My question to putin is, what? where are your figures? hat other reports have been compiled? and what should i beleive?

I read this report, not quite cover-to-cover, but in some detail. I did not come to hte same conclusion as you have.

what you call 'glossing over the statistics' i could see as being thorough

the report says: "in virtually every category of any significance, Portugal, since decriminalization, has outperformed the vast majority of other states that continue to adhere to a criminalization regime"

now this may not be true, i don't have the statistics to back up their claims. But the point is valid, EVEN with an increase in drug usage across the board, if Portugal is performing better than other countries which have contrasting policies in place then the case for decriminalization is quite clearly made.

There is nothing inherently wrong with drug usage so I don't think it's a good metric for measuring a country's drug policy. A better measure may be drug related crime, hospitalization, etc.

The figures I posted in the other thread come from this very report from p. 12-14. Judge for yourselves if you think the report treated contradictory evidence fairly.

As for other reports, here's some which seem to indicate that the case for legalization is not as self-evident as the Portugal enthusiasts claim it is.

http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/stats09/gpstab2
Here's a table showing that lifetime drug use increased for every category of drug for ages 15-34 from 2001-2007.
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/stats09/gpstab1a
This is a table showing that lifetime prevalence users have increased from 7.6% to 11.7% from 2001-2007. You can compare it with other countries in the EU listed as well and see if they "vastly outperformed" other regimes.
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/stats09/drdtab2a
Here's a table showing the increase in drug-related deaths - from 280 in 2001 to 314 in 2007.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/html/portugal.html#_ednref6

People in the developing world have been killed in large numbers because people in rich countries think it's a inalienable right to use drugs. Other people shouldn't have to pay with their lives for your irresponsible habits.

"Lifetime drug use" and "lifetime prevalence"...Meaningless. Right now, if pot became legal in the US, I would use it on occassion. I would probably use it on occassion for the rest of my life...and thus I would contribute to the "lifetime" statistics. But, let's be real, that is a meaningless piece of information. Realistically, I would probably be swapping out the far-worse drug of alcohol for a bong and a Pepsi. But Yonni hits the issue right on the nose: It isn't about usage, it is about negative societal impact.

Being opposed to drug use in a free society makes no sense, particularly since our society is *filled* with lethal drugs, and more are pumped out onto the streets everyday ("bath salts", for instance). It is irrational to say the least. Time and again we see that when the government interferes with a desired activity, it will go criminal. See Prhibition. Modern day: See excessive taxes on *cigarettes*, which are causing black market cigarette operations to pop up.

So Putin, as you rightly state, people in the developing world are dying because rich countries want their drugs....and you can reasonably state that mankind throughout history has wanted it's drugs and will always find a way to get them...shouldn't you therefore support the decriminalization, or outright legalization, of drugs, so that we could grow poppy fields in the US instead of fighting over them in Afghanistan?

As a counter to the decriminalization of drugs, you inact harsh penalties for abuse (driving under the influence.) I don't the have the stats in hand, but in Europe there is a much lower incident of drunk driving, though alcohol is much more socially acceptable (wine for children, for example), because the penalty for screwing up is *harsh*. But, yes, they have much better public transportation, too...) Anyway...that's my thought for now.

@Krellin "'Lifetime drug use' and 'lifetime prevalence'...Meaningless.", I disagree, if as the report claims in at least one place:

"Since decriminalization, lifetime prevalence rates (which measure how many people have consumed a particular drug or drugs over the course of their lifetime) in Portugal have decreased for various age groups. For students in the 7th–9th grades (13–15 years old), the rate decreased from 14.1 percent in 2001 to 10.6 percent in 2006."

Now a 3.5% decrease may not seem like a lot, but that is 3.5/14.1 = 24%, that is just over 1in4 people in the age bracket who in the previous regime would have started taking SOME drugs in the 13-15 age range.

I think that is a pretty telling statistic.

True, you still have so question over bias in the reporting, and i am focusing on the users rather than the majority of people who are not users, but that is where you will see the difference being made.

Usage represents something measurable about the attitudes of the users, which in this particular age bracket will have a massive impact on life-long habits. Which in turn is a good indicator of 'societal impact'.

