

Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? - akshaym
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1893946,00.html

======
iaskwhy
I'm from Portugal. There's something important missing from the article which
might be useful to explain why there were so many people using drugs in
Portugal. Before 1975, the country was under a dictatorship and drug use was
obviously low. Then there was a revolution and people were free to the outside
world's culture. On the years following the revolution, young adults were
pretty much amazed by all the things you couldn't see in Portugal before like
Coke or rock music or, right!, drugs. I don't know many people with the age of
my parents whom didn't try drugs, soft or hard, back then.

This behavior was also common on the generation which was born during the
revolution, like my brother. There was more information on the end of the 80s
and teens were still trying soft drugs but starting to avoid hard drugs. I
can't really explain why this happened but I know bad stories about drugs were
all the time on the news. For instance, in my house my father always said: "If
you ever try drugs don't ever come back." He never knew about my brother but
there was a cousin in the family completely addicted, he died recently.

I'm on my twenties so I'd say I'm from the generation after my brother's. I
never tried drugs but all my friends did, no exception. They just aren't
addicted, don't know why. It's pretty common for them to carry small dosages
of marijuana which are allowed by law but there's one thing they don't know:
it's legal, like the article states. It has to be a really small dosage but
it's enough for you if you're not addicted. And that's what's funny: I never
met anyone who knew it was legal (and I knew it because my brother worked at
the courtyard) and everyone still looks at Amsterdam like the holy place for
drugs in Europe. It's like a taboo, nobody is supposed to talk about it being
legal, and it works I guess.

~~~
Rod
I am also from Portugal. After reading your post, I was wondering whether we
lived in the same country. I suspect I am from a generation younger than
yours, which may explain a lot.

According to your rationale, oppressive regimes lead to increased drug abuse.
Well, Spain also had a dictatorship for decades. The entire "Eastern Europe"
lived under Soviet oppression for decades, too. The USSR didn't have a sexual
revolution in the 1960s. I would love to see data that suggests that
oppression causes people to go crazy and indulge themselves with drugs once
they are "free". I am not saying it's not a possibility, but there's talk, and
then there's data...

Almost all my friends in Portugal smoked Marijuana. They were not all that
open about it, but everyone knew. By contrast, none of them ever touched
cocaine or heroine. They were not stupid. Everyone had seen heroine junkies
dragging themselves around town, their lives destroyed beyond repair.

Personally, I think the ones drawn to hard drugs are the weak people who can't
deal with reality. Many of them die, but then... perhaps the purpose of their
lives is to serve as warnings to others.

~~~
unavailable
USSR et al have never needed drugs other than alcohol, which is still abused
today in incredible volumes - please look for numbers yourself. Still, plenty
of poppy crops were destroyed after 1985. Hemp was and still is popular in the
southern parts of the Soviet bloc.

~~~
metamemetics
Russia is the largest consumer of heroin in the world.

------
Anon84
I'm portuguese (lived there until I left for my PhD a few years ago) and I've
always found this system a bit odd. You can own it and use it, but you can't
produce it, sell it or distribute it.

Maybe the government believes in the spontaneous generation of drugs?

A couple of quick points, though:

    
    
         rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty 
         needles dropped
    

This isn't directly connected with the decriminalization. There is a program
that allows _anyone_ to switch a used needle by a new one (plus a condom, a
bottle cap and instructions) for _free_ in any pharmacy/drug store. This
program started years before the decriminalization and had a reduction of HIV
infections as a goal (hence the condom and the instructions)

One of the main advantages of decriminalization was that is open the doors for
a lot more treatments. Before, you had to admit to have committed a crime
(with legal consequences) before you could be treated. The decriminalization
eliminated these consequences and helped people find the help they needed

~~~
param
>> You can own it and use it, but you can't produce it, sell it or distribute
it. Maybe the government believes in the spontaneous generation of drugs?

I am sure the point is for the Govt. to prosecute the producer, not the
consumer. This is similar to some countries outlawing 'consumption' of
prostitution services, but not offering of such services.

~~~
yummyfajitas
That's something I've never understood. How come the drug _buyer_ is the
victim, and so is the sex _seller_?

~~~
Qz
When you learn how many of the women in prostitution are forced into that work
by sex traffickers or sheer poverty, it's not hard to understand. The sex
'seller' often isn't the one who gets the money.

~~~
yummyfajitas
The law I was questioning assumes _every single prostitute_ is a victim,
including the ones who are not enslaved. It also assumes _every single drug
seller_ is not a victim, even the ones who are enslaved.

If the real issue is enslavement, why not just carve out a general exception
in criminal law to acts which you are performing against your will? I.e., if
you rob a bank because your wife/children are being held hostage, the person
holding your wife hostage is criminally liable for that act.

(I'd actually be very surprised if this exception doesn't already exist.)

