Log in

View Full Version : Decriminalization of drugs—all drugs—works.



Sasha
6th September 2010, 15:59
What Britain could learn from Portugal's drugs policy

A decade ago Portugal took a radical new approach to illegal drugs by treating users as people with social problems rather than as criminals. Could it work in the UK?


http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/cartoons/2010/9/4/1283609683667/A-cannabis-smoker-in-Port-006.jpg A cannabis smoker in Porto, Portugal, during a march in favour of legalising drugs Photograph: Estela Silva/EPA Susannah is being treated in the physiotherapy unit of the Centro das Taipas, a vast, pink former mental institutution close to Lisbon's airport, where she is having hot towels pressed on to her lower back. Built during the second world war, the wards of wing 21B are these days committed to the treatment of drug addiction.
Susannah is a long-term drug user and is intelligent but troubled. She first smoked cannabis at 13. At 17, she began taking heroin with the father of her children. Now 37, she has been dependent on drugs (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/drugs) – mostly heroin – for almost two decades.
"I lived in Spain for a while," she tells me. "And London for a year, working in the restaurants with a friend. I went there to try to get off drugs but ended up on crack." These days, however, Susannah, who also suffers from a bipolar disorder, is one of the beneficiaries of Europe's most tolerant drug regime. For in Portugal (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/portugal), where Susannah lives, drugs have not only been decriminalised for almost a decade, but users are treated as though they have a health and social problem. Addicts such as Susannah are helped by the law, not penalised and stigmatised by it.
In the midst of the recently resurgent debate in Britain about whether our drug laws are working – or require a major overhaul – the experience of Portugal has become a crucial piece of evidence in favour of a radical approach that has confounded the expectations of even its conservative critics, so much so that in the last month British officials have asked their Portuguese counterparts for advice, with the only caveat being that they avoid mentioning the word "decriminalise".
It is, perhaps, an unnecessary sensitivity. For the reality is that, despite liberalising how it regards drug possession – now largely an administrative problem rather than a criminal offence – Portugal has not become a magnet for drug tourists like Amsterdam, as some had predicted.
British officials are not the only ones who have made the pilgrimage to Portugal in recent years – health specialists, officials and journalists from around the world have all made the journey to see what Portugal is doing right, even as their own countries are still struggling.
Nor has it seen its addict population markedly increase. Rather it has stabilised in a nation that, along with the UK and Luxembourg, once had the worst heroin problem in Europe.
For Susannah – as for the many long-term addicts now on methadone replacement and other programmes, and for the country's health professionals – the country's recent social history is divided into what the world of addiction and drug use was like before Law 30 was approved in November 2000, and what it is like now.
Before the law, which decriminalised (or depenalised) possession of drugs but still prohibited their use, the story of drug addiction in Portugal was a familiar one. More than 50% of those infected with HIV in Portugal were drug addicts, with new diagnoses of HIV among addicts running at about 3,000 a year. These days, addicts account for only 20% of those who are HIV infected, while the number of new HIV diagnoses of addicts has fallen to fewer than 2,000 a year.
Other measures have been equally encouraging. Deaths of street users from accidental overdoses also appear to have declined, as – anecdotal evidence strongly suggests – has petty crime associated with addicts who were stealing to maintain their habits. Recent surveys in schools also suggest an overall decrease in drug experimentation.
At the same time, the number of those in treatment for their addiction problems has risen by about a third from 23,500 in 1998 to 35,000 today – helped by a substantial increase in available beds, facilities and medical support – with many going on to methadone replacement programmes. The consequence is that perhaps as much as €400m (£334m) has been taken out of the illegal drugs market.
But decriminalisation, as Portuguese officials and others who have observed the country's experience are at pains to point out, was only the most obvious part of what happened 10 years ago in the midst of a similar debate on drugs to the one now going on in the UK.
Then, in a moment of grand vision powered by an inquiry which recommended a wholesale overhaul of Portugal's anti-drugs policy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/drugspolicy) in 1998, the government opted to make wholesale changes to the way Portugal dealt with the issue, giving a huge boost in resources to everything from prevention to harm reduction, treatment and reintegration – creating an entirely joined-up approach to drug abuse under the auspices of a single unit in the ministry of health.
It marked an acceptance that for many, living drug-free was neither realistic nor possible and that what society needed to do was mitigate the risk individuals posed to themselves and a wider population at large by helping them manage their problems.
Susannah's doctor, the head of treatment at the Centro das Taipas, is Dr Miguel Vasconcelos. He frames Portuguese drug laws in a way that I hear repeated several times. Within certain clearly defined limits – an amount equivalent to 10 days' normal use of any particular drug, ranging from amphetamines and cannabis to heroin – possession, he explains, is now considered similar to a traffic offence. It is a notion I find later described in the Portuguese drug strategy document as a "humanistic" approach.
Vasconcelos, 51, is old enough to remember what it was like before, in a country which, two decades ago, barely had a methadone replacement programme at all. In his office, decorated with artworks by his clients, Vasconcelos says: "Critics from the conservative parties were concerned that the new law would make Portugal a place like Amsterdam, but that did not happen.
