The headline says: “Portugal’s drug policy pays off; US eyes lessons.” Of course it should probably say, “US ignores lessons.”
I like pseudo neutral editor’s note: “This is part of an occasional series by The Associated Press examining the U.S. struggles in its war on drugs after four decades and $1 trillion.”
The story is here. I haven’t read it yet, but I suspect it’s good.
[Thanks to Sgt. T.]
From the UK’s Observer (sister paper of The Guardian).
One.
Two.
And three articles about the war on drugs, or lack thereof, in Portugal.
Excerpts:
Drugs have not only been decriminalised for almost a decade, but users are treated as though they have a health and social problem.
…
Nor has it seen its addict population markedly increase. Rather it has stabilised in a nation that, along with the UK and Luxembourg, once had the worst heroin problem in Europe.
…
The approach to Portugal, which has seen a fall in levels of petty crime associated with addicts stealing to buy drugs, as well as a drop by a third in the number of HIV diagnoses among intravenous drug users, is significant. Despite decriminalisation, it levies more fines than the UK and drug use has not increased.
…
These days, addicts account for only 20% of those who are HIV infected, while the number of new HIV diagnoses of addicts has fallen to fewer than 2,000 a year.
…
The Portuguese experience again shows that there is no necessary link between the severity of sanctions and rates of drug use.
…
“You have to remember,” he says, “that the substances are still illegal; it is the consequences that are different.” And for those arrested in possession of drugs for personal use, that means not a court appearance but an invitation to attend a “dissuasion board” that can request – but not insist upon – attendance
…
A sociologist by training, Capaz is a vice-president on the board. He believes that far from Portugal becoming more lenient, the reality is that the state intervenes far more than it did before Law 30 and the other associated legislation was introduced. Before, he explains, police would often not pursue drug users they had arrested, interested only in the dealers. “People outside Portugal believe we had a tougher approach under the old law, but in reality it is far tougher now.”
…
As fewer people were arrested for drug offences, the prison population fell. So did drug use and HIV among prisoners.
…
Politicians usually only suggest decriminalisation when they are either on the verge of retirement or at the fringes of power.
The generally conservative and pro-legalization Economist reports:
The evidence from Portugal since 2001 is that decriminalisation of drug use and possession has benefits and no harmful side-effects.
…
IN 2001 newspapers around the world carried graphic reports of addicts injecting heroin in the grimy streets of a Lisbon slum. The place was dubbed Europe’s “most shameful neighbourhood” and its “worst drugs ghetto”. The Times helpfully managed to find a young British backpacker sprawled comatose on a corner. This lurid coverage was prompted by a government decision to decriminalise the personal use and possession of all drugs, including heroin and cocaine. The police were told not to arrest anyone found taking any kind of drug.
…
The share of heroin users who inject the drug has also fallen, from 45% before decriminalisation to 17% now, he says, because the new law has facilitated treatment and harm-reduction programmes. Drug addicts now account for only 20% of Portugal’s HIV cases, down from 56% before. “We no longer have to work under the paradox that exists in many countries of providing support and medical care to people the law considers criminals.”“Proving a causal link between Portugal’s decriminalisation measures and any changes in drug-use patterns is virtually impossible in scientific terms,” concludes Mr Hughes. “But anyone looking at the statistics can see that drug consumption in 2001 was relatively low in European terms, and that it remains so. The apocalypse hasn’t happened.”
Read the whole article here.
If you have an hour-plus to spare, listen to Glenn Greenwald talk about Portugal’s experience with drug decriminalization since 2001. Here’s a link to the video and also a downloadable audio podcast.
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.
That’s from an article in Time. And here’s Greenwald writing in Salon.
First the facts: drug use has declined. Repeat: decriminalization does not increase drug use.
Greenwald addresses this and other points. For instance, the myth of American exceptionalism. This is tendency of some to discount any foreign case study simply because it’s not here. “The U.S. isn’t like the Netherlands.” “The U.S. isn’t like Portugal.” OK… But this argument looks pretty feeble as more and more countries try decriminalization successfully. The onus should now be on the naysayers to explain just exactly what differences in these countries make their experiences so inapplicable to us here in the U.S.
Greenwald also addresses the logical difficulty many have in comprehending how decriminalization could possibly mean less drug use. Even though the facts consistently indicate that liberal drug policies reduce drug use, people just don’t believe it. So Greenwalk talks about why. Only with decriminalization can the government and even health-care workers effectively reach drug users. Only with ending the war on drugs does the government have the money to offer treatment and educate the public.
So why decriminalization rather than legalization? Because of international treaties and pressure from the U.S. and other countries to keep up the war on drugs. In fact, in the Portuguese model, legalization was taken off the table from the very beginning. Given the political situation, it simply was not an option. The shame with not going all out and regulating the drug trade is that you are unlikely to get any decrease in prohibition-related violence.
Peter Reuter provides a counterpoint of sorts about half-way through, arguing that decriminalization wasn’t so much a failure, but rather that it didn’t actually matter that much. But he concludes that the study is, “One more piece of evidence which helps strengthen the argument that decriminalization would have minimal adverse consequences and very substantial desirable consequences.”
Greenwald says his main take-home point that can transform the drug-policy debate is that decriminalization won’t lead to an explosion of drug usage. “This shatters… the central myth that drives virtually even drug policy debate in this country.”