6 ms·

One has to remember that Portugal did not completely legalize drugs. Possession of small amounts and usage were legalized. Dealing is still a big crime there,

One has to remember that Portugal did not completely legalize drugs. Possession of small amounts and usage were legalized. Dealing is still a big crime there, due to the citizens of Portugal not wanting to be akin the worlds drug den. The different viewpoint of legalizing usage was that it is a medical problem, and not a evil crime. Even that said, Portugal also made their problems less severe by bringing them out in the open instead of draconian punishments forcing users to hide. The biggest hurdle for Portugal's idea to work in the USA is that we do not have any sort of socialized or national healthcare in which to attach a "fund substance abuse as medical problem" freely as Portugal does already. I can imagine that issue alone taking 10+ years in Congress, if any action is done at all. Note: iPod farted earlier leading only posting the first character of this post: "O".

swombat 15y ago
Hey, sorry I downvoted you when the post was just "O". The lack of a socialised healthcare system is actually a boon in this case, since the state is basically getting rid of a large cost (funding the police work on the war on drugs) without creating another cost (since patients then have to pay for themselves). Isn't it?
- throwaway88 15y ago
  The US has so many problems - high gun ownership, no socialized health care, still has corporal punishment, etc etc. Not sure legalizing drugs would be a good idea until some of the other problems are addressed first. How can we get Americans to put their guns away?
- TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
  I'm not sure. What I do know is that from reading many stories about the "War on Drugs" that many dubious laws and judgments were made to separate people from their property and/or their livelihood. We would also have a sizable chunk of the DEA disbanded (we wouldn't need them). We can add that to reduction of police forces around the US. Where I am unsure is how the dependency of money works within the state system of the drug trade. I have a sinking feeling that there is probably the same amount or money moving around in the "War on Drugs" as there is in the drug trade in the US. My question then is, "What happens if we try to manipulate or disband this system?" ObAside: I've seen this specific iPod bug before. When I click on an edit window, it will flash the keyboard up then down. And any sort of button click on the page submits the form. The only way I've seen to 'fix' it is to close and open the offending tab.
- tankenmate 15y ago
  You'll probably only get half of the good effects that the Portuguese system will, you're only doing half the job.
- pedrocarvalho 15y ago
  No, it isn't. In Portugal, the healthcare system is free.
  - sneak 15y ago
    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
    - TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
      Medical care in the European Union (in general) is free. Money is recouped by higher taxation on all people, as if they bought into a country-wide policy. I think we well understand what is meant by "free". It is usually contrasted by the US system in which emergency care is 'free' if you have no garnishable income or property to take.
    - pedrocarvalho 15y ago
      By free I mean it's not a direct purchase. I'm perfectly aware that the healthcare system in my country is payed by my taxes.
    - heyitsnick 15y ago
      To me (Brit) _free_ in this context is perfectly understood as _free at the point of use_
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Unfortunately, that's not true. Not only you have to pay a fee for many basic services (called "Taxas moderadoras"), as they'll double in 2012. As a grandson of a retired couple who had to pay 60 Euro for a public hospital bill just a couple months ago, I can tell you that not only are is it not free, as it can be too expensive already considering the low salaries and pensions.
- wildgift 15y ago
  There's public rehab in the US. There are also public mental health hospitals, and public hospital emergency rooms. There are also jails and prisons. Drug addicts end up in all these systems all the time, taking up space and resources. Some addicts are somewhat functional, but not enough to hold down a job. They may steal things. So the cost is borne by the community, who have to deal with stolen car stereos and broken windows. What seems to work out cheapest is community based group therapy like what you get with Alcoholics Anonymous. You meet a couple times a week, and talk out how shitty your life was, and how shitty you were to other people. Then promise to not be shitty, and not get down. Maybe you get in touch with the fact that you're kind of "off" and need to see a shrink. Yes, it's a little culty, but so is worshipping the bottle :) AA and NA are dirt cheap.
  - biturd 15y ago
    AA and NA do not work. Failure rates are 95%, same as spontaneous remission. But there is an added increase in suicide of upwards of 28%. As cliché as it seems, AA and NA are cults of indoctrination and trample our Bill of Rights as they can and often are court mandated.
dvanduzer 15y ago
The bureaucratic issues aside, it does seem, on the surface, absurd that we can't just view the money spent fighting the War on Drugs as part of a big bucket that we could instead just pour all over medical treatment. Tossing the bureaucratic issues aside seems the larger problem.
- TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
  I agree wholeheartedly. Viewing drug usage as a medical problem and funding free treatment seems to be a no brainer. That pesky problem seems to go back to Congress. I can just imagine the headlines: "Senator Blabla wants to release druggies who solicit behind YOUR KIDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL!!!!" Citizens already appear to want harsher and harsher punishments for crimes. And then is the open question about what we do with the whole lot of people who work on the governments side. It appears to me in the medium term a fat job loss across the US. Especially in this economy, that kind of job loss, even if countered by a hiring of social workers, still looks nasty.
  - wpietri 15y ago
    Well, the simple response is to say that we don't want to get rid of the cops; we want them to focus on real crime. In these times of limited resources, we must focus on the kingpins and predators, etc, etc. I think the more subtle and meaningful response (and one therefore unworkable in what passes for political dialog in the US) is to recognize that we're dealing with the broken window fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window If we criminalize something relatively harmless, then all the apparent economic activity related to enforcement is pure waste.
  - paulhauggis 15y ago
    "I agree wholeheartedly. Viewing drug usage as a medical problem and funding free treatment seems to be a no brainer. That pesky problem seems to go back to Congress." How is drug usage a "medical" problem? It's a personal choice. Most addicts aren't born addicted and they make the choice to pick up that first joint. I don't want to make it easier to be a drug addict in this country. Especially at my expense.
kreneskyp 15y ago
The idea of "drug tourists" is absurd. The worst of the illicit drug addicts can barely take care of themselves. They choose drugs over food and showers. They can't hold jobs and resort to crime to feed their habits. Access to drugs isn't their problem else they wouldn't have become addicts in the first place. They aren't going to spend their money to travel to Portugal even if they can afford it.
- 2arrs2ells 15y ago
  Have you been to Amsterdam? It's not the poor addicts who travel, it's the rowdy 16-25 crowd. It must bring in a ton of tourism revenue, but I know the Dutch aren't thrilled about a ton of Brits, Aussies, and Americans wandering about their city stoned out of their minds all the time.
  - wpietri 15y ago
    That's a plausible concern to me, but I wonder if it's practically any worse than other party destinations. E.g., New Orleans during Mardi Gras or parts of Florida during spring break. Here in San Francisco marijuana is effectively legal; friends tell of walking past cops smoking joints. I'd much rather deal with a thoroughly stoned stranger than a thoroughly drunk one. I think the weed vs booze distinction is really a distraction. There are plenty of cities that sell alcohol that don't end up party destinations. It seems like the right solution to public nuisances is enforcing laws against being a public nuisance.
    - l0tics 15y ago
      That's the biggest difference between cali and most other medicinal states at this point. Most have semi-legal dispensaries and collective-scale grows, but public smoking is usually prohibited. It's one of those unnecessary clauses put in the laws because the writers think it won't pass without it. I will say that I enjoy Michigan's new no-smoking law, which makes it far less conspicuous to smoke weed outside. I can, however, use my vaporizer legally anywhere except schools and public parks.
  - 15y ago

