
Portugal’s radical drug policy is working. Why hasn’t the world copied it? - benbreen
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it
======
toomanybeersies
This scenario doesn't just happen with drug policy, but with practically any
divisive policy discussion.

People will debate something that is done elsewhere, and ignore completely
that it's done elsewhere.

Gay marriage is a prime example, as it's something that has been legalised in
a lot of countries now. Every time a country goes through the process of
debating whether to legalise gay marriage, there's a bunch of people that say
it's going to cause the corruption of society, or ruin the sanctity of
marriage, or cause God to punish us.

However, legalising gay marriage in other countries hasn't caused the sky to
fall. But anti-gay marriage people conveniently ignore this.

The same wilful ignorance of existing examples is also applied to Universal
Healthcare, drug laws, minimum wages (for either raising or
lowering/removing), criminal justice, firearms, and education.

Obviously countries are all different, but the general ideas are the same. For
example, it's fairly well established that the less guns there are, the less
gun crime there is, however, an Australia or British-style "ban handguns and
buy them back off owners" isn't going to work in America. But the same
principle applies, less handguns = less deaths.

~~~
andrenth
> less handguns = less deaths.

This does not follow. Take Brazil for example. 60k homicides per year, and
guns are pretty much forbidden.

Of course, criminals don’t seem to care.

~~~
alkonaut
> This does not follow.

If the ban didn't actually lessen the number of handguns, then we don't have
the left hand side of the implication! These are two things:

ban on handguns -> less handguns

less handguns -> fewer deaths

Someone argued that the second is true, and you seem to refute it by saying
the first isn't. So maybe you aren't talking about the same thing. I'm going
to argue that the second thing isn't controversial. What's difficult and
possibly controversial is whether item #1 is possible in Brazil, or the US
(where guns are already common).

My take on it is this:

stricter laws + wait 2 or 3 generations -> fewer guns.

fewer guns -> fewer deaths.

~~~
ueushzvzis
Fewer guns does not equal fewer deaths in the developed world. You are doing
exactly what you claim to be against. Cherry picking data to suit your
narrative.

~~~
daemin
Yeah it does, Australia. That's the prime example of fewer guns = fewer
deaths.

~~~
andrenth
Australia also had reduced number of gun-unrelated deaths. In fact the percent
reduction in those cases was larger than the reduction of gun deaths.

So the stricter gun laws can't be considered the sole explanation for fewer
deaths.

~~~
ceejayoz
There's been a world-wide reduction in crime since the 1970s. It's very
possible to isolate the impact of Australia's gun laws by comparing to other
similar countries that _didn 't_ implement a major gun ban at the time.

~~~
andrenth
Has that been done? I think it would be quite hard to provide any meaningful
comparison between countries, because the results would be clouded by many
other factors that can influence them.

------
freedomben
People fear the unknown. Also to most people drug culture is repugnant and
they don't realize that only a small minority of users are "drug culture." In
reality, most of the users are their neighbors, friends, and family members,
and they have no idea it is happening.

It's obviously quite a good deal for politicians. They get political victories
by whipping a minority that can't fight back, and by stirring up angst among
the ignorant. They also fuel the prison industrial complex, which I
increasingly believe is a thing.

My two cents.

------
WalterBright
It's the sunk cost fallacy. When you've invested enormous amounts of treasure,
careers, political capital, conventional wisdom, etc., in having a position,
it is very, very hard to say "oops, that's all a big mistake, my bad!"

It's much easier to double down on it.

~~~
malydok
Especially in politics where keeping ones opinions is perceived as a sign of
virtue, no matter how wrong these opinions are.

------
thrden
One thing that people aren't considering is that we have legalization
experiments within the United States, and we have seen an uptick in marijuana
usage[1]. This uptick has been benign because its been limited to Marijuana. I
think that given our culture (one that I believe is potentially universal, but
I can not speak to universality) has a tendency toward over consumption, its
not clear to me that legalization of drugs would lead to decreased usage. I'm
not advocating continuing our failed drug war, just caution when considering
legalization, it may still be the best way forward.

[1]
[http://www.rmhidta.org/html/FINAL%20NSDUH%20Results-%20Jan%2...](http://www.rmhidta.org/html/FINAL%20NSDUH%20Results-%20Jan%202016%20Release.pdf)

~~~
BatFastard
One things Marijuana legalization has done is decrease opioid usage in states
that have legalized it. It has also reduced drunk driving rates. Of course
taxes are nice, and removing the money from the underworld is a big win too.