"People in the developing world have been killed in large numbers because people in rich countries think it's a inalienable right to use drugs. Other people shouldn't have to pay with their lives for your irresponsible habits."

And what is different between growing and selling coffee to growing and selling other drugs?

Answer: The drugs are illegal.

Er, Putin. Wouldn't legalization mean that more people in the developed world could produce their own drugs and actually *not* have to go through black market dealers that *do* put the lives of people in the developing world at risk to produce the drugs they sell to the developed world?

@Orthaic - I think you missed my point on "lifetime drug use". My point is that, *whatever* the number is, it is meaningless. I do not use drugs now. haven't in almost 20 years, though I did in college. If pot became legal today, I would probably start to use every now and then, just as people drink every now and then. As such, I - a responsible, working guy, a guy that got an engineering degree while using drugs, would continue to be a responsible citizen, pay my taxes, raise my kids, go to work, etc all sober...but occasionally, and probably for the rest of my life, I would hit a bong, and thus become a "lifetime user" in someone's statistic.

So my point is I don't care if the study shows the number goes UP or goes DOWN....because I don't know what the hell that number (lifetime drug users) even means. I mean, hell, the United States is *rotting* to the core with lifetime drug users. They use alcohol, caffeine, prescription drugs, cough syrup, etc. But that's all "legal", so it doesn't count. But let some yahoo do a study and find that Joe smokes pot and he goes in the bad statistic column....whereas Suzy that takes Valium, then drives to work and operates heavy machinery...she doesn't show up in the stats because she has a script for her drug abuse.

These sorts of studies become fatally flawed when the entire scope of human drug use is taken into account, unless it is looking at the negative impact to society (i.e. criminal activity *apart from the drug use* or *caused by the drug use* such as armed robbery, etc.) If the study is simply on the plain old concept of "drug use" then it isn't worth the paper it's written on.

@TGM: Yes, but drugs being illegal (to export) does not mean the price is that different.

What meaning or value can an international convention on drug trafficking have on a farmed who is personally concerned about making an income for his family?

Do you advocate that law enforcement bridge this gap in meaningfulness while others here feel that we should modify our law to allow local producers change the economic reality... I don't see what weight your agruement holds.

Yes, the drugs are illegal, but is that a meaningful statement?

@Putin, the example of portugal is not one of legalization, merely deciminalization. There the cost of enforcing law upon the users is removed and the savings can more easily be directed into treatment for what (in the case of addiction) is a medical problem.

And i don't know of many people who think that alcohol or smoking induced medical conditions should not be treated just because they are self-inflicted. Actually some people have addiction like eating habits which cause extreme obesity. Is that not a fair comparison?

Treat people who are acting in the same manner in the same way. IF the law happen to be a dividing line on that it is not representative of a fair morality, IMHO.

The problem with drugs is really not the drugs themselves. We’ve already got so many legal things that people use that cause altered brain states and have associated health risks (tobacco, alcohol, inhalants, the “bath salts” that krellin mentioned, salvia, synthetic marijuana, etc.) that it is the height of hypocrisy to take the moral high ground against other substances that are really not much different from the legal ones (and kill far, far, fewer people).

The problem with drugs is drug-related violence and the overcrowding of our prisons with people incarcerated, in many cases, for merely possessing small amounts of illegal narcotics with no intent of selling them. Gangs kill each other and innocent bystanders on the streets because they are fighting over territory- territory to distribute drugs in. If these drugs were legal, the gangs would fall apart, because no such convoluted network of submarines, private planes, smugglers, middlemen, dealers, and enforcers could ever compete with the USPS and the corner grocery. It’d be a lot safer to walk the streets in any city, tens of thousands would not be slaughtered in other countries and our own as part of drug wars, and we could lower our incarceration rate from its dizzying heights.

Surprising, isn’t it, that despite denouncing other countries for being authoritarian and imprisoning people unjustly, we incarcerate a larger percentage of our population than North Korea, China, Cuba, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and every other country in the entire world. Legalizing drugs might start to fix that.