~~~
jbooth
I think a good way to look at it is that it's not so much about right and
wrong or about who's a victim but about average outcomes.

The average outcome of prosecuting a drug user or prostitute is you spent a
bunch of government resources processing, trying and incarcerating the person
in order to take someone off the streets who's not actually particularly
dangerous.

So, why do it?

Drug dealers on the other hand frequently beef over territory, sell bad
product that kills people, get into interesting sideline work, etc. And
they're very few in number compared to the users. So as far as bang for the
buck, it makes sense to prosecute them. Yes, there are exceptions, but you
make policy for the average case and hope that your cops and DAs are smart
enough to exercise some judgment when warranted.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I don't think you really believe that logic.

Hypothetically, suppose it turns out that black drug dealers are far more
likely than white drug dealers to be violent criminals [1]. Would you then
favor prosecuting drug crimes committed by blacks, but not by whites?
Depending on what the numbers work out to be, you will get the same
statistical "bang for buck" that you would prosecuting drug sellers but not
sex sellers.

[1] Lets give this hypothetical a TV face: take Weeds as the average white
drug dealer, and The Wire as the average black drug dealer. Of course, this is
only statistics - there are violent white drug dealers and harmless black drug
dealers, even in the hypothetical.

~~~
jbooth
I was arguing prosecuting dealers as opposed to users, because it's a massive
waste of money to prosecute the latter (not that that stops us from doing it,
with 3 million people in jail and growing). Entirely different argument.

Regarding prosecuting black ones instead of white ones.. well we already do
that, so I'd say the reality has surpassed both of us. However, as far as what
I think _should_ happen, then yes, I would differentiate between gang bangers
who own corners, run protection rackets, etc and the dude in high school who
sells a little weed to his friends. But as far as consistency in the law, if
you're decriminalizing usage and keeping dealing criminal, then you need to
apply that consistently when you catch people dealing.

 __Anecdotally, I think the difference you're perceiving isn't so much
black/white as it is weed/hard and suburban/urban.

~~~
rick888
"Regarding prosecuting black ones instead of white ones.. well we already do
that, so I'd say the reality has surpassed both of us."

After this statement, I can't really take you seriously. Do you have any proof
beyond this statement?

"However, as far as what I think should happen, then yes, I would
differentiate between gang bangers who own corners, run protection rackets,
etc and the dude in high school who sells a little weed to his friends. But as
far as consistency in the law, if you're decriminalizing usage and keeping
dealing criminal, then you need to apply that consistently when you catch
people dealing."

If drugs were legalized, most likely, dealing without some sort of license
would still be illegal.

~~~
rick888
"A citation ought to have been provided, but for most people interested in
this topic the disparities in prosecutions and sentencing are so well known
that it might not seem necessary."

Here is an excerpt:

"Whites are primarily sentenced to prison for violent offenses and white
prison admissions for violent offenses grew in the 1990s, while drug sentences
actually declined somewhat"

so does this mean that the system is being racist against whites in regards to
violent crime?

More African Americans may be getting arrested for drug-related offenses, but
there is no mention if they actually interviewed a cross-section of those
people to see if they actually committed the crimes.

How do we know that there aren't more African Americans, on average, using
more illegal drugs?

Some interesting points from the article:

"The second is more complex: high Black male imprisonment is associated with a
rise over time in the proportion of Black children living with mothers who
have not graduated from high school; this rise occurs despite an overall rise
in Black mothers' education and a positive association between Black male
imprisonment and the proportion of children living with mothers who are
married college"

So it might not have anything to do with racism. A higher percentage of black
families only have a mother..and a father in Prison. I heard stats elsewhere
that said that this was the case with something like 75% of black families.
Children of these broken families have a much lower chance of becoming
successful adults and I would say a higher chance of getting involved with
illegal drugs. Racism does still happen, but not nearly as much as you are
saying.

~~~
eru
> A higher percentage of black families only have a mother..and a father in
> Prison. I heard stats elsewhere that said that this was the case with
> something like 75% of black families.

75% of black fathers in prison? Looks a bit high.

------
jamesbressi
Does the findings in this article surprise anyone? No? Good. I'm not a hippy,
but let's get over this b.s. "War on Drugs" and begin to use our common sense
when dealing with social issues and impeding on natural rights.

~~~
CWuestefeld
While I strongly support your conclusion in this case, I'm infuriated every
time I hear a call for a policy change based on "common sense". As far as I
can tell, this is just a euphemism for "I am unable to articulate a rational
basis for my position", or even "I refuse to let the actual evidence interfere
with my position".

~~~
mey
Here is my understanding on why decriminalization of drugs is beneficial.