~~~
barsonme
> It has also reduced drunk driving rates.

What happened to the overall DUI rates, though?

~~~
ewjordan
I'll take 10 stoned drivers over 1 drunk one any day of the week. Stoned
drivers may be slow as hell and really annoying, but drunk ones speed and kill
people all the time.

~~~
icc97
The song "Let's push things forward" [0] by UK band The Streets is a great
song that depicts some of the differences between drunk and stoned people. You
need to listen to the song rather than just read the lyrics.

[0]:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_Push_Things_Forward](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let%27s_Push_Things_Forward)

~~~
Zanta
I think you mean to refer to another track from that album, "The Irony of It
All"

~~~
icc97
Bloody hell, you're quite right, I'd even double checked the lyrics and still
got it wrong.

------
yosito
Because drug policy is about associating your political opponents with
criminal activity and has nothing to do with preventing drug abuse or
addiction.

~~~
berbec
I do believe you've hit the nail on the head there. It seems one of the big
initial reasons for calling cannibis marijuana and criminalization was part of
racist legislation against Hispanics.

'Numerous accounts say that "marijuana" came into popular usage in the U.S. in
the early 20th century because anti-cannabis factions wanted to underscore the
drug's "Mexican-ness."' [1]

1:
[https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/07/14/201981025...](https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/07/14/201981025/the-
mysterious-history-of-marijuana)

~~~
angry_octet
Exactly. Its dog whistle politics, portraying Hispanic and African American
people as the major source of drug crime.

~~~
berbec
They are the major source of drug crime. We make sure to arrest more
minorities for drug offences, therefore they must be the source. Ignore any
spurious "facts" that show drug use and incarceration rates don't match! It
must be the brown people.

------
moduspol
Singapore's radical drug policy has worked pretty well, too [1] [2]. Why
hasn't the world copied that?

[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singap...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-
policy-drugs-bay) [2] [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-
asia-24428567](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-24428567)

~~~
mikeash
Haven’t they? I thought a lot of countries had draconian anti-drug policies
like that.

~~~
moduspol
Yet they don't work as well as Singapore's?

Hmm. Perhaps it's not as simple as "if it works here, it will work there."

~~~
mikeash
It’s never that simple, but we should examine and learn from what they do, and
try it if it seems likely to work.

------
andrewstuart
Portugal’s policy is deeply flawed because it does not legalize the _sale_ of
all drugs, only the consumption.

When _selling_ is legal is when organized crime leaves the picture, taxes can
be collected, product is clean and measured and of quality.

Both sides of the equation are important to legalize, doing one without the
other means huge problems remain.

~~~
toomanybeersies
I don't think that something as harmful as heroin should be legal to sell,
even in a taxed and regulated scenario.

Other options that, in my amateur opinion, would be better, would be to more
heavily penalise adultered drugs, or to have pharmacies supply, with a
prescription, addictive drugs, but only to addicts. The latter idea is
basically an extension of safe injection clinics.

~~~
rblatz
There are multiple drugs of the same class as heroin that are actually
stronger and more dangerous than heroin that are legal. But they aren’t sold
cut to hell with fillers in order to make extra money.

~~~
eitland
They are also only sold with a prescription.

And while I know US has an opioid crisis this prescription thing seems to work
here.

~~~
justrobert
Except anyone can buy fent online easily.

Far more dangerous for anyone who is near those that buy it.

~~~
apexalpha
Except people don't here.

~~~
jowsie
Then how is it getting cut into all the heroin being sold in the states?
Someone must be buying it ...

------
abtom
> “There was a point whenyou could not find a single Portuguese family that
> wasn’t affected. Every family had their addict, or addicts. This was
> universal in a way that the society felt: ‘We have to do something.’”