"These sorts of studies become fatally flawed when the entire scope of human drug use is taken into account, unless it is looking at the negative impact to society"

agreed. I just think that some of the specific numbers can be useful.

Though i don't claim to have done a detailed analysis of this particular piece.

@Orthaic - Interesting that you bring up eating disorders, because the US has jumped onto the slippery slope of eating police. We are seeing an increase in the frequency of lawsuits against, for example, McDonald's because of a child that is obese; or health insurance programs that charge penalties is the provider believes that you have an unhealthy lifestyle (obese, smoker, etc.). The health police are quickly becoming an accepted norm, insidiously working their way into the American mindset.

The question is, while smoking or alcoholism or overeating may all be considered "medical conditions", are they also not the actions of a free human being? Do I not have the right the eat myself into a heart attack? Do I not have the right the drink myself to death without the government interfering? And if so....why can't I hit a bong every now and then? Exactly how far do we want the government invading our lives? Because once they come through the front door, they are gonna start telling you what day you are missionary position, and what day she's on top....lol

@orthaic -- I agree that "specific numbers" can be useful....but it is critically important that we understand every detail of how a number is derived, and then *only* apply that number appropriately. Again..."life time drug user" is a meaningless number to me, as an overwhelming majority of adults I know are "life time drug users" of alcohol, mental health drugs, various illegal drugs, etc. Most of them do it as an occassional, safe habit in a safe, appropriate manner...and therefore the societal harm is negligible. So what is the use of that number?

"@Putin, the example of portugal is not one of legalization, merely deciminalization. There the cost of enforcing law upon the users is removed and the savings can more easily be directed into treatment for what (in the case of addiction) is a medical problem."

"And i don't know of many people who think that alcohol or smoking induced medical conditions should not be treated just because they are self-inflicted. Actually some people have addiction like eating habits which cause extreme obesity. Is that not a fair comparison?"

Smoking and eating doesn't induce people to engage in violent behavior. You're right about alcohol, but people became convinced that "prohibition didn't work" (which isn't true). The fact of the matter is the poorly enforced prohibition laws decreased alcohol production, especially hard liquor. It decreased domestic violence. It shut down the saloons. It decreased scerosis of the liver.

Anyway, you can have criminal penalties that include drug treatment. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm aware. But the proponents of 'decriminalization' want full-on legalization. Just look at the writings of Cato and Greenwald and that quickly becomes apparent. Just like how 'medical marijuana' was nothing but a trojan horse for marijuana legalization (as the pot legalizers readily admit), decriminalization in Portugal is now the battering ram being used to promote drug legalization.

Nevermind that the Netherlands has experimented with such a policy for several decades, with results so poor that the Netherlands has been shutting down many of their famous 'coffee shops'.

"Wouldn't legalization mean that more people in the developed world could produce their own drugs and actually *not* have to go through black market dealers that *do* put the lives of people in the developing world at risk to produce the drugs they sell to the developed world?"

Depends how much it is legalized, but you still won't eliminate the problem of the black market. "Decriminalization" schemes simply increase demand while strengthening the cartels as the only reliable mass suppliers of these drugs. Any regulation whatsoever on drugs will lead to black markets. Just like how legalized cigarette use hasn't eliminated the cigarette black market, which is a booming business. The only durable solution is to decrease demand for drugs. Stop promoting drugs as if they're just fine and have no social harm. Drug decriminalization in the Netherlands led crime and drug use to skyrocket. Robberies, car thefts, shootings all increased exponentially. The trade-off shouldn't be crime & violence in one area vs crime & violence in another area. The only lasting solution is to eliminate demand for drugs.

Sorry for the disorganization of the previous post, hopefully people understand what I'm replying to.

For what it's worth, I followed fine. You get a lot of questions, so some level of disorganization on occasion is probably inevitable anyway. ;)

And no, the black market won't magically go away, and if I seemed to convey that I apologize, because that wasn't my intention. I meant that reliance on the black market would be reduced because you'd have the equivalent of Mom and Pap shops for drugs around. Sure, the cartels are your Wal-Marts and they're still the main beneficiaries of drug sales in general, but you actually *have* some degree of competition (however limited in scope) that can potentially cut into the flow of cash to the cartels.