"You have to remember," he says, "that the substances are still illegal; it is the consequences that are different." And for those arrested in possession of drugs for personal use, that means not a court appearance but an invitation to attend a "dissuasion board" that can request – but not insist upon – attendance at facilities such as the Centro das Taipas for assessment and treatment. "They evaluate if someone is ill or a recreational user, if a person uses sporadically," says Vasconselos. "Even then people have a choice. People can refuse to attend the dissuasion board."
For many, he believes, the experience can be cathartic and he admits being surprised by how open many of the clients who have come to his facility via that system have been .
If there has been a problem with the Portuguese experiment, he believes that it has been one largely of perception – outside Portugal – where decriminalisation has been misunderstood by some as legalisation or a step on the road to it.
Rather, Vasconcelos believes that decriminalisation is a natural consequence of a gradual shift from regarding addicts as social delinquents to regarding them as people in need of help, a view reiterated by Dr Manuel Cardoso, a board member at the Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência at Portugal's health ministry, which now co-ordinates the country's approach to drug abuse.
At the centre of Portugal's deeply pragmatic approach are the dissuasion boards. Lisbon's board – which deals with 2,000 cases a year – sits in a modest office on the second floor of a block above a pretty park. There are no lawyers (although they can attend) and no clerks in robes. No uniforms at all.
Last Friday, on one side of the table were Nadia Simoes and Nuno Portugal Capaz, both members of the commission. On the other was a 19-year-old barman in a white T-shirt who allowed the Observer to observe the confidential process but asked not to be named.
Stopped by police with 5.2 grams of cannabis, he is marginally over the limit of what can be dealt with by the dissuasion board alone and has had to appear in court as well. It is the young man's first offence. He looks nervous. But it quickly becomes clear that this is a non-confrontational process, as Simoes explains that while possession of drugs for personal use is not a criminal offence, it is still forbidden.
The man nods his understanding. Simoes explains the risks of smoking cannabis, including schizophrenia, and the sanctions the board can impose for second offences, including a fine or community service. Licences crucial to employment can also be revoked. As the process concludes, the barman looks relieved and promises to stop smoking. As he leaves, Capaz stands up and shakes his hand. The whole thing has lasted less than 10 minutes.
A sociologist by training, Capaz is a vice-president on the board. He believes that far from Portugal becoming more lenient, the reality is that the state intervenes far more than it did before Law 30 and the other associated legislation was introduced. Before, he explains, police would often not pursue drug users they had arrested, interested only in the dealers. "People outside Portugal believe we had a tougher approach under the old law, but in reality it is far tougher now."
Now everyone who is caught with drugs must go before one of the 20 boards in the country to be categorised as either a recreational user, someone with a developing problem, or an addict. And while some 30% choose to refuse to appear at the first summons, most – when threatened with a fine for disobedience – eventually attend.
Capaz has been involved since the very beginning and is struck by two things. The first is how Portuguese society has come to accept that addicts and drug users should be treated as a social rather than a criminal problem. The second, he explains, is that under the old criminal system all of those caught were supposed to be equal before the law. "With this system," he explains, "We do it the other way. We can apply the law in a way that fits the individual."
Indeed, the law recognises that for addicts certain sanctions are not appropriate. While recreational users can be fined, the law prevents addicts from having a financial penalty imposed for fear that in trying to raise the fine they might be driven to commit a crime.
But not everyone is totally convinced. Not even among the people who have dedicated their lives to assisting addicts. Francisco Chaves runs a modern shelter for street addicts close to Casal Vendoso, a place once notorious for its drug problems. "I want to explain first that this is not my profession but a vocation," he explains by way of introduction. He wants, however, to pose a "rhetorical question" which turns out to be more passionate intervention than a debating point.
He is concerned that under the "humanistic approach" enshrined in Portugal's decade-old laws – in its concern for the human rights of the addict – perhaps too much pressure to change may have been taken off addicts. "I worry that it has become too easy being an addict now," he says. "They can say: 'I've got clean clothes. I've got food. Support. So why should I change?'"
He says this sadly, because he agrees that addicts should be treated properly but cannot avoid "the paradox of the situation". "I say it is a rhetorical question because places like this are required. It is a personal, philosophical question." But it is one without any obvious answer.
Outside his office in the large, bright space where addicts are lolling on the sofa, eating or watching television, I encounter Fernando Almeida, 31, who has been a heroin addict since he was 19. A thief – who stole to support his habit – he was recently released from prison and found a place at this centre.
When he arrived six months ago, he weighed 55 kilos. These days he weighs 73kg and appears both lucid and motivated. "In the old days I used to get hassled by the police. Now the police don't interfere with me," he says. "I used to steal. Now I'm not going to steal anymore. For me the solution is to stop. I've discovered food and small things like taking a walk and having a coffee. I'm learning how to work."




source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/05/portugal-drugs-debate

durhamleft
6th September 2010, 16:04
Read that article in the paper yesterday.