To be noted is when is it more useful to decriminalise, compared to
conventional methods? I would say there is a point, say 5% or 10% population
already users when it becomes more beneficial to decriminalise. This works
because most of the society has already seen the problems associated with drug
use. Anything before that (say 0.1% of population are users) and you may end
up encouraging non-users since the legalisation may be seen as a form of
approval from the state that there is nothing wrong with drug use.

~~~
malydok
You seem to be confusing legalisation with decriminalisation. In the latter
case the state stops incarcerating the offenders but doesn't stop discouraging
drug use.

------
InclinedPlane
Criminal justice in the western world is substantially based on the (faulty)
premise of retributive punishment. Not rehabilitation, not harm reduction,
vengeance. That has a ton of negative consequences. It means that prisons are
horrid and destroy people rather than building them back up to a state worthy
of re-entering civilized society. It means that the police are encouraged to
dispense street justice extra-judicially (even up to executions) because it is
part and parcel of the spectrum of "hurting the bad guys". It means that
addicts are punished and harmed by the system for the sin of being vulnerable
and falling victim to a common "vice". It's not about science, it's about
feeling what is "right" and "just". Bit by bit we've occasionally made some
improvements and injected some humanity into this brutally inhumane process,
but we're still scraping by at medieval levels of justice. In the US more than
95% of executions by the criminal justice system happen on the street without
a trial. And, of course, addiction is treated as a crime instead of a public
health concern, to the detriment of all.

------
froderick
IME, human beings generally expect things that are true to be intuitive, and
tend to interpret causality eagerly. The history of science is littered with
folks that ended upon the wrong side of it because their intuition couldn't be
rationalized (the earth _not_ being flat, for instance).

It doesn't surprise me that many countries will be very slow to change. Change
would require citizens to invest in understanding the research and to
recognize that the "obvious" solutions to drug addiction aren't necessarily
the effective ones.

------
major505
Each country needs to have its own thing. In Brazil for example, a measure
like this wold not have any impact because we do not have control over our
borders.

Take smoking for example. Even if tabacco its alowed, its really expensive to
buy legalized cigarrets.

So peoplo just smoke cheap ones, that enter from Paraguai border, with no
quality control, and brougth in Brazil by organized crime, or even produced in
clandestine factories.

Just legalizing everything here wold not make a diference.

~~~
afsina
Governments heavily tax tobacco with the hope of lowering the associated
health costs (and tax money is always juicy). But almost all the time it
backfires and these happen: -People just keep smoking -It creates an
economical burden in house holds with smokers because of the prices and
difficulty of quitting -Smuggling or bad quality tobacco consumption
increases.

So, like most things government does, intervention with good intentions
creates more problems. IMO, government should not interfere with it, and
smokers should not get cheap health insurance (or none from government).

~~~
major505
I have to agree.

------
arca_vorago
The nastier side of this elephant in the room is that three letters in
general, the CIA in particular, really dislike the fact that congress holds
their purse strings, so by creating and then dominating a black market, they
can generate money off the books with no congressional oversight for those
black projects and whatever other unconstitutional fad of the day is.

The CIA learned this all the way back in its OSS days from the Brits who have
been doing it since before the first opium wars in China, the scars of which
which can still be seen to this day. It doesn't matter the black market
(prohibition for example) just that you control it.

~~~
angry_octet
This is a batshit crazy conspiracy theory comment. The CIA gets plenty of
money in the black budget and full congressional approval. The problem isn't
CIA accountability, their actions are the actions of the US Govt, but it is
rare for the US Govt to suffer repercussions that the American people
understand as stemming from the actions of its Govt.

~~~
tremon
_it is rare for the US Govt to suffer repercussions that the American people
understand as stemming from the actions of its Govt._

Well, there's the current POTUS...

~~~
angry_octet
I think the fact that he enjoys continued support (in Congress# and among
those who voted for him) amply demonstrates that many citizens _do_ _not_
comprehend the massive reduction in influence the US has suffered in only a
year.