Again, far from a 'perfect' or lasting solution. It's not *really* a solution in and of itself; you'd need more work. But it would certainly help, I'd think.

@Putin: "Any regulation whatsoever on drugs will lead to black markets. Just like how legalized cigarette use hasn't eliminated the cigarette black market, which is a booming business. " This statement is just a weeee bit disingenuous. The rapid increase in cigarette black marketing can be attributed to the dramatic increase in taxes over the past decade. Most people do not wish to engage in criminal activity as a way of habit and are willing to pay what they as individuals believe is an acceptable level of taxation. While your statement may be true in a very, very strict interpretation (i.e. any regulation may cause some anti-government extremist to run a black market on principle, and thus one black marketer equal the black market and satisfies your claim...), generally speaking you can trace the rise in black markets to the rise in Federal taxation.

I don't know a dope smoker, and never have, that wouldn't gladly go down to the corner drug store to legally buy his government inspected and taxed weed in lieu of risking jail.

"generally speaking you can trace the rise in black markets to the rise in Federal taxation."

I assume you mean state cigarette taxes. I would assume in your world of legalized pot that it would be taxed and regulated more heavily than cigarettes, would it not? So how would this problem not arise? I'm sure these regulations would be left up to the states, in which case you'd disparities like you have now in cigarette prices between North Carolina and New York.

"The question is, while smoking or alcoholism or overeating may all be considered 'medical conditions', are they also not the actions of a free human being? Do I not have the right the eat myself into a heart attack? Do I not have the right the drink myself to death without the government interfering? And if so....why can't I hit a bong every now and then?"

- Indeed, and i argue merely that people with medical conditions be treated by medical professionals, or that they be free to seek medical care if they choose.

Of course I will also put myself in the minority position of saying this freedom to medical care should be a basic human right. And as such Universal Health Care should be as available to drug addicts as it should to the obese.

Though i might also suggest that more effective rehabilitation programmes be provided for those who do seek medical care. Where you give up the right to make your own decisions for the duration of the programme.

"Most of them do it as an occassional, safe habit in a safe, appropriate manner...and therefore the societal harm is negligible. So what is the use of that number?"

-ok, i agree with you there definitely. Though some trends can be seen in any set of data which can be useful if we KNOW what the data represents.

" 'Decriminalization' schemes simply increase demand while strengthening the cartels as the only reliable mass suppliers of these drugs." - there has been no massive increase in demand in Portugal, perhaps a few percentage points, and the money is now available to focus on the suppliers. I can't see the downside of this.

On the other hand is decriminalization includes growing for personal use it could potentially bring down demand while keeping use at the same levels.

"The only durable solution is to decrease demand for drugs. Stop promoting drugs as if they're just fine and have no social harm. Drug decriminalization in the Netherlands led crime and drug use to skyrocket."

Agreed, but that does not mean penalizing the occasional drug user who does not cause any social harm, and it does mean an honest educational programme which provides actual information for the youth rather than any attempt to scare them straight - perhaps a comparison of the short-term effects of the various drugs and the possible health damage, along with caffine, tobacco, alcohol and cough syrup...

Lastly the recent example of 'cartels' is the Irish experience of head shops selling 'legal highs' drugs which were newly created chemicals being put on sale as 'plant food' or to burn as an incense or relaxation. Until a change in the law these shops were bringing in a huge revenue and damaging the cartels (which fought back with firebombs) and providing VAT to the irish tax collector...

It is possible to reduce the negative social impact of cartels, though that is a legalization arguement not a decriminalization one.

Lots to reply to, so here it is as cohesively as I can.

First, I'm really confused as to why Portugal would expect their decriminalization to decrease the overall drug use, especially in the younger (read: not as addicted) demographic.

Second, I do think that Portugal's idea of addressing addiction with a more pragmatic approach is very ingenious and hopefully will be adopted in other countries. Decreasing the barriers between addicts and rehab is very important. Throwing users in jail has not been an effective means for the U.S. War on Drugs.