I've been arguing for the legalisation of all drugs for years.

maskerade
6th September 2010, 16:14
Give us bread, but also give us weed!
- Joe Hill

...well, it was something like that

La Peur Rouge
7th September 2010, 00:41
Cannabis causes schizophrenia? :rolleyes:

pastradamus
7th September 2010, 02:15
I dont know about legalizing all drugs - but im absolutely in agreement with decriminalizing them -certainly. Putting drug addicts in prison on possession charges will definitely not help them overcome an addiction, In actual fact, It tends to be easier to access Hard drugs in jail then on the outside.

Agnapostate
7th September 2010, 02:26
Yea, I'd also lean more towards decriminalization of soft drugs than legalization of all drugs, if anything. I'm kind of a fence sitter, because despite being a casual soft drug user, as so many people are, I think the pervasive use of them would probably result in negative externalities.

Adi Shankara
7th September 2010, 04:32
Legalize all soft drugs (that is, drugs that can't cause harm on a large scale), make hard drug trafficking illegal, but treat those addicted to hard drugs as if they have a medical illness, not as a criminal.

The Vegan Marxist
7th September 2010, 04:37
You people who want to remain criminalizing hard drugs do realize that you're promoting a form of deregulated capitalism here, right? Global studies have shown time & again that if you bring all drugs - doesn't matter which - out of a scarce condition, then the consumption rate will decrease. Less & less hard drugs will be used.

Quail
7th September 2010, 04:42
The main problem with only decriminlising or legalising "soft" drugs is where do you draw the line between "soft" and "hard"?

Die Rote Fahne
7th September 2010, 04:43
It is something i support. I also support government regulation and taxation of marijuana.

Decriminalizing keeps the users, who are not harming anyone, out of prison. Anyone with a brain should support the decriminalization of all drugs.

Die Rote Fahne
7th September 2010, 04:45
The main problem with only decriminlising or legalising "soft" drugs is where do you draw the line between "soft" and "hard"?

Easy. You measure it by dependence and physical harm the drug causes.

Quail
7th September 2010, 04:48
Easy. You measure it by dependence and physical harm the drug causes.

Where do you draw the line?

I used to be highly dependant on making myself vomit after everything I ate. That isn't even a drug, and you can't ban eating, so where would that dependancy come?

Die Rote Fahne
7th September 2010, 04:49
Where do you draw the line?

I used to be highly dependant on making myself vomit after everything I ate. That isn't even a drug, and you can't ban eating, so where would that dependancy come?

Yeah, but that's an eating disorder. To compare an eating disorder to drugs is ridiculous.

The food/eating the food didn't cause you physical harm. You yourself did.

Let's use a couple of examples:

Soft Drugs - marijuana (little to 0 physical dependency. causes the body no harm, unless smoked, even then it is little to none.), LSD (0 dependency. little to no physical harm.). magic Mushrooms (0 dependency. 0 physical harm.). Salvia (0 dependency. 0 physical harm).

Hard Drugs - cocaine (high dependency. physical harm mid to high). Ecstasy (possible physical addiction low to mid. low to mid damage). heroine (high dependency. high physical harm). Crystal Meth ( high dependency. high physical harm).

Quail
7th September 2010, 05:00
Yeah, but that's an eating disorder. To compare an eating disorder to drugs is ridiculous.

The food/eating the food didn't cause you physical harm. You yourself did.

Let's use a couple of examples:

Soft Drugs - marijuana (little to 0 physical dependency. causes the body no harm, unless smoked, even then it is little to none.), LSD (0 dependency. little to no physical harm.). magic Mushrooms (0 dependency. 0 physical harm.). Salvia (0 dependency. 0 physical harm).

Hard Drugs - cocaine (high dependency. physical harm mid to high). Ecstasy (possible physical addiction low to mid. low to mid damage). heroine (high dependency. high physical harm). Crystal Meth ( high dependency. high physical harm).

Bulimia is closer to an addiction than you might think. It's difficult to give up, and psychologically, it's very addictive. Bulimics are also likely to have comorbid drug/alcohol dependancy. I don't think that's a coincidence. You have to realise that a lot of drug addicts are addicts because that's their way of dealing with things, and that you can get addicted to anything that takes your pain away. I've been addicted to vomiting, cutting, alcohol and codeine. None of those addictions are more or less valid than the other. They're all problematic and they all should be treated the same.

Now, one problem I have with prohibition is that it ignores the fact that people can enjoy drugs responsibly. Also, did you realise that pure heroin from a decent source causes less physical damage than alcohol? So by banning it you're basically advocating addicts getting it frm dangerous sources, which I have to disagree with.

Agnapostate
7th September 2010, 05:04
Global studies have shown time & again that if you bring all drugs - doesn't matter which - out of a scarce condition, then the consumption rate will decrease. Less & less hard drugs will be used.

I've never heard of decriminalization/legalization causing that pattern at all. Proponents use many arguments to claim that there will be reductions in crime and increases in revenue and such, but decreases in consumption seems rather counterintuitive. In fact, I believe alcohol consumption decreased rather significantly during Prohibition, even if crime issues increased.