# Call your representative.

------
thisisit
This is great. But I sometimes wonder if the people who advocate for "x worked
for y, so it is best practice and every should do it" appreciate situation
complexities and cultural differences?

~~~
Jedd
> But I sometimes wonder if the people who advocate for "x worked for y, so it
> is best practice and every should do it" appreciate situation complexities
> and cultural differences?

TFA touches on this, and I'd suggest that any in-depth, thoughtfully written
piece on this subject would necessarily consider the complexities and cultural
differences from one place to another -- especially if they're considering the
question 'Why isn't this happening / why doesn't this work elsewhere?'.

But often the answer to that question is well understood (the HN comments now
- half an hour in - are somewhere on the cynical to pragmatic part of the
spectrum) and also understood is why the problem is difficult, if not
intractable. Apropos, from TFA:

"But if conservative, isolationist, Catholic Portugal could transform into a
country where same-sex marriage and abortion are legal, and where drug use is
decriminalised, a broader shift in attitudes seems possible elsewhere."

This is an optimistic sentiment from a social attitudes POV, but misses the
financial incentives within the USA (for example) of retaining the current
arrangement.

------
dep_b
The interesting thing is that although the relative success with
decriminalization of drugs in The Netherlands was one of the examples that
inspired many other countries to liberalize their policies, The Netherlands
itself did not make any progress at all in the last thirty years and even
reversed some policies.

Marijuana is still officially illegal, coffeeshops cannot run a 100% legal
business and small growers have been systematically persecuted. Only big,
criminally run enterprises remain with the typical organized crime problems as
a result.

It's no longer legal to amphetamines-related drugs at electronic parties and
related drug-related deaths because of too strong or impure XTC are on a rise.
Magic mushrooms are banned from sale because some tourists in Amsterdam had
bad trips. And there was this story about a man slaughtering his dog that was
awfully similar to those Marijuana stories in the 20's:
[https://www.expatica.com/nl/news/country-news/Man-kills-
dog-...](https://www.expatica.com/nl/news/country-news/Man-kills-dog-while-on-
mushrooms_147291.html), amongst other "sudden" mushroom scare stories in the
press.

Although because of lack of actual knowledge about these kind of substances
allowed the sale of magic truffels to continue everywhere where before the
mushrooms were sold, the magic mushroom scare stories in the media suddenly
stopped.

It really saddens me that even more successful and better regulated policies
from other countries are not followed in The Netherlands.

------
arcool
I've visited Lisbon last week. I had at least 15 different guys offering me
heroin, cocaine or LSD in various parts of the city. This never happened to me
before but I didn't realise it used to be such a big problem. The point is, if
someone wants to get drugs, he/she will just get drugs. I think the best
prevention is awareness and I think this policy might have gotten them this
far but they seem to need a different approach to go further.

~~~
icebraining
FWIW, most of those are not selling actual drugs; they're just scamming
tourists. For example, the hashish they sell is actually a pressed laurel
plant. Not only it's much cheaper for them, as they avoid the cops, since it's
not a crime to sell laurel even under a false name.

------
adventured
It's a rather silly question on the surface: all countries have different
cultures. Often very different. That alone is enough to answer the posed
question.

Much of the world might copy it. It's not going to get copied overnight,
that's not how big change occurs in a culture. Portugal was culturally ready
for it. Things like this always start very slowly and then gain momentum.

The US might even copy it given enough time, it will probably take two decades
though. The US notoriously tends to slowly get around to things (although it
did legalize gay marriage before ~96% of the rest of the planet). It goes back
to the old joke about the US trying everything else first before finally doing
the right thing, it's a partially accurate assessment of US history.

------
Lapsa
“What about you? Why don’t you go shave off that beard? You can’t give up on
yourself, man. That’s when it’s all over.” The bearded man cracked a smile.

^ powerful stuff

------
zaro
In answering questions like that, like "X solves this big societal problem why
don't we use X?" I think the reasons have little to do with the problem in
question. It usually boils down to who profits from the current status quo.

------
adeshpande
Chasing The Scream by Johann Hari is a really good book for anyone who's more
interested on learning more about how Portugal went about the
decriminalization and just a really interesting book in general on the war on
drugs.

------
gozur88
I'm not a big fan of Portugal's drug policy. You can buy drugs and take drugs,
but not deal them? So you still have much of the crime associated with
distribution.

I'd like to see drug use legalized (not "decriminalized") in the US, and I'd
also like to see distribution handled by regulated retailers, so potency and
quality are uniform.

~~~
jowsie
The primary purpose isn't to fight organised crime. It's to create treatment
opportunities for the people using the drugs.

Decrease the demand and the rest of the system will decrease on its own.

~~~
gozur88
The article doesn't give any indication there was a decrease in drug use:

> While drug-related death, incarceration and infection rates plummeted, the
> country still had to deal with the health complications of long-term
> problematic drug use.

------
marcoperaza
Drug use is rising in Portugal.
[https://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-
For-P...](https://www.npr.org/2011/01/20/133086356/Mixed-Results-For-
Portugals-Great-Drug-Experiment) The Guardian skirts around the issue with
some weasley phrasing “ _ensuing years saw dramatic drops in problematic drug
use_ ”. Problematic according to whom? Being a high functioning addict who
claims to be fine does not mean that you don’t have a serious problem that is
damaging your relationships and potential.

How about the number of people living sober lives? That seems like at least as
important a number.

And to what extent is the continued illegality of _selling_ drugs in Portugal
keeping people away from drugs by virtue of wanting to avoid the shady
characters who sell them? It seems likely that true legalization would lead to
a massive increase in usage.

~~~
galobtter
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1464837](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1464837)
"drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths
due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute
those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to
offer treatment programs to its citizens — enhancements made possible, for
numerous reasons, by decriminalization." from the guardian article "Portugal
has seen dramatic drops in overdoses, HIV infection and drug-related crime."
Problematic according to people dieing. Isn't getting the number of people
dieing and getting diseases decreasing far more important than a rise in drug
use?

