• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Portugal's drug decriminalization experience

Praktik

Philosopher
Joined
Oct 26, 2007
Messages
5,244
In 2001 Portugal decriminalized all drugs - including cocaine and heroine. Glenn Greenwald's report for the Cato Institute on how the country has fared with this policy has just been released and its worth reading:

http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

Abstract:

On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were "decriminalized," not "legalized." Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense.

While other states in the European Union have developed various forms of de facto decriminalization — whereby substances perceived to be less serious (such as cannabis) rarely lead to criminal prosecution — Portugal remains the only EU member state with a law explicitly declaring drugs to be "decriminalized." Because more than seven years have now elapsed since enactment of Portugal's decriminalization system, there are ample data enabling its effects to be assessed.

Notably, decriminalization has become increasingly popular in Portugal since 2001. Except for some far-right politicians, very few domestic political factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law. And while there is a widespread perception that bureaucratic changes need to be made to Portugal's decriminalization framework to make it more efficient and effective, there is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents — from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for "drug tourists" — has occurred.

The political consensus in favor of decriminalization is unsurprising in light of the relevant empirical data. Those data indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. Although postdecriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens — enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization.

This report will begin with an examination of the Portuguese decriminalization framework as set forth in law and in terms of how it functions in practice. Also examined is the political climate in Portugal both pre- and postdecriminalization with regard to drug policy, and the impetus that led that nation to adopt decriminalization.

Glenn Greenwald is a constitutional lawyer and a contributing writer at Salon. He has authored several books, including A Tragic Legacy (2007) and How Would a Patriot Act? (2006).
The report then assesses Portuguese drug policy in the context of the EU's approach to drugs. The varying legal frameworks, as well as the overall trend toward liberalization, are examined to enable a meaningful comparative assessment between Portuguese data and data from other EU states.

The report also sets forth the data concerning drug-related trends in Portugal both pre- and postdecriminalization. The effects of decriminalization in Portugal are examined both in absolute terms and in comparisons with other states that continue to criminalize drugs, particularly within the EU.

The data show that, judged by virtually every metric, the Portuguese decriminalization framework has been a resounding success. Within this success lie self-evident lessons that should guide drug policy debates around the world.​
 
Thank you for the link Praktik.

I read the summary you posted but I haven't read the article yet.

I was surprised to see Glenn Greewald writing for the CATO institute. I think of him as something of a Democratic partisan type journalist and the CATO institute seems to be of at least a moderately libertarian bent.

Apparently there is something of a philosophical overlap between Greewald and the CATO institute at least on this issue.

Although I have no evidence that the CATO institute's libertarian leanings have colored the analysis, for me at least, the article would have had more credibility if it had been produced by an organization that was not already predisposed to the conclusions they seem to have reached.

The Portuguese experiment does seem like a wonderful opportunity to judge what some of the ramifications of drug decriminalization in the US would be. From my point of view, the US federal government should never have entered into the control of drugs without the specific express permission of the states. The opportunity for the Portuguese experiment is exactly the kind of opportunity for experimentation with social policy that should be allowed in the US. Every year though, the federal government intrudes more into what has historically been under state control. The Supreme Court decision that upheld the right of the federal government to control the use of medicinal marijuana because of the theoretical possibility of interstate transfer of medicinal marijuana almost eliminated any practical standing that the states have to resist federal incursions into their drug policies.
 
Just reading the summary...

It's kinda logical that the "war on drugs" is bent to fail.

How's that "war on dirt" coming?

As long as you can grow grass in your yard, the "drug war" will fail.

Alchohol has many problems, least of which is being legal. ;)
 
So wait, they made drugs legal, but specifically made it impossible for them to tax the sale of drugs? So you have to pay tax when you buy a book, but not when you buy a joint?

Is there some sort of stupid epidemic going on?
 
So wait, they made drugs legal, but specifically made it impossible for them to tax the sale of drugs? So you have to pay tax when you buy a book, but not when you buy a joint?

Is there some sort of stupid epidemic going on?

You didnt read the OP did you?
 
I was surprised to see Glenn Greewald writing for the CATO institute. I think of him as something of a Democratic partisan type journalist and the CATO institute seems to be of at least a moderately libertarian bent.

Ya I think a lot of people have that impression due to his name being bandied about as "shrill" or "hysteric" - mistaking passion for irrationality. Yes, his targets are frequently Republicans and "movement" conservatives but he has spared no ire for Democrats like Daschle or Lieberman and the weak-kneed Democratic caucus of the Bush years.

There is plenty of overlap with him and libertarians due to his strong constitutionalist streak. He's written more than a few times for the American Conservative as well.

I think he's a perfect example of how the left and right need not be at each other's throats - since he embodies a blend of the two himself.
 
I was surprised to see Glenn Greewald writing for the CATO institute.