swombat 15y ago

Hey, sorry I downvoted you when the post was just "O". The lack of a socialised healthcare system is actually a boon in this case, since the state is basically getting rid of a large cost (funding the police work on the war on drugs) without creating another cost (since patients then have to pay for themselves). Isn't it?

throwaway88 15y ago
The US has so many problems - high gun ownership, no socialized health care, still has corporal punishment, etc etc. Not sure legalizing drugs would be a good idea until some of the other problems are addressed first. How can we get Americans to put their guns away?
TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
I'm not sure. What I do know is that from reading many stories about the "War on Drugs" that many dubious laws and judgments were made to separate people from their property and/or their livelihood. We would also have a sizable chunk of the DEA disbanded (we wouldn't need them). We can add that to reduction of police forces around the US. Where I am unsure is how the dependency of money works within the state system of the drug trade. I have a sinking feeling that there is probably the same amount or money moving around in the "War on Drugs" as there is in the drug trade in the US. My question then is, "What happens if we try to manipulate or disband this system?" ObAside: I've seen this specific iPod bug before. When I click on an edit window, it will flash the keyboard up then down. And any sort of button click on the page submits the form. The only way I've seen to 'fix' it is to close and open the offending tab.
tankenmate 15y ago
You'll probably only get half of the good effects that the Portuguese system will, you're only doing half the job.
pedrocarvalho 15y ago
No, it isn't. In Portugal, the healthcare system is free.
- sneak 15y ago
  You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
  - TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
    Medical care in the European Union (in general) is free. Money is recouped by higher taxation on all people, as if they bought into a country-wide policy. I think we well understand what is meant by "free". It is usually contrasted by the US system in which emergency care is 'free' if you have no garnishable income or property to take.
  - pedrocarvalho 15y ago
    By free I mean it's not a direct purchase. I'm perfectly aware that the healthcare system in my country is payed by my taxes.
  - heyitsnick 15y ago
    To me (Brit) _free_ in this context is perfectly understood as _free at the point of use_
- icebraining 15y ago
  Unfortunately, that's not true. Not only you have to pay a fee for many basic services (called "Taxas moderadoras"), as they'll double in 2012. As a grandson of a retired couple who had to pay 60 Euro for a public hospital bill just a couple months ago, I can tell you that not only are is it not free, as it can be too expensive already considering the low salaries and pensions.
wildgift 15y ago
There's public rehab in the US. There are also public mental health hospitals, and public hospital emergency rooms. There are also jails and prisons. Drug addicts end up in all these systems all the time, taking up space and resources. Some addicts are somewhat functional, but not enough to hold down a job. They may steal things. So the cost is borne by the community, who have to deal with stolen car stereos and broken windows. What seems to work out cheapest is community based group therapy like what you get with Alcoholics Anonymous. You meet a couple times a week, and talk out how shitty your life was, and how shitty you were to other people. Then promise to not be shitty, and not get down. Maybe you get in touch with the fact that you're kind of "off" and need to see a shrink. Yes, it's a little culty, but so is worshipping the bottle :) AA and NA are dirt cheap.
- biturd 15y ago
  AA and NA do not work. Failure rates are 95%, same as spontaneous remission. But there is an added increase in suicide of upwards of 28%. As cliché as it seems, AA and NA are cults of indoctrination and trample our Bill of Rights as they can and often are court mandated.