First, legitimate competition from suppliers would drive down costs, forcing
high risk/high reward illegal operations from other countries out of the
market. How can a Mexican drug cartel compete against grand-ma and her
backyard?

Secondly, what is the violent side of drug activitey? Again my understanding
is that it's mostly revolved around protecting/hiding illegal production, and
moving the drugs to a dealer. If you eliminate that supply chain, that vector
of violent activity would be cut off.

Thirdly, why do people use drugs. I see three distinct reasons, recreational,
escapism, addiction. The first two can easily lead to the third. The second
two could be helped/resolved through rehabilitation programs, or solving the
cause to need of escapism. (8-14% unemployment can't be helping). The first
case, there isn't much a reason to have otherwise productive members of
society be in jail.

I don't believe that drugs are marked as illegal because of fear from pharmacy
companies, or from paper/cotton companies. I believe it is that same reaction
as prohibition, blue collar laws. Bad stuff can happen, bad stuff does happen,
and government officials wish to prevent that from happening, on the immediate
time line, without generally considering that the long term effects can be
disastrous.

One additional thing. As part of decriminalization and in addition to
rehabilitation programs, the government should be watching new recreational
drugs entering the market, and doing studies to determine the health risks /
benefits of these fringe drugs. I seems that like sniffing glue, kids seem to
assume that just because a drug has not been classified as an illegal
substance, it somehow isn't dangerous, when the case is really that the
government is rather slow to address anything of relevance in a timely
fashion. (Except steroid abuse in MLB, and communists)

~~~
protomyth
Some of the current drugs out there need to stay illegal. Not because they get
you high, but because they are toxic.

I do believe, if some form of decriminalization happens, we really need to up
the penalty for crimes committed while under the influence. Maybe assume
premeditation. I should point out I believe the same thing about alcohol.
Killing someone while drunk should be considered premeditated.

~~~
Qz
_Killing someone while drunk should be considered premeditated._

This is crazy talk. In some cases it might be true, but the idea of applying
such a broad judgment on an entire class of crimes would be a huge injustice.

Severity of punishment is not a good way to reduce the incidence of crime. Do
you think someone who's judgment is so impaired that they're ready to drive
while drunk is really going to stop and think, hey this is extra illegal,
maybe I shouldn't do it? They're already putting their own lives in severe
danger, so I doubt it.

The solution is better education, not increased punishment.

~~~
CWuestefeld
_The solution is better education, not increased punishment._

Without commenting on the question of a person's criminal liability for drunk
driving...

How do you think education will help? Do you really think that today, in 2010,
there is anybody who hasn't spent at least an aggregate 24 hours hearing the
"don't drink and drive" message?

It seems to me that too often, people attempt to address problems with a knee-
jerk "we need more education". But at least here in the USA, I've got to
believe that we've _all_ heard the messages about drunk driving, your brain on
drugs, AIDS, domestic abuse, etc., _ad nauseam_. What more education do you
want?

~~~
Qz
There is a difference between being informed and being educated. Someone who
has lost a friend or family member due to drunk driving is more _educated_
about the risks than someone who has been _informed_ about the risks from
seeing the ubiquitous TV commercials.

I'm not sure exactly how to best go about _educating_ people, or I would be
out doing it.

------
Jeema3000
Incarceration rates in the United States today, which are due largely to the
anti-drug get-tough policies of the last 30 years, should alarm anyone who
believes in the principles of liberty that this nation was founded on, IMO:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate)

~~~
endtime
If you think the laws themselves are faulty, then argue against their merit.
But arguments of the form "if we removed laws, less laws would get broken"
have always seemed somewhat vacuous to me.

Edit: Given the downvotes, I'd love to have a discussion with someone who
disagrees.

~~~
CWuestefeld
Well, here's one aspect.

Start with the facts that this is supposed to be a free nation, a republic
with representational democracy, putatively making our own laws.

Now consider that a large fraction of the population is in prison for these
very crimes, more so than anywhere else in this world.

This should suggest (although not prove) that the government is imposing its
own will, overriding the wishes of the people whose right it is to determine
the laws (through their representatives).