Not that it has any bearing on the subject of drug decriminalization, but whenever I see mention of Greenwald, I'm always reminded of the sock puppetry incident.

The Supreme Court decision that upheld the right of the federal government to control the use of medicinal marijuana because of the theoretical possibility of interstate transfer of medicinal marijuana almost eliminated any practical standing that the states have to resist federal incursions into their drug policies.

It's worse than that. Given that decision, it's hard to see that there are any limits to the interstate commerce clause.
 
It's worse than that. Given that decision, it's hard to see that there are any limits to the interstate commerce clause.

Well it's been the catch-all rationale for any expansion of federal power for anything even tangential to economics. Hell, they only voted 5-4 against applying it cases of RAPE!

http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/116.html

Some of the times it's had good results, but it's a crappy system.
 
So he's claiming some unnamed person in his household, who shares similar writing style to his own, used sock puppets to defend him but he didn't do it himself. Not terribly convincing, I'm afraid.

So then he's outright lying? Interesting...

Anyway this is all a distraction from the OP so let's leave it at that - you've posted your distraction and I've posted GG's response.
 
Only read the abstract thus far, but I'd say this is encouraging. I sincerely hope that these are the types of things that Obama will prove open to considering in attempting to take the US "outside of the box" on some topics.
 
I really don't think it's up to Obama, unless you mean symbolically.

The marijuana laws are mostly state policies, as I understand.
 
I really don't think it's up to Obama, unless you mean symbolically.

The marijuana laws are mostly state policies, as I understand.


You (I think) are at least partly right. Obama certainly couldn't single-handedly make drugs legal. He could "take point" on reviewing actual data that pertains to decriminalization and/or legalization en route to taking a position on the matter, however.

Traditionally, the prevailing approach to the topic of drugs seems to be fear mongering, unsupported speculation about "slippery-slopes" and such, and pandering to ignorance, IMO.

Marijuana laws are primarily state issues but the federal ranks, as noted by somene else already, have a role in the issue as well.
 
You (I think) are at least partly right. Obama certainly couldn't single-handedly make drugs legal. He could "take point" on reviewing actual data that pertains to decriminalization and/or legalization en route to taking a position on the matter, however.

Traditionally, the prevailing approach to the topic of drugs seems to be fear mongering, unsupported speculation about "slippery-slopes" and such, and pandering to ignorance, IMO.

Marijuana laws are primarily state issues but the federal ranks, as noted by somene else already, have a role in the issue as well.

I think that is true of the arguments made by both sides.

The let's-make-drugs-legal side pretty much just focuses on all the problems with laws that restrict recreational drug use and doesn't attempt to balance those problems against the problems that might occur with drug legalization.

The let's-put-the-druggies-in-jail side just goes nuts over how terrible drug use is and how it ruins people's lives without considering the tremendous problems that illegalization of recreational drug use has caused.

Not surprisingly both sides think the other side are nuts and the situation remains largely the same. In a world populated with people more open to the possibility that long held views could be wrong, something like the Portuguese experience would be viewed as a wonderful opportunity to evaluate different approaches to the drug problem in the US. In the actual world we live in, it will be completely ignored by the powers that be because drug policy is such a political hot button that any politician that even considered alternative ideas would be destroyed politically.

Interestingly, people in California are quite a bit less enthused about the drug war than the feds or their political representatives are. Californians have voted to allow medical marijuana and more significantly Californians voted to eliminate jail time for people convicted the first time of personal drug use. The results seem to have been very positive in California. Jail populations were reduced substantially and as a consequence people in California spent a lot less money keeping people in jail. Of course the California government spent a whole lot of money that they didn't have on other stuff so California is still broke.
 
All good points…I would simply like to see an honest fact-based dialog on the topic begin in the USA. And, unfortunately, I agree that it's not likely to take place, let alone start, with any politician. One can hope.
 
And its interesting that most references in this thread so far are for pot - and talking about how politically risky it is for a politician to consider decriminalization.

The Portugese decriminalized all drugs - including cocaine and heroine.

Its nearly unthinkable, and un-utterable in mainstream American discourse to consider that.

If its this tough for weed - what tectonic shifts are required for such a policy to be extended to all drugs?

In my mind it will take many more Portugals - and a gradual realization that new approaches in other countries are producing better results.

It will take a combination of the dying out of the old guard, a few states with the gumption to try it - and an administration that if not supportive, at least allows the attempt.

Thats going to take a while.

EDIT: Didnt Mexico start a similar policy recently? I suppose the gang violence is overshadowing the story of how that policy is affecting the day-to-day.
 
Last edited:
You didnt read the OP did you?

I think what he's saying is that with decriminalization you don't get to tax and regulate the supply of drugs as well as take it out of the hand of gangsters.

But apparently there are some benefits anyway. And it could be a halfway house on the way to legalization.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom