

Is Portugal's Liberal Drug Policy a Model for US? - cwan
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/is-portugals-liberal-drug-policy-a-model-for-us/19591395

======
anigbrowl
It's a bit of an old story, but perhaps newly relevant after Mexico's
_incumbent_ president Felipe Calderon saying last week that existing policies
don't seem to be working, and that it is time to consider legalization, though
he didn't go so far as endorsing the idea. Given the ~28,000 drug-war-related
deaths in Mexico over the last 4 years, I can see why he might be considering
alternatives. The previous president, Vicente Fox, enthusiastically endorsed
the idea a couple of days later. Retired officeholders can afford to be more
bold than when they were in the hot seat, but it came as a big surprise to me
to see a sitting president put the idea on the table.

Surprisingly, this news made barely a ripple in the US media...then again,
coverage of Mexican affairs here is not that good, and even discussing
legalization is political suicide in most of the US. One articulate and
credible advocate for the idea is a judge and self-described former 'drug
warrior' from Orange County named Jim Gray, who left the GOP to run as a
libertarian candidate in 2004 (for the senate, of all things). I caught him
speaking recently on CSpan and was highly impressed by his pragmatic approach.

<http://www.judgejimgray.com/grayarticles.php> or
<http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/295043-1> or
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_P._Gray>, for text, video, and background
respectively.

~~~
WildUtah
In Mexico, marijuana, cocaine, and heroin are already legal in personal use
amounts much like Portugal. The problems Mexico is having are the side effects
of drug shipment cartels that move substances from South and Central America
to the USA.

Mexico could further legalize transshipment of drugs so that cartels could
just hire Mexican shipping companies to deliver the drugs to the USA border.
And that might help a little in the interior of the country, but the interior
of Mexico already sees low levels of drug crime.

The real problem will be crossing the USA border with the drugs. As long as
that is a critical concern of the cartels, they will need decoys, armies of
labor, help from police, forged bills of lading, bribed officials, and the
whole infrastructure of corruption and violence.

Since the USA isn't going to be legalizing anything as far as I can see, there
will always be violence in Mexico paid for by USA users. I don't see anything
the Mexican government can do about it.

~~~
anigbrowl
Quite so. Quite aside of the various problems inside the USA (sentencing
disparities, resources taken away from other crimes, families and careers
wrecked, and worse), our current policies create terribly perverse economic
incentives - and not just in Mexico. Check this out:
[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-07/wachovia-s-drug-
hab...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-07/wachovia-s-drug-habit.html)

The sad fact is that every time we or the Mexican government removes a top-
level dealer, there's a gruesome competition to take his place because the
market is worth billions of dollars. Even a vanishingly thin slice of such a
huge pie is worth the risk of death to many people. The more of a high-risk
occupation we make it with aggressive enforcement, the more marginal and
unscrupulous the individuals who will be attracted to it. The sort of people
who are willing to decapitate their competitors or massacre civilians are not
rational actors who are influenced by the calculus of deterrence; as we've
seen in Central and South America, the net effect of escalating the conflict
into paramilitary activity is to just bring drug suppliers and illegal arms
dealers into closer proximity.

If you have the hour to spare, I felt Judge Gray had a very pragmatic and
persuasive approach to overcoming the political and legislative inertia, but
it's going to be an uphill struggle. While the Obama administration has
finally altered national policy a little (eg by supporting legislation to
eliminate crack/cocaine sentencing disparities and taking a hands-off approach
to state policies on medical marijuana), more fundamental changes will require
the voters to demonstrate where the safe electoral ground is.