dvanduzer 15y ago

The bureaucratic issues aside, it does seem, on the surface, absurd that we can't just view the money spent fighting the War on Drugs as part of a big bucket that we could instead just pour all over medical treatment. Tossing the bureaucratic issues aside seems the larger problem.

TheAmazingIdiot 15y ago
I agree wholeheartedly. Viewing drug usage as a medical problem and funding free treatment seems to be a no brainer. That pesky problem seems to go back to Congress. I can just imagine the headlines: "Senator Blabla wants to release druggies who solicit behind YOUR KIDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL!!!!" Citizens already appear to want harsher and harsher punishments for crimes. And then is the open question about what we do with the whole lot of people who work on the governments side. It appears to me in the medium term a fat job loss across the US. Especially in this economy, that kind of job loss, even if countered by a hiring of social workers, still looks nasty.
- wpietri 15y ago
  Well, the simple response is to say that we don't want to get rid of the cops; we want them to focus on real crime. In these times of limited resources, we must focus on the kingpins and predators, etc, etc. I think the more subtle and meaningful response (and one therefore unworkable in what passes for political dialog in the US) is to recognize that we're dealing with the broken window fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window If we criminalize something relatively harmless, then all the apparent economic activity related to enforcement is pure waste.
- paulhauggis 15y ago
  "I agree wholeheartedly. Viewing drug usage as a medical problem and funding free treatment seems to be a no brainer. That pesky problem seems to go back to Congress." How is drug usage a "medical" problem? It's a personal choice. Most addicts aren't born addicted and they make the choice to pick up that first joint. I don't want to make it easier to be a drug addict in this country. Especially at my expense.

kreneskyp 15y ago

The idea of "drug tourists" is absurd. The worst of the illicit drug addicts can barely take care of themselves. They choose drugs over food and showers. They can't hold jobs and resort to crime to feed their habits. Access to drugs isn't their problem else they wouldn't have become addicts in the first place. They aren't going to spend their money to travel to Portugal even if they can afford it.

2arrs2ells 15y ago
Have you been to Amsterdam? It's not the poor addicts who travel, it's the rowdy 16-25 crowd. It must bring in a ton of tourism revenue, but I know the Dutch aren't thrilled about a ton of Brits, Aussies, and Americans wandering about their city stoned out of their minds all the time.
- wpietri 15y ago
  That's a plausible concern to me, but I wonder if it's practically any worse than other party destinations. E.g., New Orleans during Mardi Gras or parts of Florida during spring break. Here in San Francisco marijuana is effectively legal; friends tell of walking past cops smoking joints. I'd much rather deal with a thoroughly stoned stranger than a thoroughly drunk one. I think the weed vs booze distinction is really a distraction. There are plenty of cities that sell alcohol that don't end up party destinations. It seems like the right solution to public nuisances is enforcing laws against being a public nuisance.
  - l0tics 15y ago
    That's the biggest difference between cali and most other medicinal states at this point. Most have semi-legal dispensaries and collective-scale grows, but public smoking is usually prohibited. It's one of those unnecessary clauses put in the laws because the writers think it won't pass without it. I will say that I enjoy Michigan's new no-smoking law, which makes it far less conspicuous to smoke weed outside. I can, however, use my vaporizer legally anywhere except schools and public parks.
- 15y ago