Most Liberal Drug Laws in Europe--And it Works!

[3113]

From here.

Pop quiz: Which European country has the most liberal drug laws? (Hint: It's not the Netherlands.)...the correct answer is Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.

At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy. The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is more expensive than treatment — so why not give drug addicts health services instead? 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.

The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled. "Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

Pretty amazing article!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Why do I zero in on that word 'suggest'? I know, it's evil of me to raise an eyebrow at the Cato Institute. I'd love to believe them as the final word. I don't.

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

Why do I zero in on that word 'suggest'?

Because you're looking for a reason to disbelieve?

 

[CharleyH]

From here.

Pretty amazing article!

I am a North American living in Portugal. I never knew this. The one thing I have noticed as an ex-pat is the absence of drugs and the problems that go along with it. I have lived in Toronto, Vancouver, L.A. and NY and I noticed the drug problems in each of those cities. I honestly can't say the same about Lisbon or Porto (the 2 largest cities in the country).

 

[CharleyH]

Pop quiz: Which European country has the most liberal drug laws? (Hint: It's not the Netherlands.)...the correct answer is Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.

Lauren is telling me, just to clarify, that this isn't all that well worded. The Netherlands have a more liberal drug law in the sense that you can just go to any coffee-house and get pot. You can't do that in Portugal. There is no prison time for possession of drugs, but they're not legal.

 

[3113]

Lauren is telling me, just to clarify, that this isn't all that well worded.

Hey, I didn't write it! I take no blame for the poor execution of that paragraph.

 

[Recidiva]

I'm of a mind that this is the case and I applaud the movement toward decriminalizing.

So many people start taking drugs as a teenage rebellion/experimentation thing. It'd be nice to have casually getting in and casually getting out (I did) as a cultural norm. George Carlin has a bit where he says that marijuana ultimately suggests its own disuse.

Moving beyond the gateway, less choice is involved and people who really want help need it.

Making it much easier to get support and much less likely chance to be slammed in jail for it, good things.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Re: The Netherlands.
The place is tightening up. Folks there are becoming genuinely incorrect in the political sense. They're demanding a return to discipline. Sigh! Everything runs in cycles, I guess.

 

[Pure]

note

for clarification, the full report is available online at

http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

3113's quotations and url connect to an *article* about the report, in Time magazine. thanks for pointing out the issue.

despite the author's clear sympathies, it looks like a good report and generally cites Portuguese gov't data. not all is favorable.

but clearly drug related probs in Portugal [as evidenced in the official statistics and data gathered], as of now, have not increased, nor HIV infections transmitted by needles, nor has 'drug tourism' mushroomed. these facts alone suggest that an 'administrative' approach--outside the criminal justice system--is better. think of the millions or billions that go towards drug prosecutions and incarceration within the criminal justice system.

it might be said, however, that the US is not like portugal, nor is NYC like Lisbon. on the other side, we do know that the US's 'wars on drugs' have not reduced drug usage or availability, and that a fair percentage of the prison pop. is for drug related offenses. i'm saying then, that this and other evidence "suggests" that it may be a good idea for the US, federal and state levels, to decriminalize drug use. (decriminalize means remove 'drug' use and possession issues from the criminal code; abolish *criminal* sanctions.) ADDED: and there is not much evidence (that i know of) which "suggests" that the US 'war on drugs' is succeeding in reducing usage and availability (amounts of drugs being trafficked). the "war"'s only rationale is 'fight the good fight against evil, even when you continue to lose." oh, and create jobs for those in 'drug enforcement' and the prison system. (drug production in afghanistan is *up*, from what i've read, and much on that goes to the US.)

 

[3113]

and create jobs for those in 'drug enforcement' and the prison system.

We could create as many jobs in doctors and drug rehab places. We do have an idea of their success rate and what methods seem to work. And there are new drugs (ironically) to help cut cravings for other drugs. But, as said, if the drug users go underground for fear of prison rather than seeking help for their problem, then new drugs to stop the problem won't get to them and ease the problem.

In the end, you're never going to eradicate drug addiction. What we want to do is stop drug addiction from being a criminal racket.

 

[JackLuis]

I think that the delisting of marijuana, as a "Horrible Dangerous Narcotic" and allowing private growing for personal consumption, be it medical or recreational would solve a lot of our drug problems.

If American were free to grow hemp, there would be a new source of paper, fabrics and the cost of "Weed" would drop dramatically. This would prove competitive to the Hard Drugs, imported at great markup, and the mix of drugs used would begin to change.

The money spent on mostly imported weed would stay at home and be distributed on a more local level. Industrial hemp would be a Ag Industry boon, lower fertilizer requirements, and adaptable to marginal farmlands.