~~~
marcoperaza
It's a very important goal, but if you believe that drug use itself is
corrosive to the culture and prosperity of a people, you might prioritize
overall drug use.

Let's take a hypothetical. Do you prefer a society where 30% have drug
problems damaging themselves and their families, but there are very few
overdose deaths and diseases among that 30%? Or one in which only 5% have drug
problems, but there many more deaths and diseases among that 5%? I don't think
there's an obviously right choice.

Ideally we can thread the needle and lower drug usage in addition to reducing
the harms associated with it. That's the trillion dollar policy question and I
don't think anyone has solved it yet.

~~~
galobtter
I don't think that has happened here though. The drug use rate in portugal is
still extremely low - 2% compared to 5-10% elsewhere in the EU

~~~
marcoperaza
That’s a highly confounding factor too then. For whatever reason, Portugal
didn’t have much of a drug culture to begin with. That makes it harder to
translate any lessons to other countries that do.

------
rmchugh
In regards to why it hasn't been copied, I have heard that part of the problem
is that the UN officially supports the War on Drugs. European countries are
reluctant to break ranks with the UN in this matter, while progress at the UN
itself is held up by conservative countries such as Iran.

~~~
caio1982
Saying progress in the UN is held up by Iran and such sounds nonsense to me.
The US is also pretty conservative and has way more influence and power inside
their buildings.

~~~
rmchugh
I only have a friend's word for this (who works with drug policy), so if you
know more please share. Obviously the US drug policy is quite varied, with
full legalisation of marijauna in some states. The federal response to the
opioid epidemic seems to be harm-reduction based rather than purely punitive.
That said, this is internal politics, so what the US says and does on the
world stage is not necessarily going to be consistent with this.

------
partycoder
This is the best perspective I have ever seen on the subject:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66cYcSak6nE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66cYcSak6nE)

This is a TED talk from Gabor Mate, a physician that works with drug addicts.
The highlights from his perspective are:

\- Simple activities like watching television, gambling and shopping can be
addictive, but most people will not develop an addition to them.

\- The most addictive drugs act on the dopamine and endorphin systems. The
people developing the strongest addictions happen to be people that do not
produce enough of their dopamine or endorphines so once they feel better than
a regular person when consuming them externally.

------
PythonicAlpha
It is well important to see, where we came from. I think it was in the
beginning of the 20th century, where many drugs where legal and addicted
people where thought of like alcoholics: People with a serious problem or ill
people, not criminals.

Than, came in politics and the "war on drugs" that really was a war against
the consumers. First of Chinese people, than on colored people and than ...

If you really want to fight a "war on drugs", fight the reasons, that let
people start taking those things .... but that might cost some money on social
projects ... and will give no big corporations money for building prisons.

------
bob_theslob646
>Portugal’s remarkable recovery, and the fact that it has held steady through
several changes in government – including conservative leaders who would have
preferred to return to the US-style war on drugs – could not have happened
without an enormous cultural shift, and a change in how the country viewed
drugs, addiction – and itself. In many ways, the law was merely a reflection
of transformations that were already happening in clinics, in pharmacies and
around kitchen tables across the country. The official policy of
decriminalisation made it far easier for a broad range of services (health,
psychiatry, employment, housing etc) that had been struggling to pool their
resources and expertise, to work together more effectively to serve their
communities.

At least in the U.S, we thrive on _treating_ versus _curing_ , plus , didn't
you know if you fall on hard times medically especially with anything related
to addiction or mental health, you have to bootstrap yourself up from your own
bootstraps or go to a 5k a week _rehab_ facility that does not accept
insurance.

If drugs are legal in the U.S, who is going to pay all those private
jail/prison owners excutive salaries? Where are those corporations going to
get the slave labor?

Who is going to pay all those police officers all those raises for keeping
drugs off the street?

How are alcohol and tobacco companies supposed to find new consumers whose
lives are ruined for possession of marijuana who are unable to secure any form
of higher level of employment( extremely difficult) because they were arrested
for carrying marijuana.

That's why the United States has not copied it.

~~~
derefr
That wasn't the question, though. Why has _no_ other country copied it—for
example, a social-welfare state like Sweden, or a technocracy like Singapore?

