Does Decriminalization Lead to Chaos? Not in Portugal.
Last Friday I had the opportunity to meet Glenn Greenwald, the best-selling author and Salon contributor who was presenting his report – funded by the Cato Institute – on Portugal’s experience decriminalizing personal possession of drugs over the past eight years.
Few, even in the drug policy world, have paid much attention to Portugal’s remarkable but sensible 2001 decision to remove drug use and possession from the criminal realm and address it solely as a public health issue.
The details of Portugal’s system are worth checking out, but basically Portugal, after careful, empirical study, concluded that criminalizing drug use was creating two barriers to introducing treatment to those who might need it. First, it diverted funds that ought to go to drug treatment to ineffective law enforcement efforts. Second, the threat of arrest naturally caused those who might seek treatment to avoid, rather than seek out help from government institutions.
Under the current system, those caught possessing a personal amount of drugs, including marijuana, are cited by police and required to appear before a three-person panel made up of legal and healthcare professionals within 72 hours. The panel then conducts an informal interview with the person to determine what, if any, treatment might be necessary.
Greenwald was careful to note that the policy change was not an ideological decision, nor was it seen by Portuguese officials as some sort of social experiment. Rather, it was viewed as a necessary fix to alarming increases in drug abuse in the late ’90s.
The result, according to Greenwald’s analysis of the data and countless interviews with Portuguese officials, law enforcement and clients, has been a hands-down success. Despite some initial fears, drug use and drug-related crime have not increased. In many important categories and demographics, 15- to 19-year-olds for example, drug use rates have actually decreased.
And, nearly eight years later, there’s little enthusiasm at all, even among conservatives and law enforcement leadership, to go back to criminalizing personal drug use and possession.
Greenwald argues that there’s no reason to think that there’s anything about the conservative, largely Catholic country that would make its success with decriminalization unique. He also suggested that, in general, empirical evidence supporting reform might be far more persuasive for advocates than ideological arguments about personal freedom or limiting government intrusion in adults’ private lives.
I agree with Greenwald, and the data supporting his conclusions about Portugal’s success with decriminalization are compelling and undeniable. But some comments made by Dr. Peter Reuter, the University of Maryland criminology professor who played devil’s advocate at Greenwald’s presentation, served as a reminder that there’s still an important ideological component to the argument for sensible marijuana policy reform.
Reuter agreed that the data show decriminalization clearly hasn’t exacerbated the country’s drug problem. But he said he was less convinced that it proves decriminalization has actually caused decreases in drug use and abuse, pointing out that drug use rates in certain categories, notably marijuana, have decreased in many countries in the past several years.
Reuter said he believes popular culture has a far greater influence over drug use rates than drug policies themselves, a belief supported by a 2008 World Health Organization comparative study of 17 countries’ drug use rates and drug policies.
It also reminds me a little of the Bush drug czar office’s flimsy claims that arresting millions and lying to children about the dangers of marijuana were to thank for small decreases in youth marijuana use in recent years. We’ve always been very careful to avoid jumping to conclusions about causality and have been vigilant in calling our opponents out when they get carried away, as they often do.
So, if the best we can say is that, despite the unsubstantiated fears of prohibitionists, decriminalizing marijuana doesn’t increase marijuana use rates or marijuana related-crime, then we’re still left with an ideological debate: Either you believe that marijuana is inherently evil and that stigmatizing its use by making users criminals is worthwhile despite being ineffective, or you believe our marijuana policies should be measured by their effectiveness and not by arbitrary standards of morality.
Either way, I think we win.
Tagged with: decriminalization and drug czar and Glenn Greenwald and law enforcement and ONDCP and Portugal and science by the author
14 comments
L.E.A.P., Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, has stated for years that the percentage of addicts has never changed since the early twentieth century. 1.3% of Americans today are addicts (or hooked on drugs) and it hasn’t changed since the beginning of prohibition.
This reaffirming and covering old ground (legislative efforts) that has been covered hundreds of times in the past is a waste of time and precious funding.
Are we here at MPP to put on a dog and pony show with the same old data and with the same old government response. I feel like an idiot trying to convince government leaders they need to reform marijuana laws with our ASKING approach, when I know most of the government leaders at present will ever do for us is turn a deaf ear to me and you, until the next election time.
If politicians aren’t interested in reforming marijuana laws, don’t vote for them. That’s why this drug war will go on for years upon years in the future, we’re waiting for the right people to vote into office that will support marijuana advocates AND stay loyal to their voters with they’re reform work on marijuana.
Americans have only one way of retaliation, boycotting businesses and individuals. Mean while, we face the constant threat of being arrested by goverment officials that we find it impossible to boycott.
Portugal’s drug reform system is living proof of what will happen here in America when pot is finally legalized years from now for most Americans.
If we aren’t planning to boycott or have a revolution in order to have an upper advantage in the war on drugs, I’m just like everybody else, I’m a spectator.
Some where, there has to be retaliation means or we’re going to get laughed at many times over.
If politicians aren’t interested in reforming marijuana laws, don’t vote for them.
Yeah I hear you, but there is one problem with that: the percentage of politicians who openly advocate drug law reform is stunningly small. So, if we don’t vote for the “tough on crime” crowd, we basically aren’t voting at all.
If abstaining from an election is the most powerful statement we can make, we are indeed facing a long road ahead. It’s clear that there won’t be legitimate political support for marijuana reform until a super-majority of Americans support it.
