Where did you get this from? No one I know seriously considers changing the structure that's in place. Maybe some politician said something and it somehow reached your news feed.
"The number of Portuguese adults who reported prior use of illicit adult drugs rose from 7.8% in 2001 to 12.8% in 2022 — still below European averages but a significant rise nonetheless. Overdose rates now stand at a 12-year high and have doubled in Lisbon since 2019."
"still below European averages" being literally my point.
The prediction (at the time) by those against the program was that Portugal would become a giant Amsterdam, and drug tourism would rise and the country would be awash in drugs and drug users.
None of that happened. We are still around or below European averages.
> The number of Portuguese adults who reported prior use of illicit adult drugs rose from 7.8% in 2001 to 12.8% in 2022
Isn’t this consistent with decriminalization that people aren’t afraid to talk about past drug use? You see similar statistics with, say, people coming out of the closet when homosexuality is decriminalized; which conservatives like to paint as “legalization making people gay”. The OD cases could also be from people more readily calling for help rather than trying to cover up.
I don't know about Portuguese politics, but at least here in the US ~90% of the time when I hear that something is "underfunded" or "had funding cut" and look into it the reality ends up being "funding for the program was not increased at the rate at which advocates wanted" but actual funding levels stayed the same or continued to increase. Are there any hard numbers for actual past funding levels compared to the present?
"João Goulão — head of Portugal’s national institute on drug use and the architect of decriminalization — admitted to the local press in December that “what we have today no longer serves as an example to anyone.” Rather than fault the policy, however, he blames a lack of funding.
After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs."
The commenters seem to me to be more saying that the program itself is somehow flawed. What flaws it has, of course, are always quite nebulous, and seem to apply more to US efforts than our own.
If you want to hear from the people who implemented the program itself, their thoughts and how successful they were, there are Portuguese language podcasts. Maybe OAI Whisper can translate them.
There's plenty of coverage in local media about the issues with the program. Many related to underfunding. Something like 80% less than it was in previous years, according to the comments in your HN link. The points I made - focus on public health - psychiatrists instead of jail - HIV transmission massively reduced - remain.
Thank you. Finally read it, and like I thought, it's completely incoherent with the idea that "The Portuguese are having second thoughts."
It's mostly a complaint piece by Porto mayor Rui Moreira. Joao Goulao, the actual architect of the program points to what actually happened.
"João Goulão — head of Portugal’s national institute on drug use and the architect of decriminalization — admitted to the local press in December that “what we have today no longer serves as an example to anyone.” Rather than fault the policy, however, he blames a lack of funding.
After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs."
sorry Gruez I don't know how to contact you.
I am searching the ashley madison leak database. Do you know where I still could find it (piratebay links dont work anymore).
Thank you !
Stick an email in your profile if you want someone to contact you. Also, 4chan is probably a better forum for your question. Specifically, the torrents board.
It's an evergreen topic on north american conservative talk radio. Our local right wing talking head brought it up this week as part of an effort to erode support for the existing supervised consumption site in our city. As evidenced by a few comments in this thread, a lot of people see drug use solely as a sign of moral failing on the part of the user and will refuse to accept any solutions that don't involve punishment.
They would likely accept it if it came with strict requirements that the addicts must also undergo counseling and engage in a job/housing search if they are currently unemployed or homeless. It’s not punishment that most people on the right want, it’s personal responsibility of which being punished for criminal activity is just a small component. If the addicts using these centres were demonstrated to be making real progress towards getting clean and reintegrated into society then the vast majority of conservatives would support them. The opposition is to a policy that is essentially no different from legalizing opium dens that support only the habit without requiring treatment.
The right wing people I know would never accept it, even if it came with counseling and all that. They have rejected Portugal's approach and said that that's just giving in to the druggies.
There might be some conservative people that agree with you, but I think most strongly religious conservatives wouldn't. IMO it does come down to punishment. Druggies have sinned and must be punished, spare the rod and all that.