"People in the developing world have been killed in large numbers because people in rich countries think it's a inalienable right to use drugs. Other people shouldn't have to pay with their lives for your irresponsible habits."
Which is why we need to have well legislated and monitored domestic production. If it was legal to grow, I'd never have to visit a dealer for weed or shrooms.

"Netherlands has been shutting down many of their famous 'coffee shops'."
I think the dutch coffee shops are interesting case because they are a destination spot for travelers. Amsterdam is seen by travelers as a mecca for debauchery. This certainly isn't a healthy environment to try looser drug laws.

I think the wealth of misinformation from movies and anti-drug propaganda was warped a lot of people's perception of the effects and dangers of drugs. The dangers, of which there are certainly many, differ between drugs and can often be avoided with smart drug use. The perception of harmful effects of drugs further compounded by two more things, imo: All drugs are lumped in together (or there is a rather arbitrary distinction between hard and soft drugs) and drugs are illegal so, publicly, they are often used by less reputable people.

Similarly to how I would suggest to people to try things that they haven't that I think they would enjoy, I would encourage people to have an open mind about trying drugs. Not everyone will enjoy the experiences brought on by all drugs (and I won't even pretend to be well versed in all the experiences) but I do know that intellectual people tend to very much enjoy hallucinogens and I suspect that many people in this discussion would find it an enjoyable experience. I think that, because it's illegal, many people miss out on what can be a wonderful experience and, in my opinion, that's a shame.

"Portugal's idea of addressing addiction with a more pragmatic approach is very ingenious and hopefully will be adopted in other countries." - from what i understand of it, the Portuguese decision makers were forced into this decision by EU officials/regulations due to the high spread of disease caused by sharing needles. And conservative Portuguese legislators want to reverse this decision.

Was IV drug use (and the related spread of HIV, etc.) especially rampant in Portugal?

apparently.

src wikipedia: "The EU had in effect forced the Portuguese government to make radical measures to reduce Portugal's record high incidence of HIV/AIDS[citation needed]. In 1999 Portugal had the highest rate of HIV amongst injecting drug users in the European Union. There were 2000 new cases a year, in a country of 10 million people. 45 % of reported AIDS cases recorded in 1997 originated among IV drug users[1]"

It's interesting that a country that was strong armed into taking a hard-line approach on drugs took such a seemingly 'liberal' route.
It really makes the U.S. approach seem a little archaic.

the approach was desined to stop the spread of HIV not the use of drugs.

i think that's the point.

@Orthaic: "Of course I will also put myself in the minority position of saying this freedom to medical care should be a basic human right." If I'm a doctor trying to pay the bills to keep my office open, pay my employees pay for rent, for electricity, pay my medical school loans and maybe...JUST maybe....put food on the table too....then your "freedom" to medical care means that you can COMPEL ME to give you medical care....and thus I have lost my freedom as a doctor.

It is amazing how the "health care is a right" crowd consistently fail to recognize that a right is something that can not be taken away (i.e. belief, speach, etc.) as opposed to being something that must be proivded by someone else. If you can not GET/DO/HAVE something all on your own, but *require* somebody else to provide said thing for you, then, by definition, it can not be a "Right", as your right is now compelling somebody else to action.

If every doctor in the US said next week they are going on strike and will not see/treat/diagnose ANYONE, then the only way you can exercise your "right" to health care is to forcefully compel the doctors to see/treat/diagnose you.

no krellin, if you are a doctor and have earned that right by completing some state exams (which only the best will earn each year) the state will provide you with the food for your table.

in case the concept of socialism escapes you.

It is amazing how the 'taking things away from me' crowd feel that it is right for them to pay for health care when they WANT it, but only their own.

Your hypothetical situation is fairly far-fetched. A strike would not be neccesary, and even when striking medical staff still provide emergency care to those who NEED it, because they have a thing called *compassion*

Most doctors do not choose to with-hold such things, so your suggestion that they would be forced to under my 'socialism' holds no water.

Is there a word for absurd arguements like that one? reducto ab absurdum?

Also, Krellin, you talk as if people are forced to choose to become doctors, and thus had no choice in the matter.

Fortunately we do not have to force anyone to train to become a doctor, there is a surplus of candidates who wish to learn and gives quality health care. No taking away of their choices there...

