8 ms·
Portugal decriminalized drugs a decade ago – what have we learned? (2011)
- kylestlb 12y ago"Unfortunately, nothing about substance abuse is simple." I think that's the problem with criminalizing personal drug use; treating it as simply a crime.
- mellavora 12y agoThe problem is that turning actions which cause no harm (injury, loss, or damage to another) or threat of harm into crimes is perversion of law. The problem is using criminal justice system to attack medical issues is a perversion of law. A perverse law has perverse effects. We've created massive organized crime gangs by criminalizing things which should be legal. I like to tease the Swedes. They thought that alcohol was such a social ill that only a state-run monopoly should be allowed to sell it (so no advertising). The corollary is that they thought other drugs were so bad that only criminal gangs should be allowed to sell them.
- mellavora 12y agoHarm principle refers to a theory of crime that an action can only be banned if it causes harm to someone. The principle ... says that harmful actions are the only ones that can be banned. The harm principle simply sets a minimal standard for what sorts of actions a liberal can justifiably prohibit. http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harm-principle/ http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harm-principle/
- kylestlb 12y agoI studied abroad in Sweden and know the Systembolaget very well :)
- rayiner 12y ago> The problem is that turning actions which cause no harm (injury, loss, or damage to another) or threat of harm into crimes is perversion of law Drug use does harm. It harms users and it harms their families. The harms do not cease to be harms just because they're self-inflicted. Nor do they cease to be harms just because some countries have responded with legal regimes that are arguably worse than the problem.
- DanBC 12y agoThe harms are much worse because of criminalisation. Refusal to provide clean needles, injection clinics, and safe needle disposal bins causes harm to low wage cleaners who risk needle stick injuries when addicts use toilet stalls to inject drugs. About one third to one half of acquisitive crime is to fund drug use. That could be drastically reduced by treating drug addiction as the public health problem that it is, rather than as a criminal justice problem. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-cost-of-acquisitive-crime-caused-by-class-a-drug-users-in-the-uk https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-cost-of... Illegal drugs are sold by criminal gangs. These gangs rely on the illegality of drugs to make a profit. Legalising drugs would drastically reduce the influence of these gangs. Keeping drugs illegal doesn't seem to be working.
- rayiner 12y agoYour argument that we should treat drug addiction as a "public health problem" is inconsistent with mellavora's assertion that drug use "cause[s] no harm (injury, loss, or damage to another) or threat of harm."
- deelowe 12y agoThe argument typically isn't that we should treat drug use as a health problem. That would have quite some odd effects on the medical field, if that were true. Drug addiction should be treated as a health issue. I'd actually go as far as saying "uncontrolled" should be added to that statement. I'm pretty pretty damn addicted to coffee, but don't think I need to go see counseling about it. Treating everything like it's black and white is what got us into this mess.
- deelowe 12y agoIrresponsibility and malice cause harm. There are many actions an individual could take that may harm people close to them. That's life, but the actions themselves aren't the issue. There's nothing inherent to drug usage that is harmful to others, unlike say, violence. In egregious instances of drug use where there is harmful effects like mistreating children, there are already laws to cover those. Those laws, again, are intended to address irresponsibility or malicious intent. If a single person with no children decides to do drugs every now and then, but otherwise lives a normal life, what harm as been done? Heck, even if that person is married and has children, what harm as been done? Drug use itself isn't directly harmful to others.
- icebraining 12y agoAs a note, the PM that passed this legislation is now the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees.
- mellavora 12y agoUs, not very much, because we still use the criminal justice system to treat medical problems. But we are getting a little smarter, repealing some of the marijuana badness.
- DubiousPusher 12y agoTotally, half the trouble with the recent conflicts between the police and the policed here stem from the fact that law enforcement has had all the social problems that we've abdicated responsibility for dumped at their door.
- mellavora 12y agoits deeper than that. If you only knew the levels of opiate abuse in LEOs... WELL above the levels in the general population.
- happyscrappy 12y agoYes the police should not be expected to solve cultural problems.