This is such a bizarre idea. Thanks to this thread, I learnt that the entire Portuguese drug program now costs something like 16€ million. The results for that is - top 10 country in safety in the world - pretty average results in drug usage in the population.
There are some "right wing" ideologies that basically align with non-interventionist decriminalization: don't fuck with me I won't fuck with you sort of individualistic thinking. Using violence such as taxation to solve it has parallels in some minds to the druggy coming up and robbing you. They don't want either, just the option to defend theyself or possibly engage in voluntary charity/assistance.
> Maybe some politician said something and it somehow reached your news feed.
Yes, except that instead of politicians, it's "police" (and statisticians); and instead of a news feed, it's literally the article we are commenting on.
> Portugal decriminalised consumption of all drugs for personal use in 2001; it technically remains against the law, but instead of prison, users are registered by police and referred for help (attendance is voluntary). In the early days, it appeared to be an unequivocal success: HIV transmission rates via syringes dropped, as did the number of overdoses, and prison populations were down 16.5% by 2008. But a recent national survey shows illicit drug use up from 7.8% to 12.8% between 2001 and 2022; overdose rates are at a 12-year high, having nearly doubled in Lisbon between 2019 and 2023 (this is still below the European average). In Porto, there has been a 24% jump in drug paraphernalia being collected from city streets in the year to 2022, with this year set to outpace that. Crimes such as robbery in public spaces rose 14% from 2021 to 2022, which police have in part blamed on the rise in drug use.
(italics for emphasis)
> Are you American?
Yes
> Is this some point of pride for you to be agaisnt this kind of program?
On the contrary! I am in favor of this kind of program. I am very critical of my country's war on drugs. It is a war with one singular belligerent: US.
I was responding to your comment with a rhetorical device. Your quote is entirely uninteresting because of course police will claim that increased drug use and increased $BAD_THING are linked, and please can they have more funding. There's no evidence behind your quote, and you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.
It's a common way of rephrasing what someone said to point out the absurdity in their statement.
I mean that you in particular shouldn't have brought it up. You should apply your reasoning, and not argue using bad arguments. If the article has a bad argument, don't repeat it.
Police as a whole do not have to agree in order for some police to make that claim. In English, we often leave out the word "some", because we recognize that referring to a group of people very rarely includes the entire group.
I agree that this article's claim really should be backed by a source.
Thank you. I find it odd that articles like this and many others go with "the local residents" line.
Unnamed sources have been used since forever by journalists to create stronger articles, but I disagree with their use entirely. If you're going to quote someone, quote them. Don't tell me "local residents", or "local police" think this or that. It seems like a journalistic writing tactic that blurs the truth more than it clarifies.
Also, I suspect you misunderstood the article somewhat?
The increase in drug use that's being described happened in the last 3-4 years. The decriminalisation policy is from 2001. So the increase is not connected to the policy, thus the police is not asking for a repeal of it.
The increase in drug use and decriminalisation are not related, basically. So the sentence you quoted, I don't see how that is a request from the police for a review.
Are you happy to post this having read the whole thing or just the headline?
I've read this article since everyone here kept quoting it.
It contains two "criticisms".
First Porto's well connected mayor, Rui Moreira, and his people, saying that the problem is out of control. It very likely is, in Porto. I live there and it's kind of shit since the pandemic.
The second one (and in my view the only one that matters) is by the architect of the program Joao Goulao.
"João Goulão — head of Portugal’s national institute on drug use and the architect of decriminalization — admitted to the local press in December that “what we have today no longer serves as an example to anyone.” Rather than fault the policy, however, he blames a lack of funding.
After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs."
So yeah here's the thing.
No one is having second thoughts about the program, they've just massively defunded it to the point its architect says it barely works, and the Porto mayor got to complain about it to the Washington Post, likely because he has a really good PR company.
That's it.
Rui Moreira is not even a part of any major party.
No data on Portuguese support for the program is ever mentioned.
No major politician is ever quoted.
The statement that "the Portuguese are having second thoughts" remains unsourced, unless you are talking about Rui Moreira.
