• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Portugal's drug policy pays off; US eyes lessons

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
156,720
Reaction score
53,497
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ten years ago, the Lisbon neighborhood was a hellhole, a "drug supermarket" where some 5,000 users lined up every day to buy heroin and sneaked into a hillside honeycomb of derelict housing to shoot up. In dark, stinking corners, addicts — some with maggots squirming under track marks — staggered between the occasional corpse, scavenging used, bloody needles. At that time, Portugal, like the junkies of Casal Ventoso, had hit rock bottom: An estimated 100,000 people — an astonishing 1 percent of the population — were addicted to illegal drugs. So, like anyone with little to lose, the Portuguese took a risky leap:They decriminalized the use of all drugs in a groundbreaking law in 2000.


Portugal's drug policy pays off; US eyes lessons - Yahoo! News

Interesting. Here is what Portugal did. The drugs were still illegal, however, consequences resulted in treatment and counseling rather than prison.

Here are some of their results:

1) There were small increases in illicit drug use among adults, but decreases for adolescents and problem users, such as drug addicts and prisoners.

2) Drug-related court cases dropped 66 percent.

3) Drug-related HIV cases dropped 75 percent. In 2002, 49 percent of people with AIDS were addicts; by 2008 that number fell to 28 percent.

4) The number of regular users held steady at less than 3 percent of the population for marijuana and less than 0.3 percent for heroin and cocaine — figures which show decriminalization brought no surge in drug use.

5) The number of people treated for drug addiction rose 20 percent from 2001 to 2008.

Interestingly enough, the government found that there was no additional cost. Monies were just diverted from the legal system to the public health system.

The benefits of this plan are pretty obvious, though I would like to see some statistics on recidivism of the addicts that received treatment.

This is very similar to the plan that I have outlined here at DP, several times. Do you think this could work in the US, and if so, how?
 
Interesting. Here is what Portugal did. The drugs were still illegal, however, consequences resulted in treatment and counseling rather than prison.

Here are some of their results:

1) There were small increases in illicit drug use among adults, but decreases for adolescents and problem users, such as drug addicts and prisoners.

2) Drug-related court cases dropped 66 percent.

3) Drug-related HIV cases dropped 75 percent. In 2002, 49 percent of people with AIDS were addicts; by 2008 that number fell to 28 percent.

4) The number of regular users held steady at less than 3 percent of the population for marijuana and less than 0.3 percent for heroin and cocaine — figures which show decriminalization brought no surge in drug use.

5) The number of people treated for drug addiction rose 20 percent from 2001 to 2008.

Interestingly enough, the government found that there was no additional cost. Monies were just diverted from the legal system to the public health system.

The benefits of this plan are pretty obvious, though I would like to see some statistics on recidivism of the addicts that received treatment.

This is very similar to the plan that I have outlined here at DP, several times. Do you think this could work in the US, and if so, how?

If only the US would listen to you. :lol:
 
Interesting. Here is what Portugal did. The drugs were still illegal, however, consequences resulted in treatment and counseling rather than prison.

Here are some of their results:

1) There were small increases in illicit drug use among adults, but decreases for adolescents and problem users, such as drug addicts and prisoners.

2) Drug-related court cases dropped 66 percent.

3) Drug-related HIV cases dropped 75 percent. In 2002, 49 percent of people with AIDS were addicts; by 2008 that number fell to 28 percent.

4) The number of regular users held steady at less than 3 percent of the population for marijuana and less than 0.3 percent for heroin and cocaine — figures which show decriminalization brought no surge in drug use.

5) The number of people treated for drug addiction rose 20 percent from 2001 to 2008.

Interestingly enough, the government found that there was no additional cost. Monies were just diverted from the legal system to the public health system.

The benefits of this plan are pretty obvious, though I would like to see some statistics on recidivism of the addicts that received treatment.

This is very similar to the plan that I have outlined here at DP, several times. Do you think this could work in the US, and if so, how?