- iamcurious 12y ago"...about half of American adults believe that marijuana use should be legalized...". I find that strange. In Uruguay, 64% was against legalization.[1] Not that they cared strongly. It was legalized anyway and now most people don't care. [1] In Spanish, sorry: http://historico.elpais.com.uy/121218/pnacio-682703/nacional/cifra-el-64-esta-en-contra-de-legalizar-la-marihuana/ http://historico.elpais.com.uy/121218/pnacio-682703/nacional...
- tptacek 12y agoPortugal also apparently saw statistically significant increases in both homicide and drug mortality, relative to rates across Europe. "Decriminalization" generally implies deregulation of the demand side of drugs, but not the supply side (deregulation of both is generally "legalization"). That's problematic; it takes a burden off the criminal justice system, but many of the externalities of drug prohibition are closely tied to the supply side.
- billions 12y agoDo you have any hard data to prove the stated facts?
- cnp 12y agoHere's a report that says quite the opposite, written by Glenn Greenwald quite a while ago: http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminal...
- tptacek 12y ago"The Effect of Drug Decriminalization in Portugal on Homicide and Drug Mortality Rates"
- mattmanser 12y ago
- Lancey 12y agoA lot of the interviewees in this article don't understand the difference between decriminalization and legalization.
- DubiousPusher 12y ago> Yet there is much to debate about the Portuguese approach to drug addiction. Does it help people to quit, or does it transform them into more docile drug addicts, wards of an indulgent state, with little genuine incentive to alter their behavior? Who the f* cares. It makes their lives better where nothing else has worked so far. This is like saying, I beat my disobedient kid because I'd rather have a bruised disobedient kid than a non-bruised disobedient kid. Whether or not someone living addicted to drugs is existing in a state of moral decline is a personal judgement call and it's no business of the state's, so long as that addiction isn't affecting the lives of others in a significantly negative way. Only a wishy-washy equivocating, journalist can write, "everything about the new system appears to be working and it's making the lives of all better but is it really a good thing."
- Kalium 12y agoThe question at hand wasn't "Does it make lives better?". The question at hand was "Does this help people quit?". So, who the fuck cares? People who want to know if Action X advances Goal Y or Goal Z, both, or neither. Like me, for instance. I want to make the lives of people better, but I also want to be able to connect cause and effect in a way that makes it possible to predict the effects of policies.
- DubiousPusher 12y agoWhy is quitting drugs an implicitly desirable goal? "...or does it transform them into more docile drug addicts, wards of an indulgent state..." My point is that this question is nearly pointless to ask. If someone lives their whole life addicted to drugs and leads a productive full life, what does it matter, other than the bad taste that seems to leave in some peoples' mouths.
- Kalium 12y agoAsking the question is significant because it bears directly on the question of resources, which tend to be finite. If legalization has the effect of dramatically reducing addiction rates, then its costs can be expected to drop over time as lives are improved and addiction rates drop. If the latter scenario is the case and addicts are becoming wards of the state, then costs cannot be expected to decrease over time, and addiction rates will not drop. How might other lives be improved with those resources? In either case, it's important to know what effect the programs have actually had. Without that, it's impossible to assess programs. A program you cannot assess is one you cannot improve or learn from. It also matters because costs must be balanced against benefits in making decisions. Thus is the bloody calculus of government.
- stuaxo 12y agoI don't know, after a few glasses of wine, I read this - I got 90% through it and lots of interesting details, but just too long and rambling :/
- makeset 12y agoWelcome to The New Yorker. "If it doesn't digress, we don't go to press!"
- lotsofcows 12y agoAh, but that's because it's not particularly pertinent to you; your (our :-) unhealthy addiction is entirely legal...
- tzs 12y agoJust to be clear for those who do not read the article, "decriminalized" does not mean "legal". It means that while personal drug use, and possession for personal use, are still illegal, they are not treated as criminal matters. You go before a commission which can send you to treatment, or levy a small fine, or do nothing. Dealers still get treated as criminals and go to prison.