I on the other hand would prefer to require that education includes some basic practical skills, such as first aid, and that refusing to practice your first aid when an accident occurs be a crime.

That would be taking away your freedom, but as Thucy pointed out, even inaction has an effect, and can thus be seen as immoral.

The decriminalization/legalization argument hinges on this myth that prisons in America are full of non-violent offenders. The truth is that this is not the case at all. Look at any state's corrections statistics and you'll see that very few are simply first time non-violent drug offenders. Many of the so-called "non-violent" offenders have committed crimes like stalking, child pornography, weapons charges, and the like. So this notion that decriminalization will result in shifting resources from prisons and put them in rehabilitation just isn't true. As it stands, drug offenders are usually sentenced to some kind of treatment. Most state prisons are full of violent offenders and repeat felons. The people in prison for drug charges are there for trafficking, not possession.

Americans need to realize that America is a violent, crime filled place. That's why we lead the world in the number of prisoners. Pretending otherwise isn't going to get us anywhere.

"Americans need to realize that America is a violent, crime filled place."
That's a fairly loaded statement that I feel needs some backing up.

Also, the amount prisoners that are violent offenders doesn't really have much of a bearing on whether or not you should throw drug users in prison or change the drug laws.

"That's a fairly loaded statement that I feel needs some backing up."

Look at the FBI crime report I posted in the gun control thread.

" the amount prisoners that are violent offenders doesn't really have much of a bearing on whether or not you should throw drug users in prison"

Yes it does. The myth of non-violent offenders filling up our jails has been a staple of the legalization argument since forever. The idea being that we imprison too many people, and spend too many resources locking up drug users instead of spending them where they'd be more productive.

It is a violent crime if you commit a mugging in order to fund a drug addiction....

Alright, without spending too much time on this I'll take that at face value.

But back to the point - why not lock up the violent offenders for the violent crimes? There is no denying that there are many non-violent drug users that are prosecuted by these laws. This also doesn't address Portugal's assertion that jail time is a big road block to treating addiction and solving the societal problems rather than just locking them away.

"There is no denying that there are many non-violent drug users that are prosecuted by these laws."

I just denied it. Didn't we just have this conversation?

"It is a violent crime if you commit a mugging in order to fund a drug addiction...."
Of course. This does happen, but that's not the only way that people get drugs...

@Putin, You're honestly saying that [i] all [/i] drug users are violent and there are a great many drug users that just have different idea of recreation than you do?

ok, while you may claim that 'The decriminalization/legalization argument hinges on this myth that prisons in America are full of non-violent offenders.'

My argument didn't even mention such a thing. In fact i would argue that there would be little difference in violent crime. Those drug addicts who commit violent crime to get their fix will still be committing violent crimes and placed in prisons.

Under a system similar to the Portuguese example those casual/recreational drug users will be left alone to enjoy themselves (just as people who drink alcohol or caffine, and smoke tobacco)

Those who happen to develop a drug habit will be refereed to a hospital as is usually the case with ill people who seek assistance, and those who are caught committing other crimes will be treated as criminal for such.

That said, in Portugal possession is not a crime if the amount you are found with is less than 11 days personal supply. Which seems like a sensible limit if you choose not to regulate the sale of drugs itself.

I was looking at the wiki page on Portuguese drug laws to try find what 10 days personal supply entails (which I didn't find there)

But I thought it was interesting that the results section shows that drug usage increased by most metrics but the detriment to society (decreased HIV, decreased deaths, increased treatment) was the opposite. I think that suggests that smart drug use, rather than vilified drug use is the most productive path.

i have to assume that reasonable limits to what you can expect to use in 10 days as an addict is the limit and that police can arrest people who they suspect are not carrying the drugs around for their personal use.

Drug trafficking in Portugal is still illegal, both sale and transport. Now proving something is not for personal use may seem difficult, but users can probably just be cautious and not carry more than they need to around with them, nor sell what they do have in public...

Also i like how the CDT which people get refereed to is made up of a social worker, *a psychiatrist* and a lawyer.

especially given that a psych is specifically trained to prescribe drugs to people!