Die Rote Fahne
7th September 2010, 05:05
Bulimia is closer to an addiction than you might think. It's difficult to give up, and psychologically, it's very addictive. Bulimics are also likely to have comorbid drug/alcohol dependancy. I don't think that's a coincidence. You have to realise that a lot of drug addicts are addicts because that's their way of dealing with things, and that you can get addicted to anything that takes your pain away. I've been addicted to vomiting, cutting, alcohol and codeine. None of those addictions are more or less valid than the other. They're all problematic and they all should be treated the same.

Now, one problem I have with prohibition is that it ignores the fact that people can enjoy drugs responsibly. Also, did you realise that pure heroin from a decent source causes less physical damage than alcohol? So by banning it you're basically advocating addicts getting it frm dangerous sources, which I have to disagree with.

Yes, there is a difference between "physical" and "psychological" addiction. A lot of things can be psychologically addictive - video games, gambling, etc. But nicotine, cocaine, meth, etc are Physically addictive. The body, not the mind, craves it.

Bulimia is classified, not as an addiction, but as a psychological problem. The same as anorexia.

I think we have a misunderstanding. Do you think i support the banning of drugs? Or you just adding to the convo? I am really tired atm.

My position: the decriminalization of small amounts of all drugs. The legalization and government regulation of soft drugs.

Quail
7th September 2010, 05:15
Yes, there is a difference between "physical" and "psychological" addiction. A lot of things can be psychologically addictive - video games, gambling, etc. But nicotine, cocaine, meth, etc are Physically addictive. The body, not the mind, craves it.

Bulimia is classified, not as an addiction, but as a psychological problem. The same as anorexia.

I think we have a misunderstanding. Do you think i support the banning of drugs? Or you just adding to the convo? I am really tired atm.

My position: the decriminalization of small amounts of all drugs. The legalization and government regulation of soft drugs.

Physical addiction is obviously an issue, but psychological addiction is more powerful than you think. Also, if you hve no real experience of bulimia or binge-eating disorder, you probably don't understand what it's like, but that's okay.

All drugs should not only be decriminalised, but legalised. Most drug dealers are only doing that to make it through a difficult period of their lives. Plus, controlled drugs would be so much safer than drugs provided by gangs. I think that you can only really support full legalisation or no legalisation because the lines that you draw between soft and hard drugs are so blurry.

TheCultofAbeLincoln
7th September 2010, 05:33
I think, before anything else, what could be refered to as common sense measures should be taken. Needle exchange programs, for example, should be available in all areas, especially those with a high rate of heroin addictions. Measures such as this one, like sex education, condoms being available, etc etc, amke so much sense only the christian right is against them.

I, for one, believe canibis should be fully legalized at all levels, starting with the federal govt. Also, all funding for states to enforce the criminilization of marijuana should be done away with. All other 'scheldule I' drugs should be decriminalized, but the idea of legalization does unnerve me a bit I admit. The thought of rolling up to the despensiary and buying some bud is one thing, but scoring some smack seems a bit too forward for me I'm afraid.

The Vegan Marxist
7th September 2010, 05:51
I've never heard of decriminalization/legalization causing that pattern at all. Proponents use many arguments to claim that there will be reductions in crime and increases in revenue and such, but decreases in consumption seems rather counterintuitive. In fact, I believe alcohol consumption decreased rather significantly during Prohibition, even if crime issues increased.

Really? You never looked at the global studies done, such as the comparison between the Netherlands & the US, where in the Netherlands where marijuana is legalized the consumption rate is much lower, while in the US where marijuana is criminalized the consumption rate is much higher.

Agnapostate
7th September 2010, 05:53
Really? You never looked at the global studies done, such as the comparison between the Netherlands & the US, where in the Netherlands where marijuana is legalized the consumption rate is much lower, while in the US where marijuana is criminalized the consumption rate is much higher.

That doesn't sound much like a study; it sounds like comparisons of raw data.

NGNM85
7th September 2010, 05:59
Definitely an idea whose time has come, with the US having the highest incarceration rate in the world, around a quarter of which were convicted for illegal drugs.

The Vegan Marxist
7th September 2010, 06:06
That doesn't sound much like a study; it sounds like comparisons of raw data.

The studies were done internally throughout each state, & then the data could be compared publicly. It's no secret that those areas where drugs are legalized, we see a lower consumption rate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7FshBjkS6U

Kearney
7th September 2010, 06:07
Even where drugs are classed as illegal they are easily accessible. With them going through illegal dealers they can be cut with all sorts of materials (rat poisons etc.).

If all drugs were to be legalised then there could be a safe standard put on them making them safer for the user.

It seems like common sense to legalise them and make them safer, just because it is classed as illegal it's not going to stop someone going out to get it if they really want to.

Os Cangaceiros
7th September 2010, 06:07
In fact, I believe alcohol consumption decreased rather significantly during Prohibition, even if crime issues increased.

That's not the entire story (http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults.htm).

Although alcohol consumption decreased in the immediate aftermath of Prohibition, it eventually increased to near where it was pre-Prohibition (within 20% or so of the original rate). Plus one of the major reasons that taking such data is problematic is the very reason that's it problematic today: the illegal nature of what's being quantified. That's one of the fundamental problems associated with drugs being illegal.