------
vl
My take on this is quite simple: I want drug dealers, drug suppliers, pimps
and prostitutes to pay taxes. And I don't want my tax money to be wasted
policing these areas. Legalize it and let IRS worry about them, this is the
worst thing for such business: with the high profit margins gone and taxmen
watching over the shoulder organized crime will have no reason to be involved
in these areas.

~~~
fexl
Forget the IRS -- just legalize it, period. People have the natural right to
produce, trade, and ingest any substances they choose -- even to the point of
injuring or killing themselves. I don't support legalization for your
pragmatic reason of enabling certain people to dip into other people's
business. I support it because it's the right thing to do.

------
TGJ
I've always thought that the problem with the drug war is that governments
simply try to regulate the usage instead of regulating the desire. People use
drugs because their lives suck. People drink because their day sucked. People
use drugs to change their state of reality because they do not enjoy the state
they are in. I think the funny part of it all, in some shape or fashion,
government is the reason why people do not enjoy the state they are in. Taxes,
rules, and regulations are created for every aspect of your life. The
government controls every part of life and when you are high, there is no
control. You get to be free for as long as the high lasts.

To the decriminalization, if I can grow it in my back yard, the government
should have no right to say what I can do with it. If I have to create it in a
lab setting and plan on selling it to someone else, then there should be some
control. I've never heard of weed killing anyone, but I've heard of all the
rest killing people. So when it's possible to kill someone, there should be
roads to justice available.

2¢

~~~
maqr
Some people use drugs for life-enhancement. You probably don't read HN because
your life sucks, or play video games because your life sucks, or watching
sporting events because your life sucks.

For some people, drugs are just another enjoyable part of life, not an escape
from life.

~~~
mburney
I'm surprised how few people realize this. I guess drug use is one of those
topics that tend to shut off people's rational faculties and make them react
with emotion and a holier-than-thou attitude

~~~
njharman
Near constant anti-drug propaganda from infancy through adult hood has that
effect.

~~~
detst
That and I think a lot of people outgrow drug use or advocacy. They did it
when they were young, stopped and now don't care about the rights of other
people. Or maybe they just developed a cynical view of youth or see the
negative drug culture.

Basically, an "I don't care anymore so just keep them banned" attitude or an
inability to do analytical thinking to see that the negatives of our drug
culture aren't inherent to drug use.

~~~
maqr
You speak some depressing truth.

------
hackermom
In answer to the title: Yes, it is. Every country on the planet that has
legalized one or other drug has seen only positive results from it (Portugal,
Switzerland, The Netherlands, to name a few). The "war on drugs" has never,
ever sported any success or any result in combatting this supposed "problem";
a problem that a ban itself creates - the very second a government bans a
specific substance it loses all control over it, and non-governmental bodies
(cartels) will instantly gain control over all accessibility of the substance
in question - completely beyond any government's reach - and drug-related
crime arises from this very point in a twofold manner: the cartels' fight over
dominance, and the actual legal tag attached to anyone handling said
substance. The only way to get rid of the problem is to _LEGALIZE_ the
substance, _REGULATE IT_ , and thus regain control. The last time the USA were
taught this lesson was during the prohibition, when it took them 14 years to
realize how stupid their mistake was. The current lesson has been going on for
over 80 years, costed thousands of thousands of lives, and billion after
billion of tax payers' money. How much longer will it take?

~~~
rickmb
"only positive results" is simply not true, and a dangerous assertion if you
want legalization in the US to not just happen, but to stick.

In the Netherlands, we're still struggling with tons of unforeseen side-
effects of partial legalization (like a excessive alcohol abuse amongst
teenagers, since drugs are no longer particularly "cool", and alcohol is much
cheaper and more available). The net result has been positive, but it's not
without its problems.

As a results, there is still a lot of pressure from conservatives to take more
repressive measures, and the road to full legalization is blocked by the
relations with other countries (not just immediate neighbors, but the entire
EU with its wide-open borders and the US that meddles in everyone's business)
that take a much less liberal view.

Bottom line is: legalization will create new problems, some of them may be
hard to predict. It does not magically solve the problem. It just allows you
to focus efforts and resources on the _real_ problems, instead of the side-
effects of prohibition.

