The Times carried a substantial article last Friday on Portugal’s approach to drugs. The Portuguese experience has been held up as a possible model for others to follow. The article, by Chris Smyth, identifies the statistics that appear to bear out the aims of the reform. Since the policy was introduced ten years ago, drug use among the young has decreased; overdoses and HIV cases among drug users are also down. The police also now back the policy, which contrary to their fears has not encouraged drug tourism. The head of the Portuguese drugs agency is quoted as saying that it is important to see the issue as a health problem.
There is clearly a prima facie case for examining the Portuguese experience and not simply dismissing it as the Home Office continues to do. Existing UK policy is characterised in an accompanying article as a compromise. One Whitehall source is quoted as saying “Basically, the policy was a huge fudge”. To some extent, the headline of the article identifies the problem: “MPs are terrified of backing ‘soft’ option.” They don’t need to back a soft option. All that is needed is support for reviewing the evidence. The need to do so becomes ever more apparent. The story follows the comments of the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Tim Godwin, saying that strategy in the UK was failing: “We haven’t got it right at the moment”.
One step would be to transfer responsibility for drugs policy from the Home Office to the Department of Health. Recognition of it as a health issue would be a valuable move. I suspect if my recent short debate on drugs policy had been replied to by the Health minister, Earl Howe, rather than the Home Office minister, Baroness Neville-Jones, I may have received a more sympathetic response.
The fact that The Times carried such a substantial article is itself encouraging.
At least the Times attempts to influence the civil service, which is in its favour. Bishops have a well evolved wisdom on drugs, however much port is drunk at the Deanery. Gout is their concern.
For a change I agree entirely with the noble Lord/ Times in suggesting a close look at the way the Portuguese run their drugs policy.
I believe they target drug USERS, consumers as NON-criminals, but continue to deal with wholesale and retail drug narcotic distribution as serious crime.
Interception and seizure of bulk supplies would be/is as ferocious as ever, whereas the possession of cocaine/heroine in small or microscopic quantities is no crime at all.
I wonder how it would help, (with a change in the law thus), for wholesalers and retailers to be dealt with by the Dept of Health?
It would merely make drug use seem lawfully GOOD, and possibly even healthy?
1545
Gareth Howell: Yes, you are correct. The change in policy allows the police to focus on smuggling and dealing, which remain illegal. The article also makes the point that petty crime is down and pressure has also eased on Portugal’s prisons. Chris Smyth visited part of Lisbon and found that young addicts were surprisingly rare.
They used to have a saying in this country, that I have not heard recently, but always think of, that “A user is a dealer”, in other words wants to “push” the stuff on to other consumers.
The particular tobacco, and occasional cocaine, smuggler, whom I have studied in a certain amount of detail, would probably pass as a casual user by the example of Portugal, whereas he served a term of months for possession whilst driving a car in 1997, record now expunged.
However I do know that he provides it to others when he has it, for a fee.
Looking at the individual case just is not helpful. It is the various principles involved which matter. Not locking people up unnecessarily for doing something which seems to be a social activity is one.
The man I mention above is not a trafficker;
Just rather a simple fool, whether for smoking cigarettes or snorting cocaine.
The bravado of doing something illegal is an important factor in its effective distribution.
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/html/portugal.html
Statistics compiled by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) indicate that between 2001 and 2007, lifetime prevalence rates for cannabis, cocaine, amphetamines, ecstasy, and LSD have risen for the Portuguese general population (ages 15-64) and for the 15-34 age group.6
•Past-month prevalence figures show increases from 2001 to 2007 in cocaine and LSD use in the Portuguese general population as well as increases in cannabis, cocaine, and amphetamine use in the 15-34 age group.7
•Drug-induced deaths, which decreased in Portugal from 369 in 1999 to 152 in 2003, climbed to 314 in 2007 – a number significantly higher than the 280 deaths recorded when decriminalization started in 2001.8
•Despite Cato’s assertion that increases in lifetime prevalence levels among the general population are “virtually inevitable in every nation,” EMCDDA data indicate that other countries, including Spain, have been able to achieve decreases in lifetime prevalence rates for cannabis and ecstasy use between 2003 and 2008.
Where the lead title is “Drug Health Problem”
should we not be understanding
“Drug Ill-health Problem” ?