In any case, I don't care if drugs are completely legalized; I just want an end to the brutalization of people both at home and abroad by the U.S. government in their insane crusade to stamp out narcotics. That can be achieved by decriminalization, although in the absence of complete legalization there would probably still be some problems.

TheCultofAbeLincoln
7th September 2010, 06:27
By the way, it's my personal opinion that more focus should be placed on alcoholism than other drugs, especially pot. There can be little doubt that more lives have been disrupted by the abuse of alcohol than all other drugs combined.

Perhaps if we, ie most Americans, were the type to have a few beers and be content we'd be OK, but too often we use alcohol as an escape from the grind and, frankly, the effects can be much more severe than anything that will come from a pot habit. Not to mention the physical addiction that comes from long term use.

Perhaps some cultures use it to feel happy and enjoy the taste of the drink, but in the US the most popular drinks sales pitch is its 'drinkablity.' I feel we have an issue here, and a lot stems from collective immaturity when using this drug.

GPDP
7th September 2010, 06:41
That's not the entire story (http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults.htm).

Although alcohol consumption decreased in the immediate aftermath of Prohibition, it eventually increased to near where it was pre-Prohibition (within 20% or so of the original rate). Plus one of the major reasons that taking such data is problematic is the very reason that's it problematic today: the illegal nature of what's being quantified. That's one of the fundamental problems associated with drugs being illegal.

In any case, I don't care if drugs are completely legalized; I just want an end to the brutalization of people both at home and abroad by the U.S. government in their insane crusade to stamp out narcotics. That can be achieved by decriminalization, although in the absence of complete legalization there would probably still be some problems.

Oh, I assure you, their "insane crusade" is neither insane nor a crusade. It is very much a deliberate result of strategic foreign and domestic policy on the part of the U.S. ruling class to enrich themselves and attain the necessary geo-political footholds in various regions. And need I mention the CIA's very own drug-peddling program?

Quail
7th September 2010, 08:03
Tbh, I imagine the raw marijuahana cobsumtion rates are probably higher where it's illegal, but then people can feed themselves.

Vladimir Innit Lenin
7th September 2010, 17:43
We have to be somewhat balanced in this argument.

I for one, whilst being on the 'liberal' (and for once I don't use this term in the perjorative) side of the drugs argument, believe that the total legalisation of all substances would be irresponsible and pretty ideologically driven.

It is clear that the enemy is the group of people who are masterminds of drug trafficking - those who use child-labour, child sex trafficking and any other illegal and intimidatory methods to transport illicit substances - are the root 'evil' here, not ordinary users. Thus, one can start out by saying that the decriminalisation of all substances would be an effective strategy in shifting the tackling of drugs from targeting individual users and small-time dealers, to tackling the root cause - mass trafficking. This means that, whilst drug use will not be encouraged (for it must be accepted that, even if certain substances such as Marijuana are not as harmful as sensationalist media make out, they are still more 'bad' than 'good', to put it simply), it will allow a framework where such use can be more effectively monitored and controlled.

As for legalisation, this, I believe, should certainly be done on a case-by-case, scientific basis. There should be no ideological or partisan call for any substance to be moved from a state of decriminalisation to legalisation. Such a move should be wholly conditional on a drug actually being relatively safe to be consumed in low-moderate quantities. It is quite unlikely, thus, that substances such as Heroin or Crack Cocaine should be legalised, although that is (should be) up to the scientists, not party political figures.

In short, people should have the freedom from being prosecuted for choosing to ingest a substance, but should not be exposed to a free-for-all of a multitude of drugs - via wholesale legalisation - that could lead to huge numbers of deaths and a whole host of short, medium and long-term health, social and economic problems (think of Alcohol, which directly causes 18,500 deaths per year in the UK alone).

The above is simply my take on the social issues involved here. There is, of course, an entirely separate economic interest here, in terms of cutting supply of certain drugs.

durhamleft
8th September 2010, 17:01
Yeah, but that's an eating disorder. To compare an eating disorder to drugs is ridiculous.

The food/eating the food didn't cause you physical harm. You yourself did.

Let's use a couple of examples:

Soft Drugs - marijuana (little to 0 physical dependency. causes the body no harm, unless smoked, even then it is little to none.), LSD (0 dependency. little to no physical harm.). magic Mushrooms (0 dependency. 0 physical harm.). Salvia (0 dependency. 0 physical harm).

Hard Drugs - cocaine (high dependency. physical harm mid to high). Ecstasy (possible physical addiction low to mid. low to mid damage). heroine (high dependency. high physical harm). Crystal Meth ( high dependency. high physical harm).


Ecstasy a hard drug!?! WHAAAAAAAAAT?