Whether or not it works is now a moot question, as evidenced by what happened in Portugal. The War on Drugs is a total failure, as evidenced by what happened in the US. Time for us to dismantle this idiotic program, and move on to something that actually works.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. Here is what Portugal did. The drugs were still illegal, however, consequences resulted in treatment and counseling rather than prison.

Here are some of their results:

1) There were small increases in illicit drug use among adults, but decreases for adolescents and problem users, such as drug addicts and prisoners.

2) Drug-related court cases dropped 66 percent.

3) Drug-related HIV cases dropped 75 percent. In 2002, 49 percent of people with AIDS were addicts; by 2008 that number fell to 28 percent.

4) The number of regular users held steady at less than 3 percent of the population for marijuana and less than 0.3 percent for heroin and cocaine — figures which show decriminalization brought no surge in drug use.

5) The number of people treated for drug addiction rose 20 percent from 2001 to 2008.

Interestingly enough, the government found that there was no additional cost. Monies were just diverted from the legal system to the public health system.

The benefits of this plan are pretty obvious, though I would like to see some statistics on recidivism of the addicts that received treatment.

This is very similar to the plan that I have outlined here at DP, several times. Do you think this could work in the US, and if so, how?

I believe such a plan could achieve similar results, but there is still glaring holes in such a policy in the form of blackmarket supply. Such a policy will not be effective in eliminating the massive drug gangs that plague inner and border cities. For example, (and this is from personal knowledge, i do not have a source) the majority of the worlds extacy is prodced in a section of Europe between Belgium and the Netherlands, even though extacy consumption is not a punishable offense by law.

The biggest problem with the war on drugs is that it forces the market value for various illicit drugs to increase exponentially thereby drawing in the most dangerous of criminals in their pursuit of profit.
 
How many more tax dollars would have to be allocated to a program such as this?
 
How many more tax dollars would have to be allocated to a program such as this?

How much do taxpayers foot by funding current policy objectives? Basic logic would dictate these costs would fall.
 
How many more tax dollars would have to be allocated to a program such as this?

No more (and in all likelihood less) tax dollars than have been pissed away for decades in enforcement costs related to in an ineffective policy of prohibition.

Portugals experiment is one that the world should take notice of and to use as a guideline to design drug policies that would actually do more good than they do harm. I agree 100% with Goldenboy, the one major shortcoming (and it is large) is that the black market still exists, but unless we get a virtual anonymous agreement by ALL nations to scuttle the Single Convention treaty, it is as good as it gets (I forget the exact figures, but the treaty is still binding unless virtually all signators agree on not being bound by it).

Decriminalization (which is what Portugal did) is all that can occur since the treaty mandates that unless there is a constitutional conflict there MUST be a penalty for drug possession, the Single Convention is the best insurance policy the drug gangs, cartels and runners have to insure they stay in business.

Even decriminalization is better than prohibition for actually being able to deal with the problem, but it is on par with treating a cold with chicken soup - it helps some, but there are still major symptoms left untreated or ignored despite there being options to treat the entire stuffy head runny nose, coughing aching.. ect.

edit to add this regarding the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs:

the Convention has no termination clause, and therefore would remain in effect even if only one signatory remained

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_Against_Illicit_Traffic_in_Narcotic_Drugs_and_Psychotropic_Substances#Proposed_repeal
 
Last edited:
How much do taxpayers foot by funding current policy objectives? Basic logic would dictate these costs would fall.

Wouldn't shooting addicts be cheaper? :mrgreen:
 
Wouldn't shooting addicts be cheaper? :mrgreen:

You should ask some of the (former) addicts in this thread if they would have preferred being shot before they had an opportunity to go clean and turn their lives around
 
You should ask some of the (former) addicts in this thread if they would have preferred being shot before they had an opportunity to go clean and turn their lives around

Of course this method would have to be approved by a death panel.
 