~~~
stefanfisk
In Sweden’s case it’s because we - as a nation - view non state sanctioned
drug use in any form as a moral failing, rather than medical one. Lethality
among heavy drug users is really high compared to Central European countries,
and politicians think that’s fine as long as the stats for how many people
have used drugs in any capacity look good.

~~~
zkomp
In sweden, yeah, two things: there has been much, too much, batshit-insane
anti drug/prohibitionist propaganda for decades. And the fact nations are
bound by the UN Convention that mandate prohibition. Politicians are retards
who rather see people die than legalize...

------
usrusr
One reason (surely not the only one) why decriminalization is rarely talked
about is that a large fraction of those who do not fall into the "war in
drugs" camp are far too preoccupied talking about legalization.

The fate of all middle ground positions. (Not to be confused with compromises,
that are far too often the combination of the worst of each, because that
somehow seems to help both sides to save face)

~~~
adrusi
That's because decriminalization is a worst of both worlds option. It's not
illegal to possess drugs so you see a bit of an uptick in usage, but the
market is still unregulated so you have all the biggest problems remain: drugs
being sold are adulterated (e.g. fentanyl), drug prices are way high because
they're black market products (junkies are known to sacrifice everything they
have, then steal from their family, then get kicked out of their family and
steal from somewhere else in order to afford their drugs. The legal-market
price of heroin is at least 10x smaller, meaning junkies won't have to become
quite so decrepit, and won't be kicked out of their families, so they do that
lose their support network). Without legalization, people who are curious
about drugs have to interact with shady criminals to obtain them, which serves
to involve them in crime.

Decriminalization would probably cause the same uptick in usage as
legalization would, but unlike legalization, it wouldn't make drug use less
devastating to people's lives.

~~~
usrusr
Sure, decriminalization of use leaves out all the supply side changes, but it
makes it much easier getting or giving help with stopping a drug habit.

But I do not agree with that "same uptick as legalization": when people don't
start, they don't start because of fear of getting hooked, not because of fear
of getting caught. Legalization comes with a much stronger "if it's not
forbidden it can't be that dangerous" subtext than just decriminalization. The
only real disadvantage of decriminalization is that you lose the occasional
successful withdrawal after a "punishment or treatment, your choice" deal
(happens all the time in a de facto but not de jure decriminalization
environment), but since that is only the second best way to start withdrawal,
maybe it is not much of a loss since it allows to focus resources on those who
want to stop on their own initiative. (But in my experience with addicts, they
all kind of wanted to stop and kind of did not, all the time, so there is
always a base for external "inspiration" to work with)

------
jrs95
Personally I like the conspiracy theory that the government likes using drug
money to fund black ops. The less crazy but somewhat similar explanations are
that institutions which enforce criminalization are resistant to change and
don’t want to lose funding, and a large portion of the population still
believes war on drugs propaganda.

------
lanevorockz
The reason why it works in Portugal is because the country is in a rolling
crisis, they can't afford expensive drugs. Also, with most of the young people
leaving they were left with a very Cristian and traditional country.

I find it really absurd when newspapers attribute societal changes to single
policies. The guard is so intellectually dishonest.

~~~
galobtter
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1464837](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1464837)
It's actually not drug use which has decreased all that much - it's actually
"drug-related pathologies — such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths
due to drug usage — have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute
those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to
offer treatment programs to its citizens — enhancements made possible, for
numerous reasons, by decriminalization."

This obviously has nothing to do with the crisis.

------
rectang
Because moral vanity is more addictive and destructive than any chemical
substance.

~~~
LoonyBalloony
"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise
people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy
with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior
'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most
delicious of moral treats."

\- Aldous Huxley

------
lerie82
For the people including Marijuana in these arguments alongside METH and other
hardcore MAN-MADE narcotics, maybe you forget that weed can basically grow
anywhere, is a plant, and is not man-made.

The article has a clear focus on heroin and meth (drug usage that can be
associated with the sharing of needles) and not so much worried about
Marijuana.

Also, for those who may not know, just because you legalize a drug doesn't
mean druggies will be in the workforce. Just because a drug is legal doesn't
mean a company has to hire someone that does the drug. For example, I had my
medical marijuana card in California, however, companies still denied me jobs
when the pee came back dirty.

No, we shouldn't copy Portugal's drug policies.

------
known
Sounds like
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Paradox)

------
scott_karana
Fundamentally, it's because it scares people too much.

America isn't desperate enough, or brave enough, to try.

------
hmarques
It's a shame that people, in 2017, see something that was implemented in 2000
as radical.

------
ssijak
Making psychedelics schedule 1 is criminal in itself. Especially in the light
of MAPS studies.

------
palad1n
[https://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-
racism-n...](https://www.vox.com/2016/3/22/11278760/war-on-drugs-racism-nixon)