Quail
9th September 2010, 00:33
I think one of the main points that people need to understand is that regardless of a drug's legal status, there are going to be people that take them and become dependent on them. What needs to be done is to tackle the roots causes of drug addiction (making drugs illegal is treating the symptom of a greater problem, and the stigma of an illegal addiction is a barrier to treatment) and educate people on how to use them responsibly. I don't think that banning drugs acheives anything, and really just penalises addicts for having a problem instead of trying to help them. As I said earlier (albeit drunkenly and incoherently), you can get addicted to almost anything that makes you feel better. People may replace a drug addiction with a different addiction and then may go back to a drug addiction. Without challenging the root causes of addiction, you are always going to get people who turn to drugs.

southernmissfan
9th September 2010, 19:10
First off I would like to quote something from my American Public PoIlllicy textbook (of all places!):

"Illegal drug use is commonly treated and conceptualized as a problem of law enforcement. In reality it is a combination of a public health problem, a problem of education and a reflection of poverty, despair and social disorder. Drug use indicates more about the society in which it occurs than it does about the individual consumers usually branded as criminals."

"The manner in which the problem is conceptualized and defined determines the remedies likely to be proposed, the organizations that will be given responsibility for the problem and the final outcomes of the public intervention into the problem."

Let's look at the main problems associated with drug use: health and crime. As far as health goes, obviously many illegal substances (but not all) are pretty unhealthy and will cause negative effects upon repeated use, potentially resulting in death. The risk of overdose is also very real. But do not underestimate how much the climate of illegality affects the health. Many drugs found on the street are tainted with all sorts of additivies and other things. You can be attempting to buy one drug when, unknown to you, you are really recieving something entirely else (either because its cheaper for the seller or out of simple mistake). Many cases of drug deaths are the result of a person thinking they were taking drug "X" when they were actually taking drug "Y". Obviously this is a health issue that is caused if not exclusively, certainly primarily by the illegal nature of drugs. The issue of addiction is also important. Addiction is a serious health problem that is best treated medically. Some more progressive countries realize this and utilze "harm reduction" policies such as reducing needle sharing and providing clinics to treat addiction.

As far as crime goes, you have to remember that probably (I won't say for certain because I don't have the data) the biggest profit industry is illegal drugs. If this market is legalized and taken out of the hands of organized crime and other shady elements, it is only reasonable to conclude that the amount of violence will decrease. Those who oppose legalization are giving de facto permission for mafias, gangs and other elements to fill the void. And when it comes to the whole image of the strung out junkie robbing people to get their fix, that kinda goes back to effective treatment of addiction.

Not to say that drugs are great and they legalizing them will magically result in doing away with the very real risks they entail, but it is quite obvious that the "war on drugs" and illegal nature causes WAY MORE problems than the actual drugs themselves.

Agnapostate
1st October 2010, 04:00
I've dipped into the literature a bit, and I'd like to re-visit this.


The studies were done internally throughout each state, & then the data could be compared publicly. It's no secret that those areas where drugs are legalized, we see a lower consumption rate.

Once again, you seem to be describing comparisons of raw data. That there is a lower consumption rate does not necessarily have a causative link with legalization or decriminalization. If I've misunderstood you, could you post peer-reviewed empirical research in a scholarly journal that has experimental controls and demonstrates causation? I mean, without having researched the topic, it would be my intuition that Dutch citizens would be less prone to self-medication for psychological issues than Americans (though I've seen evidence of association between heavy marijuana use and depression (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1360-0443.2003.00437.x/abstract), since their mental health care system stands above that of the U.S. as social democratic capitalism stands above Anglo-Saxon and liberal democratic capitalism. Looking at Prohibition and Cannabis Use in Australia: A Survey of 18- to 29-year-olds (http://www.atypon-link.com/AAP/doi/abs/10.1375/acri.36.1.77), I see it noted in the abstract that, "Prohibition does, however, appear to limit consumption among existing cannabis users and particularly among those who use the drug on a weekly basis or more frequently."


That's not the entire story (http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults.htm).

Although alcohol consumption decreased in the immediate aftermath of Prohibition, it eventually increased to near where it was pre-Prohibition (within 20% or so of the original rate). Plus one of the major reasons that taking such data is problematic is the very reason that's it problematic today: the illegal nature of what's being quantified. That's one of the fundamental problems associated with drugs being illegal.

In any case, I don't care if drugs are completely legalized; I just want an end to the brutalization of people both at home and abroad by the U.S. government in their insane crusade to stamp out narcotics. That can be achieved by decriminalization, although in the absence of complete legalization there would probably still be some problems.

Oh, I certainly agree that alcohol prohibition is an ineffective policy. But because there is evidence that indicates that regular marijuana use imposes a greater risk of dependence than regular alcohol use, the drinker would be a more rational consumer than the stoner, since it's more problematic to economically model addictive product. I agree with removal of the criminalization aspect, but I'd lean towards partial decriminalization of certain soft drugs, if anything, perhaps even a system where they technically remained illegal, but violations were punished with fines. Looking at a literature review such as To Legalize or Not To Legalize? Economic Approaches to the Decriminalization of Drugs (http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10826080500521565), it's written in the abstract that, "Estimates of price elasticities indicate that a substantial increase in consumption by current drug users should be expected if prices decrease, whereas estimates of participation elasticities suggest an increase in the number of users." And from my own cursory review of the literature, the majority view does seem to be that marijuana generally causes adverse health effects. Here are a few examples:

1. Keeping off the grass? An econometric model of cannabis consumption in Britain (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jae.746/full): "Cannabis is the subject of much debate, with some recent moves in Great Britain and elsewhere towards a more liberal policy stance. There is little doubt that cannabis is a harmful substance. It is believed to be physically at least as damaging as tobacco, its use raises the risk of accidental injury, it is occasionally associated with acute psychiatric difficulties, and there is a possibility that its long-term use causes impairment of brain function. Whatever the true scale of these health effects, use at an early age and cumulated long-term consumption are the important dimensions of health risk. Thus the dynamic process of cannabis consumption is particularly important.”