But the point is that making use of a plant that supported mankind for thousands of years makes more sense than prohibiting a substance that has never killed anybody!

 

[R. Richard]

If American were free to grow hemp, there would be a new source of paper, fabrics and the cost of "Weed" would drop dramatically. This would prove competitive to the Hard Drugs, imported at great markup, and the mix of drugs used would begin to change.

The money spent on mostly imported weed would stay at home and be distributed on a more local level. Industrial hemp would be a Ag Industry boon, lower fertilizer requirements, and adaptable to marginal farmlands.

If the growing of hemp were allowed, it would become very difficult to grow 'weed.' 'Weed' is a form of hemp and the growing of hemp overcomes the growi8ng of the addictive form of hemp, 'weed.' My Second Chance scifi series explains the matter in some detail.

But the point is that making use of a plant that supported mankind for thousands of years makes more sense than prohibiting a substance that has never killed anybody!

You have got to be kidding me. I lived (or whatever) in the South Central area of L.A. for some time. There were any number of killings over weed sales street corners and even killings of wholesalers that ocurred and were falsely blamed on "Whi' Boy." Trust me on this, I didn't get the information second hand.

 

[JackLuis]

If the growing of hemp were allowed, it would become very difficult to grow 'weed.' 'Weed' is a form of hemp and the growing of hemp overcomes the growi8ng of the addictive form of hemp, 'weed.' My Second Chance scifi series explains the matter in some detail.


You have got to be kidding me. I lived (or whatever) in the South Central area of L.A. for some time. There were any number of killings over weed sales street corners and even killings of wholesalers that ocurred and were falsely blamed on "Whi' Boy." Trust me on this, I didn't get the information second hand.

Yes, pollination will be a problem if Hemp is wide spread, like in California's central valley, but indoor growers can probably avoid external pollination.

Yeah, criminalization brings in criminals. If marijuana were $10 an ounce, there wouldn't be many sidewalk shootings, at least not over marijuana. But no one ever died from using it. You can't say that about alcohol or tobacco.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

You have got to be kidding me. I lived (or whatever) in the South Central area of L.A. for some time. There were any number of killings over weed sales street corners and even killings of wholesalers that ocurred and were falsely blamed on "Whi' Boy." Trust me on this, I didn't get the information second hand.

Would these killings and fights over drug markets even exist if weed were legal?

Of course not.

The problem isn't marijuana. It's marijuana laws.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Would these killings and fights over drug markets even exist if weed were legal?

Of course not.

The problem isn't marijuana. It's marijuana laws.

After all, very few drug wars get fought over tobacco.

 

[3113]

You have got to be kidding me. I lived (or whatever) in the South Central area of L.A. for some time. There were any number of killings over weed sales street corners and even killings of wholesalers that ocurred and were falsely blamed on "Whi' Boy." Trust me on this, I didn't get the information second hand.

LOL! You're not serious right? I mean, that's like someone during prohibition saying alcohol kills not because it can damage your liver, but because mob bosses are shooting each other over the illegal sales of it.

Come on, back to reality. Does the actual substance itself kill or not? If not (at least not usually or commonly) then it shouldn't be listed as a dangerous narcotic.

 

[Recidiva]

Prohibition caused a huge black market and gang culture. Repealing it was great for not having to put smugglers in jail and criminalize people.

"The Untouchables"

Scoop: Word is they're going to repeal Prohibition. What'll you do then?
Ness: I think I'll have a drink.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And insider information on the subject made Joe Kennedy a multimillionaire.

 

[lance gt]

If Marijuana were legalized and sold in outlets that were controlled, the debts of every state would be wiped out in a few years. Cafes catering to it would spring up and growing opportunities for local and import markets, would make it universal.

All the crime associated with it would stop and countless thousands of imprisoned pot smokers would be freed and re-join society and be productive again, saving yet countless millions from the prison system.

All this makes too much sense, but politicians won't push for it until Gov't control is in charge and a taxation is worked out. We can scream for it, but it all comes down to the buck.

 

[3113]

And, just to add, the arguments of repealing prohibition still stand beyond getting rid of black markets and gang wars. Illegal alcohol had no quality control (what you were drinking *could* kill you on the spot; there was no knowing if that bathtub gin was pure gin or part gasoline), and no age limit because, well, when it's illegal what does it matter if you sell to minors?

The minute alcohol was made legal, it not only could be taxed, but the government could put quality control laws into effect and laws against selling to those under a certain age. If it's legal and you make money off it, then you don't want to do something illegal and end up having that money taken away from you.

 

[R. Richard]

Let me attempt to explain my point of view.

