6 ms·

I don't like your bottom line. Tell me how many fewer Portuguese people are affected by the crimes and pressures of druggies, not how many fewer of the criminal

by ygaf 9y ago

I don't like your bottom line. Tell me how many fewer Portuguese people are affected by the crimes and pressures of druggies, not how many fewer of the criminals themselves have accidents. (one of the replies to that article says that Portuguese drug use fell period, so this is rhetorical)

marcoperaza 9y ago
Portuguese drug use has gone up in fact. But Portugal isn't even a good test case because it's a country that didn't have much of a drug culture to begin with. It's not very helpful to cite it as a useful test case for possible American drug policy, as people have been doing lately.
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  "Portuguese drug use has gone up in fact." More people using drugs isn't automatically undesirable, as more people abusing drugs is. Too often drug use is equated with drug abuse, but it need not be so. It's possible to use drugs and not have them affect your life negatively, or even have them affect your life positively (as in the case of the various psychedelic therapies out there to tread everything from PTSD to depression, using psychedelics to enhance one's creativity or for problem solving, or arguably psychedelic use in sacramental/religious contexts). Another thing to consider when looking at raw statistics that might show an increase in drug use is that people are more likely to honestly report their drug use if they think they won't be punished for it, and conversely are more likely to lie about it if they thought they might get punished or stigmatized for it. In the case of Portugal, their non-punitive approach increases the odds that people will be more honest about their drug use, so the apparent increase in drug use might be just surveys finally reporting the truth about already-existing drug use. Real drug use there might have stayed the same or even decreased while showing an increase on paper.
  - DanBC 9y ago
    On top of what you've all said drug use in Portugal has only gone up if you look at "have you ever in your life, even if only once, used drugs?"
- DanBC 9y ago
  Rates of "past month" and "past year" drug use has decreased. These are more useful measures than some others, such as "lifetime use". Rates of injecting drug use have decreased. Drug use in adolescants have decreased. Rates of harm have decreased dramatically.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    >Rates of harm have decreased dramatically. I question the measurements of harm, which I believe in the Portuguese case is in terms of diseases/hospitalizations/deaths. Everyone knows high-functioning people who have alcohol or drug problems, who will probably not show up in such measurements of harmful use, but who nonetheless suffer personal and family problems due to their habit. Also, this article, though a little dated, seems to contradict your claim about drug use in the last 12 months. https://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Portugals-Great-Drug-Experiment https://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-P... >While people reporting drug use over the course of their lifetime has gone up, somewhat significantly in the last decade in Portugal, people reporting drug use over the last 12 months of their lives has actually gone up only slightly. And again, Portugal didn't have much of a drug culture to begin with. Where drug use is a much greater and ubiquitous cultural phenomenon, like in the US, it is very plausible that decriminalization would lead to significantly increased use.
    - int_19h 9y ago
      Suppose it does - why does it matter? Why should society be in the business of policing what people put into their bodies, in their own homes?
      - marcoperaza 9y ago
        The argument from freedom of agency isn't very convincing when drug addiction deprives you of free will itself.
        int_19h 9y ago
PoachedSausage 9y ago
>druggies I hear that word used a lot over here in the UK, usually by people on right of the political spectrum, but the word sounds rather pejorative to me. I presume the people using it mean "users of drugs, excluding alcohol" in order to differentiate themselves from the users of the other drugs.
- Spivak 9y ago
  It's literally a pejorative for low-life drug addicts, there's no subtlety here. Low-life alcoholics get called drunks to basically the same effect.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ygaf 9y ago
  It is pejorative (as you know). I could've used a pejorative that didn't have 'drug' in it, for all it matters to this thread.
  - fsloth 9y ago
    You could have abstaines from using a perjorative. Substance abuse is an issue that can happen to anyone. It would be obviously in bad taste to dehumanize cancer patients - so it baffles me why this is not so for addiction.
    - ygaf 9y ago
      I'm conflicted. You've brought me back to something I was thinking. We - americans for sure - judge people not rationally but according to their outward threat to ourselves. I won't deny that anyone can get addicted to a substance, or that it can happen by chance rather than choice. When you go this far to "understand" humans, there's almost no one bad left. When do you stop "understanding" people for their situation and get on with judging them for what they are?
      - 9y ago

by ygaf 9y ago

marcoperaza 9y ago

Portuguese drug use has gone up in fact. But Portugal isn't even a good test case because it's a country that didn't have much of a drug culture to begin with. It's not very helpful to cite it as a useful test case for possible American drug policy, as people have been doing lately.