I'm reminded of the old 55mph speed limit laws. States would be tested by the
federal government; if it was found that more than 50% of drivers exceeded 55,
the state could lose federal highway funding. It seems to me that if more than
half of the drivers exceeded the speed limit, well then, that's pretty much
the same thing as having a referendum with a majority of voters saying that
the speed limit is too low.

~~~
endtime
I understand your argument, but I don't think it's correct. In a democracy,
there is no theoretical reason why 49% of the population wouldn't end up in
jail. I certainly don't think this would be a good thing, but pure, untainted
democracy does nothing to prevent it. You say "if more than half of the
drivers exceeded the speed limit, well then, that's pretty much the same thing
as having a referendum with a majority of voters saying that the speed limit
is too low", but that's really a straw man, because nowhere near half of all
Americans are in prison.

And in our case, those in prison are not drawn uniformly from the American
population. Prisoners are disproportionately from a minority (intended in the
"not majority" sense, not in the skin color sense, though I suppose in this
case either applies) subculture, and unfortunately, that subculture glorifies
many types of criminal behavior, most of which I imagine you wouldn't favor
legalizing.

Again, it's perfectly valid to say that drug laws are wrong and here's why,
and that if your ideas were implemented, incarceration rates would be much
lower, and that this would be a good thing. All I'm disagreeing with is the
general notion that saying laws should be abolished simply because doing so
would lower crime rates isn't persuasive. I mean, we could get rid of _all_
the laws, and then the incarceration rate would be zero, but something tells
me you wouldn't like that.

------
trominos
I'm in favor of sweeping decriminalization (and legalization), but the data in
this article -- hand-picked, no doubt, by the Cato Institute -- _barely_
suggest correlation between decriminalization and declining drug use rates and
stop way before causation.

The only conclusion you can legitimately draw from this, I think, is that
decriminalization doesn't result in all hell breaking loose in at least the
short term. Which is great! But I'd like to see a more substantial (and, if
possible, more neutral) study.

------
njharman
Is anyone else perplexed that the success metric for decriminalization is
reduced drug use?

I'd think reduced crime (esp organized), reduced prison populations, savings
in prosecuting housing drug non-criminals, job increases from local
production/distribution, and/or tax revenue increases would all be more
interesting / relevant metrics.

It sounds like Portugal took the path of "it's still illegal and bad, we're
just not gonna punish you for it". Which isn't really decriminalization in my
book.

~~~
lmkg
No, that's decriminalization. Leaving the laws on the books but not enforcing
them is decriminalization. Taking the laws off the books is legalization. The
societal view of whether it's bad or not can't be legislated directly, but it
could change as use patterns shift over the years.

------
sh1mmer
Interesting tangental fact from the article:

 _As Webb noted, the U.S. is home to 5% of the global population but 25% of
its prisoners._

------
miguelpais
I think the system is being overrated both in the article and in your
comments. I'm from Portugal (but that doesn't mean I'm an authority on the
reality of my country, as I haven't been involved in this kind of situations
and didn't experience the system working) but I just think the whole thing
just comes down to "you're not punished for having it".

But that doesn't mean that there exist government production sites or
distribution stores. So there isn't any advantage for the goverment such as
incoming tax money from the drugs or increse in job positions.

Also there is no mistaken belief that the goverment supports the drugs
perceived by the youth because actually all the system does is not arresting
you, the goverment doesn't provide the availability of drugs.

If the system ends up helping the addicted individuals or not, that is
something that I don't know. Though it seems obvious that arresting someone is
not the wisest first step for treatment, I end up figuring how does the system
reaches the addicts then (I don't think getting help by themselves is
something they would do without a great external help).

------
ErrantX
I'm slowly coming round to this as a good idea - at least to trial. If you
have the requisite support (like in Portugal) to go with it and are not just
decriminalizing possession alone then it should work well.

The only problem I have is that it might encourage the use of drugs; which is
potentially dangerous for people.

Worth a trial for sure.

~~~
Qz
Might encourage some people, and yet might encourage more to seek treatment.
Risk/reward, have to do the math to figure out if it's worth it.

------
akshaym
This is an interesting article as well I think:
[http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/this-is-my-column-this-
is-...](http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/this-is-my-column-this-is-my-column-
on-drugs-any-questions/)

------
Mark_F
Something for sure is that criminalization does never work.

------
kingkawn
I'd like to agree with this study, but its from the Cato Institute...

------
anigbrowl
2009 - old story is old. Flagged.

Edit: it's not that I don't like the story, which I do. It's that we already
discussed it here when it came out in 2009.

~~~
anigbrowl
FYI, _exactly_ 1 year ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=580060>

Same time.com story, 220 days ago:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=828538>

Original article, 407 days ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=516678>

It _is_ an interesting issue, and an interesting policy result, and one we
should consider adopting here. I am wholeheartedly in favor of reducing
government interference in people's personal lives, and I can even consider it
hack-worthy insofar as it involves tinkering with legal rather than computer
code.

But this particular story is no longer news. Not included are about 10 other
HN threads referencing the same article, which you can find by going to google
and searching for 'site:news.ycombinator.com drugs portugal'. This gets posted
in some fashion every 90 days or so.

~~~
wrinklz
Perhaps HN should have a freshness date on all news.