Driving a car drunk can cause death. Driving a car whilst stoned on weed can cause death. You want death from marijuana, you got it.

Whisky has been legal in the US, since its inception (and before.) In the South, people in the back country would make moonshine (aka white whisky, popskull, etc.) The reason for the illicit manufacture of a legal substance was taxes. 'Revenuers' would attempt to raid the illegal stills and deaths often resulted.

If marijuana becomes legal, heavy taxes will inevitably follow. The attempted evasion of said heavy taxes will also follow. Said attempted evasion of said heavy taxes will result in violence and even deaths. The proximate cause of most of the deaths will be 'revenuers' attempting to raid clandestine growing sites and street corner sellers of illicit product attempting to literally eliminate competition. The information in this paragraph is NOT theory. During my time in the South Central, certain purveyors of illicit substances attempted to engage the services of a local resident (whose name escapes me) to eliminate the competition in the illicit substance game.

 

[Recidiva]

Let me attempt to explain my point of view.

Driving a car drunk can cause death. Driving a car whilst stoned on weed can cause death. You want death from marijuana, you got it.

Whisky has been legal in the US, since its inception (and before.) In the South, people in the back country would make moonshine (aka white whisky, popskull, etc.) The reason for the illicit manufacture of a legal substance was taxes. 'Revenuers' would attempt to raid the illegal stills and deaths often resulted.

If marijuana becomes legal, heavy taxes will inevitably follow. The attempted evasion of said heavy taxes will also follow. Said attempted evasion of said heavy taxes will result in violence and even deaths. The proximate cause of most of the deaths will be 'revenuers' attempting to raid clandestine growing sites and street corner sellers of illicit product attempting to literally eliminate competition. The information in this paragraph is NOT theory. During my time in the South Central, certain purveyors of illicit substances attempted to engage the services of a local resident (whose name escapes me) to eliminate the competition in the illicit substance game.

There are already laws in place for committing negligent crimes under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

Having those substances be illegal won't stop irresponsible people from being irresponsible.

Taxes are better than imprisonment.

Growing weed isn't tough, I'd grow my own and cut out the middleman. I could use it for my migraines. I don't now - because it's illegal.

 

[lance gt]

In Ontario where I live, we have the LCBO (Liquor Control Board of Ontario) and the Beer Store, run by the same Gov't agency. It prevents underage people from buying it and controls the quality and strength of the liquor.

All we'd have to do is start a MCBO and patrons could go in and buy whatever kind of pot or hash they wanted. The spin-off markets would be making a fortune in paraphenalia and clothing. The products sold would pass health regulations on growing quality and consumptive use.

Every state and province would benefit from reduced prison costs to increased revenues. The populace would benefit from having citizens working and being productive, and being mellow helps to reduce violent crimes.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Let me attempt to explain my point of view.

Driving a car drunk can cause death. Driving a car whilst stoned on weed can cause death. You want death from marijuana, you got it.[...]

You may as well decry driving on Benadryl, or after a Thanksgiving dinner.
Here are some "major conclusions" from a USDOT study:
* Marijuana smoking which delivers THC up to a 300 ug/kg dose slightly impairs the ability to maintain a constant headway while following another car.

* A low THC dose (100 ug/kg) does not impair driving ability in urban traffic to the same extent as a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.04g%.

* Drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to over-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving quality and compensate when they can; e.g. by increasing effort to accomplish the task, increasing headway or slowing down, or a combination of these.

* Drivers under the influence of alcohol tend to under-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving quality and do not invest compensatory effort.

* The maximum road tracking impairment after the highest THC dose (300 ug/kg) was within a range of effects produced by many commonly used medicinal drugs and less than that associated with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08g% in previous studies employing the same test.

* It is not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample.

 

[lance gt]

In weighing out the risks and possible side-effects of marijuana use against known legal substances, marijuana pales in comparison to alcohol or tobacco. There is over 5,000 years of written documentation on the medical uses of marijuana.

No one gets sick from it. Dependancy and withdrawl are both negligable in the stats. Impairment in small doses is insignificant. Helps everyday people with a host of common ailments.

It is eco-friendly. It doesn't deplete the soil of nutrients during growing. Every single part is usable in one way or another. Using fibres from hemp and marijuana plants, reduces trees being cut and cotton grown. A wide variety of things can be made from it.

The only reason it's still a class 1 drug is because of it's association of being a gateway drug. People move on to harder drugs after pot because they're disappointed it wasn't what they thought it would be. Alcohol and tobacco should be classed the same then. They are stepping stones to harder drugs as well.

The stats on it speak for themselves. Why it isn't legalized, is a question many want answered.