Interesting. Here is what Portugal did. The drugs were still illegal, however, consequences resulted in treatment and counseling rather than prison.

Here are some of their results:

1) There were small increases in illicit drug use among adults, but decreases for adolescents and problem users, such as drug addicts and prisoners.

2) Drug-related court cases dropped 66 percent.

3) Drug-related HIV cases dropped 75 percent. In 2002, 49 percent of people with AIDS were addicts; by 2008 that number fell to 28 percent.

4) The number of regular users held steady at less than 3 percent of the population for marijuana and less than 0.3 percent for heroin and cocaine — figures which show decriminalization brought no surge in drug use.

5) The number of people treated for drug addiction rose 20 percent from 2001 to 2008.

Interestingly enough, the government found that there was no additional cost. Monies were just diverted from the legal system to the public health system.

The benefits of this plan are pretty obvious, though I would like to see some statistics on recidivism of the addicts that received treatment.

This is very similar to the plan that I have outlined here at DP, several times. Do you think this could work in the US, and if so, how?

This is what your link gives:

LISBON, Portugal – In a Dec. 26 story, The Associated Press reported that the United States is studying drug reforms in Portugal, and that White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske visited Portugal to learn about its experience with decriminalizing drugs. The story should have made clear that Kerlikowske does not think Portugal's approach is right for the United States.

I was wondering about the headline, that seemed very out of character for the ONDCP to consider that Portugal's policy may have merit for domestic consideration. Kerlikowski's rejection of the notion is in character, and on script.
 
How much do taxpayers foot by funding current policy objectives? Basic logic would dictate these costs would fall.


No more (and in all likelihood less) tax dollars than have been pissed away for decades in enforcement costs related to in an ineffective policy of prohibition.

Portugals experiment is one that the world should take notice of and to use as a guideline to design drug policies that would actually do more good than they do harm. I agree 100% with Goldenboy, the one major shortcoming (and it is large) is that the black market still exists, but unless we get a virtual anonymous agreement by ALL nations to scuttle the Single Convention treaty, it is as good as it gets (I forget the exact figures, but the treaty is still binding unless virtually all signators agree on not being bound by it).

Decriminalization (which is what Portugal did) is all that can occur since the treaty mandates that unless there is a constitutional conflict there MUST be a penalty for drug possession, the Single Convention is the best insurance policy the drug gangs, cartels and runners have to insure they stay in business.

Even decriminalization is better than prohibition for actually being able to deal with the problem, but it is on par with treating a cold with chicken soup - it helps some, but there are still major symptoms left untreated or ignored despite there being options to treat the entire stuffy head runny nose, coughing aching.. ect.

edit to add this regarding the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs:



United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A government program that costs less and saves money? Yeah, Ok!
 
A government program that costs less and saves money? Yeah, Ok!

common sense should tell you that one government program can cost less then another government program.
 
Well now all the link provides is:

LISBON, Portugal – In a Dec. 26 story, The Associated Press reported that the United States is studying drug reforms in Portugal, and that White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske visited Portugal to learn about its experience with decriminalizing drugs. The story should have made clear that Kerlikowske does not think Portugal's approach is right for the United States.
 
common sense should tell you that one government program can cost less then another government program.

Even if this program cost less, it's still more, because that other program isn't going to suddenly cost less than it already does...LOL!!!!

Creating a government program to lower government spending is like ****ing for virginity.
 
Even if this program cost less, it's still more, because that other program isn't going to suddenly cost less than it already does...LOL!!!!

Creating a government program to lower government spending is like ****ing for virginity.

Colorado made $26 million last year from marijuana regulation.
 
most interesting to me is the almost obsessive fascination many in this forum demonstrate for drugs and homosexuality

to each his own, of course

party on, peeps
 
most interesting to me is the almost obsessive fascination many in this forum demonstrate for drugs and homosexuality

to each his own, of course

party on, peeps

Any links from msm sources?
 
Back
Top Bottom