2. Effects of cannabis on pulmonary structure, function and symptoms (http://thorax.bmj.com/content/62/12/1058.abstract): “Smoking cannabis was associated with a dose-related impairment of large airways function resulting in airflow obstruction and hyperinflation. In contrast, cannabis smoking was seldom associated with macroscopic emphysema. The 1:2.5–5 dose equivalence between cannabis joints and tobacco cigarettes for adverse effects on lung function is of major public health significance.”

3. Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673609610370): “For over two decades, cannabis, commonly known as marijuana, has been the most widely used illicit drug by young people in high-income countries, and has recently become popular on a global scale. Epidemiological research during the past 10 years suggests that regular use of cannabis during adolescence and into adulthood can have adverse effects. Epidemiological, clinical, and laboratory studies have established an association between cannabis use and adverse outcomes. We focus on adverse health effects of greatest potential public health interest—that is, those that are most likely to occur and to affect a large number of cannabis users. The most probable adverse effects include a dependence syndrome, increased risk of motor vehicle crashes, impaired respiratory function, cardiovascular disease, and adverse effects of regular use on adolescent psychosocial development and mental health.”

4. The adverse health effects of cannabis use: What are they, and what are their implications for policy? (http://www.ijdp.org/article/S0955-3959(09)00050-4/abstract): “The evidence strongly suggests that cannabis can adversely affect some users, especially adolescents who initiate use early and young adults who become regular users. These adverse effects probably include increased risks of: motor vehicle crashes, the development of cannabis dependence, impaired respiratory function, cardiovascular disease, psychotic symptoms, and adverse outcomes of adolescent development, namely, poorer educational outcomes and an increased likelihood of using other illicit drugs.”

5. Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17662880): "There was an increased risk of any psychotic outcome in individuals who had ever used cannabis (pooled adjusted odds ratio=1·41, 95% CI 1·20–1·65). Findings were consistent with a dose-response effect, with greater risk in people who used cannabis most frequently (2·09, 1·54–2·84). Results of analyses restricted to studies of more clinically relevant psychotic disorders were similar. Depression, suicidal thoughts, and anxiety outcomes were examined separately. Findings for these outcomes were less consistent, and fewer attempts were made to address non-causal explanations, than for psychosis. A substantial confounding effect was present for both psychotic and affective outcomes...The evidence is consistent with the view that cannabis increases risk of psychotic outcomes independently of confounding and transient intoxication effects, although evidence for affective outcomes is less strong. The uncertainty about whether cannabis causes psychosis is unlikely to be resolved by further longitudinal studies such as those reviewed here. However, we conclude that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life."

This is relevant because an increased prevalence of use would increase negative externalities in terms of higher medical costs, reduced workplace productivity, etc.

GreenCommunism
1st October 2010, 05:53
However, we conclude that there is now sufficient evidence to warn young people that using cannabis could increase their risk of developing a psychotic illness later in life."

this is total bullshit because another study witnessed the increase of cannabis use and there was no corresponding increase in mental problems.

Agnapostate
1st October 2010, 06:07
this is total bullshit because another study witnessed the increase of cannabis use and there was no corresponding increase in mental problems.

And is this a conclusion you reached through comparing the methodological rigor of the studies (and actually, what I quoted was a literature review and not a study, therefore incorporating multiple studies), or did you just pick the conclusion that fit with your predetermined biases?

GreenCommunism
1st October 2010, 06:39
i saw a study that came to this conclusion, i did not make any conclusion myself as i don't have the time and expertise to dig in research.

GreenCommunism
1st October 2010, 06:41
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20471224

ContrarianLemming
1st October 2010, 06:44
I think all drugs - regardless of how bad they are - should be legal, since people always get there hands on them anyway, punishing doesn't help, we shoud all go the way of Portugal.

Kuppo Shakur
1st October 2010, 06:58
Physical addiction

Psychological addiction
Wait, back up.
There's a difference?

Os Cangaceiros
1st October 2010, 07:07
words

If you're seriously interested in this subject, I'd recommend this (http://www.amazon.com/Why-Drug-Laws-Have-Failed/dp/1566398606) book. The appendix of it is filled with dozens of studies related to marijuana's health risks (or lack thereof). It's really the best piece of drug literature I've ever read, and totally convinced me of the decriminalization argument.