Because of that outlook, I see no reason to call this report a “waste of time”. There is little that can be done other than hammering the facts home, again and again. We can only hope that each time, a few more people open their ears and their minds.
This would be great reading material for every senator and congressman on the hill prior to the vote on Sen. Webb‘s bill to establish a commission to study our criminal justice system, as well as those serving on that commission. We should all pitch in and make sure they all get a copy.
[...] WAR ON DRUGS: Does Decriminalization Lead to Chaos? Not in Portugal Fascinating. I had forgotten that Portugal had decriminalized possession of drugs 8 years ago. The end result? More money for the government, less people in prison, and declining drug use levels. (tags: politics freedom WarOnDrugs drugs news articles blog Portugal decriminalization MPP) [...]
How do lawmakers know what to vote on? What do they really care about? The truth is they don’t care. Most will do what the people want of them, we just have to let them know. Call them, email, go to there office and let them know how you feel.
They will keep track of what side people are on by there phone calls and emails. As long as we keep on them, they will vote the way we want.
If you are reading this you can help. Take some time to send a email to your lawmaker. Then give them a call, you wont have to talk to them, just leave a message. Tell them this is a make or break issue for you and your VOTE depends on there vote.
Next go tell people that you know all about our effort. Have them contact law makers as well. If they keep hearing from us and new people, every time they look in there inbox, they will have to act.
Gen 1:29 And God said, “See, I have geven you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth.
Tennessee Activist raises some intriguing and important points. Cannabis law reformers shouldn’t have to beg elected officials to lend an ear to rational, science-based proposals. I also agree with T.A. in that boycotting is one of the citizenry’s most potent political leveraging devices.
The recent Kellogg’s boycott gave grass roots cannabis supporters an excellent method of activism. Average folks with no resources or time to spare on activism demonstrated their political preferences by simply avoiding certain purchases. It’s ironic that a form of inactivity, the non-purchase of something, becomes an active means of asserting influence, but it cuts to the heart of what powerful corporations and legislators actually need from the populace. Those in power need consumerism. Activists who influence what is consumed ultimately influence government.
With self-righteous posturing reminiscent of the Reagan years Kellogg’s stepped into the spotlight and grandstanded. They didn’t have to. If Kellogg’s had simply and quietly not renewed Phelps’ endorsement deals then few would have noticed. Kellogg’s probably intended to project an image of healthy anti-drug-ness, expecting to advertize the “wholesomeness” of their products. Instead they made themselves into a target.
To influence by boycotts it’s necessary to have clearly defined targets. Lines have to be drawn in the sand. Every political candidate, corporation and public entity should be pressured to take a stand either pro- or anti- cannabis law reform. And, of course, we activists should use our impressive web networking skills to spread the word on what product to not-buy or which candidate to not-support.
Call ‘em out. Call ‘em all out.
Does anyone have any statistics for Teen Marijuana usage in Califorinia pre-1996 compared to current statistics… I’d also like to compare these statistics to the National Trends during the same period.
It would be interesting to see how Califorinia’s Medical Marijuana Bill has either increased or decreased usage in “our children”. The opponents to Marijuana reform always fall back to trying to save the kids. If teen usage isn’t higher now than it was, how is making Medical Marijuana available going to all of a sudden increase usage?
Hi, Michael — There are 11 medical marijuana states, including California, that have good data tracking youth marijuana use rates since establishing medical marijuana laws. Those rates are down in every single one, and they’re way down in California. Here’s our report analyzing those trends: http://www.mpp.org/assets/pdfs/general/TeenUseReport_0608.pdf
Like you said, it’s obvious that whether or not a state chooses to arrest sick people for using medical marijuana clearly, conclusively has nothing to do with youth marijuana use rates in that state. Not that that will stop opponents from repeatedly relying on that false assertion. — Dan
Michael,
MPP has actually conducted such research for all medical marijuana states with before and after data available. You can read it at http://www.mpp.org/teenuse.
Well, one person said, “If politicians aren’t interested in reforming marijuana laws, don’t vote for them”. Unfortunately, that isn’t always possible. Last election day I wanted to vote for whoever was running against Congressman George Radanovich. Guess what…he was running unopposed and won his re-election without a contest. Some of these guys in our government that are against progress, are there because there is no one to run against them.
Another problem with only voting for people who agree that we need a change in our drug laws is that once they are elected very few actually follow through on their campaign promises on this particular issue. They pander and then step back once they receive our votes. Not only do we need to get on the cases of those who are in office that have opposed drug reform from the start, but we need to make those who were elected partly based on their perceived stance of reform and make them do what they promised, rather than just ignoring us until the next pander/election cycle.
Just this last Feb. in WA we were told that even though the majority of the state wants cannabis decriminalized that a member of our very own Dem party in the House (the chairperson Chris Hurst) refused to even hear the bill. Now both bills (SB 5615 and HB 1177) are floored until the next session starts. It’s time to make our representatives do the jobs they were voted in to do: Represent the people.
[...] Campus Progress’ Jesse Singal (here); Marijuana Policy Project’s Dan Bernath (here); and Stop the Drug War’s Scott Morgan (here). Other large [...]
revolt will be the only way to change anything for the better. our founding fathers are probably wondering whats taking people so long
[...] already decriminalized the possession of marijuana. The writing is on the wall. It is only a matter of time before other countries do the same. [...]
Leave a Comment