pmoriarty 9y ago
"Portuguese drug use has gone up in fact." More people using drugs isn't automatically undesirable, as more people abusing drugs is. Too often drug use is equated with drug abuse, but it need not be so. It's possible to use drugs and not have them affect your life negatively, or even have them affect your life positively (as in the case of the various psychedelic therapies out there to tread everything from PTSD to depression, using psychedelics to enhance one's creativity or for problem solving, or arguably psychedelic use in sacramental/religious contexts). Another thing to consider when looking at raw statistics that might show an increase in drug use is that people are more likely to honestly report their drug use if they think they won't be punished for it, and conversely are more likely to lie about it if they thought they might get punished or stigmatized for it. In the case of Portugal, their non-punitive approach increases the odds that people will be more honest about their drug use, so the apparent increase in drug use might be just surveys finally reporting the truth about already-existing drug use. Real drug use there might have stayed the same or even decreased while showing an increase on paper.
- DanBC 9y ago
  On top of what you've all said drug use in Portugal has only gone up if you look at "have you ever in your life, even if only once, used drugs?"
DanBC 9y ago
Rates of "past month" and "past year" drug use has decreased. These are more useful measures than some others, such as "lifetime use". Rates of injecting drug use have decreased. Drug use in adolescants have decreased. Rates of harm have decreased dramatically.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  >Rates of harm have decreased dramatically. I question the measurements of harm, which I believe in the Portuguese case is in terms of diseases/hospitalizations/deaths. Everyone knows high-functioning people who have alcohol or drug problems, who will probably not show up in such measurements of harmful use, but who nonetheless suffer personal and family problems due to their habit. Also, this article, though a little dated, seems to contradict your claim about drug use in the last 12 months. https://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-Portugals-Great-Drug-Experiment https://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-P... >While people reporting drug use over the course of their lifetime has gone up, somewhat significantly in the last decade in Portugal, people reporting drug use over the last 12 months of their lives has actually gone up only slightly. And again, Portugal didn't have much of a drug culture to begin with. Where drug use is a much greater and ubiquitous cultural phenomenon, like in the US, it is very plausible that decriminalization would lead to significantly increased use.
  - int_19h 9y ago
    Suppose it does - why does it matter? Why should society be in the business of policing what people put into their bodies, in their own homes?
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      The argument from freedom of agency isn't very convincing when drug addiction deprives you of free will itself.
      - int_19h 9y ago

PoachedSausage 9y ago

>druggies I hear that word used a lot over here in the UK, usually by people on right of the political spectrum, but the word sounds rather pejorative to me. I presume the people using it mean "users of drugs, excluding alcohol" in order to differentiate themselves from the users of the other drugs.

Spivak 9y ago
It's literally a pejorative for low-life drug addicts, there's no subtlety here. Low-life alcoholics get called drunks to basically the same effect.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ygaf 9y ago
It is pejorative (as you know). I could've used a pejorative that didn't have 'drug' in it, for all it matters to this thread.
- fsloth 9y ago
  You could have abstaines from using a perjorative. Substance abuse is an issue that can happen to anyone. It would be obviously in bad taste to dehumanize cancer patients - so it baffles me why this is not so for addiction.
  - ygaf 9y ago
    I'm conflicted. You've brought me back to something I was thinking. We - americans for sure - judge people not rationally but according to their outward threat to ourselves. I won't deny that anyone can get addicted to a substance, or that it can happen by chance rather than choice. When you go this far to "understand" humans, there's almost no one bad left. When do you stop "understanding" people for their situation and get on with judging them for what they are?
    - 9y ago