~~~
natural219
Gotta love that URL. "War-on-drugs-racism-Nixon". For some reason I predict
this link will shed more heat than light.

~~~
jack9
History often has such an effect. People forego the truth in fear of the heat
and deny there is any truth at all. The Damore problem.

------
ainiriand
Spanish legislation is really much the same...

------
callesgg
Cause people are scared and uneducated.

------
us7892
tl;dr

------
burntrelish1273
Two reasons:

0\. Military Indu$trial Complex

1\. Moral-panicking Christian sociopaths hate poor people

~~~
log_base_login
Not sure why you have to point at the members of the Christian religion as the
culprit, when there are people of similarly zealous ilk in each and every
religion besides Christianity. Certainly, Christianity has the majority stake
of religion in the Western world, but this question is a global one, and I
don't remember the last time a person was summarily executed for dealing drugs
in a Christian country like one might find in Singapore, or their head cut off
like one might find in certain Middle Eastern countries, or (again) killed, in
certain African countries.

Pointing a finger at a single group is unproductive when the desired outcome
is a more comprehensively understanding, less punitive, and essentially more
humanitarian solution for what is at issue.

The real disconnect is that the people in power are not held to the same
standard as those being sentenced. When was the last time you heard of a
prosecuting attorney being drug tested before they could argue in court? What
about a judge, or probation/parole/police officer? If there was some
transparency in how ubiquitous drug use actually is, one might have some real
leverage when seeking to implement more equitable (and therefore less
punitive) legislation that provides fairer sentencing guidelines.

~~~
knowaveragejoe
> I don't remember the last time a person was summarily executed for dealing
> drugs in a Christian country like one might find in Singapore, or their head
> cut off like one might find in certain Middle Eastern countries, or (again)
> killed, in certain African countries.

This is precisely what's happening in the Philippines, a predominantly
Christian nation, and very devoutly so.

~~~
log_base_login
Fair point, I didn't realize that the Philippines were predominantly
Christian.

I really didn't want to go about defending Christianity necessarily, though I
realize that is how the beginning of my comment turned out, but rather point
to how we shouldn't generalize the problem into a certain religion being
responsible for problem.

Thanks for helping me understand the punitive issue in more detail.

------
anm89
Because the goals of US drug policy have nothing to do with public health
outcomes or justice by any metric.

US drug policy is incredibly effective at the things it is designed to
do,which are keeping prisons full and police budgets enormous. Why would we
change a policy which is already perfect?

------
ericand
tl;dr: Portugal decriminalized drug-use and others are reluctant to do so.

If you want a summary...

Portugal overcame an opioid epidemic through an "enormous cultural shift, and
a change in how the country viewed drugs, addiction – and itself... The
official policy of decriminalisation made it far easier for a broad range of
services (health, psychiatry, employment, housing etc) that had been
struggling to pool their resources and expertise, to work together more
effectively to serve their communities."

"Massive international cultural shifts in thinking about drugs and addiction
are needed to make way for decriminalisation and legalisation globally. In the
US, the White House has remained reluctant to address... but... one has to
want the change in order to make it."

I'm interested to hear ideas on how other countries can come to be less
reluctant and want to change if anyone has any.

------
sfRattan
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
upon his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair

That's about it really. There are a whole lot of people across the world whose
salaries depend on an unending drug war.

~~~
meri_dian
That thought doesn't really capture the reason. It applies in some
circumstances but not this one.

In a republic, people are only paid to enforce restrictive drug policy because
the people want them to.

Most people look at the issue in simple terms. "Drugs are bad, so keep them
away from people". Legalization is a counterintuitive way to lower incidence
of use and addiction, it will take a lot to convince people it is good for
society.

Edit: Blaming public support for restrictive drug policy on "media" and
"politicians" puts the cart before the horse.

Society often moves down the path of least resistance. Tough drug policy is
appealing to people because it sounds logical. Therefore the elements of
society that depend on the acceptance of the people - politicians, media, etc
- also accept it and tow the line.

Influencers do not exist in a vacuum. They are influenced by the prevailing
mood just like everyone else.

