Here is an article from Scientific American regarding Portugal's experiment with a new drug strategy.

Their approach? End the war and focus on treatment. The new approach five years in appears to be working.

Any thoughts?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


April 7, 2009 | 46 comments
5 Years After: Portugal's Drug Decriminalization Policy Shows Positive Results
Street drug–related deaths from overdoses drop and the rate of HIV cases crashes

By Brian Vastag

In the face of a growing number of deaths and cases of HIV linked to drug abuse, the Portuguese government in 2001 tried a new tack to get a handle on the problem—it decriminalized the use and possession of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other illicit street drugs. The theory: focusing on treatment and prevention instead of jailing users would decrease the number of deaths and infections.

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.

"Now instead of being put into prison, addicts are going to treatment centers and they're learning how to control their drug usage or getting off drugs entirely," report author Glenn Greenwald, a former New York State constitutional litigator, said during a press briefing at Cato last week.

Under the Portuguese plan, penalties for people caught dealing and trafficking drugs are unchanged; dealers are still jailed and subjected to fines depending on the crime. But people caught using or possessing small amounts—defined as the amount needed for 10 days of personal use—are brought before what's known as a "Dissuasion Commission," an administrative body created by the 2001 law.

Each three-person commission includes at least one lawyer or judge and one health care or social services worker. The panel has the option of recommending treatment, a small fine, or no sanction.

Peter Reuter, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, College Park, says he's skeptical decriminalization was the sole reason drug use slid in Portugal, noting that another factor, especially among teens, was a global decline in marijuana use. By the same token, he notes that critics were wrong in their warnings that decriminalizing drugs would make Lisbon a drug mecca.

"Drug decriminalization did reach its primary goal in Portugal," of reducing the health consequences of drug use, he says, "and did not lead to Lisbon becoming a drug tourist destination."

Walter Kemp, a spokesperson for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, says decriminalization in Portugal "appears to be working." He adds that his office is putting more emphasis on improving health outcomes, such as reducing needle-borne infections, but that it does not explicitly support decriminalization, "because it smacks of legalization."

Drug legalization removes all criminal penalties for producing, selling and using drugs; no country has tried it. In contrast, decriminalization, as practiced in Portugal, eliminates jail time for drug users but maintains criminal penalties for dealers. Spain and Italy have also decriminalized personal use of drugs and Mexico's president has proposed doing the same. .

A spokesperson for the White House's Office of National Drug Control Policy declined to comment, citing the pending Senate confirmation of the office's new director, former Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs also declined to comment on the report.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

interesting

very interesting

(in best arte johnson voice)

Since "decriminalization" doesn't allow production or dealing, it will not succeed in removing the main reason of what drugs are banned for: to insure higher profits for drug producers and distributors.

Drugs are not banned to make life better, as it commonly thought. Therefore, such a measure as described, will work only in the eyes of bureaucrats, painting themselves as if they were some sort of thinkers.

the only way to win the war on drugs is to tske the money out of the hands of the criminals

Technically, it can't be won. Ever. For as long as one little piece of drug remains in existence, that war is lost.

It is the same as war on terror. It is declared explicitly as an excuse to run forever.

Example? Let's consider declaring war against life. Can one win such a war? No. Because, it is logically impossible.

So is war on drugs or terror.

But, I am starting to appear, as if I wanted to oppose what you have said. I agree, we can only remove drugs being serious problem when we make it unprofitable to cartels and criminals.

you can win a war with out a victory look at nam

as i said the only way to win the war is too take the money out of the hands of the criminal

yes you will still have pockets of illegal drugs just as you still have illegal alcohol

but the war on alcohol that was waged during prohibition was won be making it legal again

and that is the only war to win the war on drugs (make them legal again)

There is an older article (perhaps someone can find and post it?) by a renowned lady economist who stated that there will always be a war on drugs because it supplies the "cash base" for our economy. If they were to end the war on drugs, our economy would colapse.

Can you imagine things any worse?

Saw an interesting BC documentary ... "The Union: The Business Behind Getting High" ... big business from law enforcement to private prisons ... not just the dealers and growers making money ...

And keeping it illegal keeps the prices high - a win for growers and dealers...

I don't use drugs at all but it is clear that prohibition doesn't work.


http://www.documentarywire.com/the-business-behind-getting-high

A certain percentage of people are gonna use drugs, whether they're legal/illegal whatever. It's the world, so it would make sense not to lock people up simply for possession, there not hurting anyone but themselves in the end right?

But what would all those private prisons raking in the dough be used for?

And huge budgets funding 1,000 of people ... wow ... we'd need a new war on something to keep them employed ...

Sugar ... how about a war on sugar?

Better yet ... a war on vegetables!!! Whenever we declare war on something the problem seems to get bigger ... so yes, iceberg lettuce is out...

...it is, after all, just a gateway to harder things like butternut squash ... and we can't have that!

"""""""""""But what would all those private prisons raking in the dough be used for? """"""""""""""

internment camps

Hi Beauty! How about a war on conscience? Labotomies for everyone! But then they'd probably outlaw drooling...sh*t!

Astounding isn't it? Dumbing down to the lowest common denominator...

ohhh don't get me started Robin!

where the heck is that ignition key

hhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

vvvvrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmm vvvvrroooommmmmmmmmm

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/127461/how_two_former_pa_judges_were_paid_to_send_juveniles_to_private_prisons/

I'll give out free labotomies

How much would you charge?

psst FREE....i'd do it just for the pure enjoyment

but for you...it would cost you a tutu

Will I be allowed to drool? (a medical waiver perhaps in the presense of you and AG?)