I have yet to see any study or series of studies that positively correlates THC with mental illness and/or mental problems. Much of the "science" behind THC that's peddled by the state is nothing but junk science, akin to the government stating in the 70's that marijuana will make men grow breasts. It is true that smoking marijuana can lead to respiratory issues (just as smoking anything can), but that can easily be avoided by either using a vaporizer or using the marijuana to make food items or tea. As far as the concern about the "negative externality" of emergency room costs due to impaired motor functions, all I have to say is LOL.

Sasha
1st October 2010, 10:01
there is an direct correlation between young acute psychosisis and canabis use.
but they have not realy an idea if there is an direct concequense.
i.e.
they dont know if
a. smoking weed makes you (more) psychotic
b. being psychotic makes you smoke more weed
c. something wich relates to your psychosis also makes you more vunarble to canabis misuse, for example being depressed.

intresting thing is dat a lot of people who already where psychotic before they smoke weed sometimes use weed to keep their psychoses in check.

revolution inaction
1st October 2010, 15:41
there is an direct correlation between young acute psychosisis and canabis use.
but they have not realy an idea if there is an direct concequense.
i.e.
they dont know if
a. smoking weed makes you (more) psychotic
b. being psychotic makes you smoke more weed
c. something wich relates to your psychosis also makes you more vunarble to canabis misuse, for example being depressed.

intresting thing is dat a lot of people who already where psychotic before they smoke weed sometimes use weed to keep their psychoses in check.

i remember a tv program or maybe a magazine artical which came to ht conclusion that in soem young people whose brains had not fully developed and who also had a certain rare genetic predisposision then smoking weed could increase the risk of psychotic problems.

btw i am pro full legalisation of all drugs

GreenCommunism
1st October 2010, 22:56
what about the last study i have shown? like you said some people say there is something positive about using marijuana while being schizophrenic.

what kind of psychosis are you talking about? i think psychosis has mostly to do with schizophrnia.

Sasha
1st October 2010, 23:03
as far as i gathered from people i know who work in psychiatric emergency centers there is an difrence between an acute psychotic attack (wich can be triggerd by weed, acid, depresionmeds etc etc) and "slow" psychosis wich is an more stretched detoriation of you mental health. People who have the "slow" kind of psychosis a lot of times self medicate with THC

GreenCommunism
1st October 2010, 23:08
as far as i gathered from people i know who work in psychiatric emergency centers there is an difrence between an acute psychotic attack (wich can be triggerd by weed, acid, depresionmeds etc etc) and "slow" psychosis wich is an more stretched detoriation of you mental health. People who have the "slow" kind of psychosis a lot of times self medicate with THC

but what is the illness behind it, i wouldn't say some people do not sometime panic with what happens, i was at first surprised it happened with weed at all but it does happen. i would say that meth would be a drug that causes such psychosis much more often.

Sasha
1st October 2010, 23:13
nah, meth is still an amfetamine, amfetamines dont trigger psychoses that fast.
LSD and PCP are the big ones

southernmissfan
2nd October 2010, 01:09
Wait, back up.
There's a difference?

Psychological: God I'm fiending for some shit! I have to have it!
Physical: I'm having severe pain, tremors, nausea and other physical symptoms because I haven't had any in 6 hours.

For example, a true heroin addict has to use just to be normal and not be sick. That's physical addiction.

Kuppo Shakur
2nd October 2010, 01:26
Psychological: God I'm fiending for some shit! I have to have it!
Physical: I'm having severe pain, tremors, nausea and other physical symptoms because I haven't had any in 6 hours.
So, what's the difference?

Sasha
2nd October 2010, 01:36
its simple, with an psychological adiction you think you need it, with an physical adiction you actualy do.

weed, xtc, porn are only psychological adictive. nicotene, heroin, cocain, amfetamines, alcohol, benzodines etc etc are also physical adictive. strangly enough the verdict is still out on gambeling.

GreenCommunism
2nd October 2010, 04:34
nah, meth is still an amfetamine, amfetamines dont trigger psychoses that fast.
LSD and PCP are the big ones

dude bad trips have nothing to do with psychosis.

amphetamine causes hallucination and somehting like a psychosis when taken for more than 72 hours or so, i guess it has more to do with sleep deprivation than anything though.

Vladimir Innit Lenin
2nd October 2010, 09:04
I agree, and in fact I think most people who have tried drugs and/or have a fairly deep knowledge of the subject will understand that de-criminalisation is a must in terms of reducing the usage of 'bad' drugs such as Crack, Heroin etc.

There is then the possibility of research - which ones can be legalised, which ones cannot and which ones contain elements which can be used for medicinal purposes. If only the politicians would stop being politicians, and if only they would invest some money and some of their own popularity into this. Short sighted idiots.

Os Cangaceiros
2nd October 2010, 09:08
its simple, with an psychological adiction you think you need it, with an physical adiction you actualy do.

weed, xtc, porn are only psychological adictive. nicotene, heroin, cocain, amfetamines, alcohol, benzodines etc etc are also physical adictive. strangly enough the verdict is still out on gambeling.

Gambling addicts get severe pain and nausea if they don't gamble?