. People have an inherent human right to do stupid things to themselves, but once they do stupid things to someone else it's time to deploy some of those law enforcement resources freed up by legalization.
Here's news, today which should illustrate the problem. Do you want uninspected, unapproved drugs to be freely available? Of course you do. You just want to get high. Being the type that finds the real world endlessly fascinating, I can only call that selfish, whatever the supposed benefits are.
I want freedom to make bad choices, and when I'm someday terminally ill I hope the government won't try to deprive me of painkillers. If wanting all of society to be better off because that will also make me better off is "selfish" then so be it.
Statements like "Last month, the FDA sent warning letters to nine companies telling them to stop manufacturing 14 unapproved narcotics that are widely used to treat pain" bother me tremendously. Government should at least attempt to minimize the number of lives it ruins.
Pseudonym at April 10, 2009 10:23 AM
> addicts are going to treatment centers and
> they're learning how to control their drug
> usage or getting off drugs entirely,"
> report author Glenn Greenwald, a former
> New York State constitutional litigator,
> said
I don't believe it; don't believe it. Don't believe it, nope, hmmp-emmm, nopers: Ain't happnin', not for real, cain't be so.
Naw
crid at April 10, 2009 11:47 AM
"Since when is it OK to threaten me with state-sanctioned violence if I don't do a good job of managing my money, health and family?"
Nuh-uh, straw man. The "state-sponsored violence" is a reaction, not the cause. Do tell how many dealers you know walk around unarmed.
They arm themselves because you, the consumer, break the law regularly enough to bring lots of cash. Thank you.
Radwaste at April 10, 2009 7:29 PM
We must be misunderstanding each other. In the first quote, you seemed to be saying that since cocaine doesn't encourage people to take care of their money, health and family, it should be criminalized. Is that not what you meant?
Law enforcement is state-sponsored violence: if I break a law I risk the state sending men with guns to arrest and incarcerate me. To criminalize something is to threaten state-sanctioned violence.
It's not OK to criminalize something just because it's irresponsible.
Pseudonym at April 11, 2009 2:56 PM
"It's not OK to criminalize something just because it's irresponsible."
Wow, this is interesting. What substance are you abusing today?
You have the cart before the horse.
Crime itself is the performance of an action prohibited by a statute. These statutes are called "laws" and are widely published.
Just what about breaking a law is "responsible"?
The laws against cocaine possession were passed because of yet more irresponsible behavior, undertaken to get money for more cocaine, and sad experience has shown us all that people will even kill police to avoid having their supply of cocaine stopped.
If you think there should be no consequences for blowing your family and career away in white powder, that might be wrong, too, but that's not all that happens.
Hmm. Kill this person or stop using cocaine? What's the responsible thing to do?
Hint: killing is worse. In that case, one should stop the coke.
By the way, state-sponsored violence won't happen if you go willingly.
Radwaste at April 12, 2009 6:20 AM
Leave a comment