~~~
Analog24
Do you have any numbers that prove the general public wants harsh drug laws to
be enforced in the US (or anywhere)? As a counter example: the last few major
elections for marijuana legalization have all gone overwhelming in support of
legalization.

~~~
meri_dian
In recent years attitudes towards marijuana have definitely shifted. Attitudes
towards MJ have always been closer to acceptance than any other drug. Ask the
average person if they think heroin should be sold legally.

------
brokenmachine
Because the US prison industry policy is working as desired.

~~~
krisives
Uniforms, food, beds, etc. all of very poor quality being sold at high margin.
Policing for profit essentially.

~~~
berbec
Dont forget the private, for-profit prisons themselves. If there ever was an
industry that didn't need a profit motive...

------
yznovyak
Bullshit.

Singapore's radical drug policy is also working extremely well. Why hasn't the
world copied it?

And to be fair, Singapore's drug policy has been working for a lot longer than
Portugal's experiment.

~~~
Marazan
One involves killing people and the other doesn't?

~~~
yznovyak
You can argue that heroin kills more people in one year than the government
ever did.

~~~
Marazan
Well, then there's the issue that Singapore's approach doesn't actually stop
drug abuse in Singapore.

~~~
yznovyak
Care to provide any source for your claim?

Here's mine: [http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/drug-
use/b...](http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/drug-use/by-
country/)

Singapore has 0.18 drug related deaths per 100k population. With a population
of ~5.6 million people this means 10 deaths per year for whole country. In
comparison Portugal has 3x higher drug related death rate.

Regarding executions you can check wikipedia: > However, since the 2010s,
execution has become far less common, with some years having no executions at
all.

~~~
thriftwy
Wow, this chart is awesome!

It displays that, the worse life is climate-wise, the more drug abuse there
is.

Especially pronounced in Europe. As you go more inland and more to the north,
drug deaths increase.

Is it a coincidence? Don't think so.

This way, Singapore was never in any danger, it's warm and coastal. And not in
sub-Sakhara. Neither was Portugal, come to think of it! Thus it's a stretch to
promote their solutions worldwide.

~~~
ionised
> It displays that, the worse life is climate-wide, the more drug abuse there
> is.

How did you get that from that chart? It clearly shows South Africa and
Australia as having high drug-related deaths and they are as south as you can
get.

A more accurate observation would be that developed countries with a heavy
emphasis on individualism and a lack of communal culture experience the
highest drug-related deaths.

~~~
thriftwy
Australia does have pretty peculiar climate, doesn't it?

------
lr4444lr
Thailand's policy of granting the police shoot-to-kill license against street
pushers in the early years of the new millennium worked also. Why don't we
copy that too, if lower metrics around overdoses and infections are sufficient
motivation to make "radical" decisions?

~~~
swarnie_
Something about law, trial, human rights, western democracy. Pick any of the
above and expand to prevent kill squads on the streets.

Rodrigo Duterte is proving why that method is terrible in 2017.

~~~
scott_karana
I was under the impression that _anyone_ in the Philippines was encouraged to
kill drug dealers, which just masks culture/sectarian clashes?

Police-only is much different. (Though still immoral IMO)

------
galfarragem
Disclaimer: this article was written by a Portuguese and Portuguese society
is, on average, biased to Left. So take it with a grain of salt.

~~~
rusk
and what a horrible place Portugal is as a result :-)

The Portuguese dabbled with the right but about 40 years ago they decided to
try it another way.

What you have is remarkable political stability ever since.

Maybe their economy isn't great but I've never met an unhappy or angry
Portuguese person (No True Scotsmen notwithstanding of course!). Give me
poverty over autocracy any day.

------
Noos
Probably because it would be a massive cost, on the level of a nationwide
program to eliminate homelessness. And the portugal model doesn't seem to
really wean people off drugs, unlike homelessness, so it's just endless money
being funneled into maintaining addicts, which in time will keep growing since
drug use is legal.

We'd probably run out of money if we tried.

~~~
DanBC
It costs considerably less than the current war on drugs, which is both
expensive and ineffective.

------
beager
So it’s apparent that many governments around the world are unwilling to take
a similar approach to drug use. But could Google, Apple, Facebook et al
provide services there? Create functionality to aid in harm reduction and
addiction outreach? What would those things really look like, and would those
companies actually leverage their access to billions of people to help with
drug abuse?

~~~
freedomben
While in this case I would agree with the action, I think it's kind of a
dangerous thing to want our giant corporations undermining our government and
laws, and imposing their own values in our society.

~~~
amigoingtodie
Too late.