Carl, those figures and statements are from the ONDCP so are likely to be more than biased – they are from the same vein that says Cannabis has absolutely no medical value whatsoever whilst simultaneously allowing Sativex (a whole Cannabis based product) to be approved by the FDA.. so I wouldn’t trust their views. They say more evidence is needed as they cherry pick parts of the Cato study, but all the evidence in the world shows that what they (and we) do regarding drugs just doesn’t achieve any of our goals. That is FACT!
Either way, Portugal is a success compared to our or the USA’s policies. Also remember that lifetime prevalence rates don’t equate to harmful use.. how worried would you be if someone tried a beer once at university…
The suggestion to refer drug use to the DoH is a sensible one, one that Britain used to do until the Americans got their claws in at the UN and deemed that anything other than Alcohol, Tobacco or Caffeine were ‘evil’. However, remember that decriminalisation is only a half measure, even if the police can focus more on large-scale trafficking. It’s fine to stop prosecuting our citizens but the demand is still there and therefore so is the supply. Horrific Human rights abuses are taking place every day in order for the most brutal and violent people to secure the money generated by the high prices drugs carry under prohibition. Decriminalisation says its fine for us, ‘developed-world-people’ to consume drugs, but if you dare produce them for us we are going to support wholesale devastation to your country…
Scientists know prohibition doesnt work, as do the police, doctors, social services and according to that article the very MP’s who help perpetuate the failed policy… why is it so hard to even look at what works elsewhere or admit that what we have doesn’t work and we should maybe try something else?
Lord Norton, may I ask what happened in the end with your QSD? And what is happening with the APPG on drugs/decriminalisation?
Looking at the report I linked to and various other reports such as Cato’s it is going to be difficult to statistically analyse. With decrimilisation the only figures to rely on seem to be self reporting, which in my opinion cannot be relied on. The Portuguese police seem in a lot of cases not to bother with what appear users anymore so that statistic is of no use. We cannot rule out the facts in the ONDCP report but neither can we ignore the others in Cato, let’s be fair.
You’re seemingly now intent in going on from decriminalisation to manufacture, growth of base product. Giving good argument for the legalisation of what to all intents can be dangerous and addictive, destructive products can be seen as a reason to prohibit the whole. Tobacco as you rightly stated is a psychoactive drug, one which we are trying to wean society off of through various measures. The tobacco industry has become a troll, now accused of feeding off of third world countries and this view is correct in my opinion. Tobacco is a health issue, one that costs the taxpayer a lot of money to put drugs in the same bracket we must also attack the industry that supports it, unless of course you are saying it shouldn’t be a health issue ?
“how worried would you be if someone tried a beer once at university”
There is a vast difference to trying a beer once at Uni and trying Heroin, extasy or Crack all of which can be extremely dangerous in the first instance. I state “can” because I know that isn’t necessarily so. Giving youngsters especially from poorer backgrounds the opportunity to try these drugs will cause many problems, crime, social and familial troubles. It is parents, like me, in many instances that will be left to deal with the problems and I have seen many, though not fortunately in my own family.
There will be many youngsters, whom trying to prove their manhood, will always go further, take that one tab more than anyone else. I have been there, spending nearly a week unconscious after a macho session of beer and barbiturates. We commonly see this problem with alcohol, which is also becoming prevelent amongst girls too. It is a dangerous game to play.
I agree we need to look more closely and study ALL the evidence fairly. If alcohol, which I no longer partake, is found as impairing as marijuana and no less both should be on par I agree but with growing evidence alcohol is linked highly to cancer perhaps we have to look at making it’s supply more prohibitive.
I hope you would agree that not all drugs are safe for use by our young. Therefore we need to look at using a scale to decide where we can draw a line, which with any users will possibly be unfair to someone. Marijuana is freely available and is regularly taken by a huge amount of our young and perhaps criminalising the users when medically it can be compared with alcohol is perhaps nonesense. There is the case for addiction and the paranoid effects in some but possibly no worse than alcohol which I’m sure causes far more damage socially.
I’m not sure our Goverment can hide behind it’s medical reasoning anymore especially after gambling which can be a threatening addiction is so well backed by them as well as alcohol.
Time for a clean sheet and some clear, concise evidence with neutral judges methinks.
Carl, I am not only now aiming for ‘decriminalisation to manufacture’, I have always advocated that. Decriminalisation is a stepping stone to prove that the sky won’t fall in, but it does not solve the problems, merely placates some and shifts others.
There are several points you made that I do agree with, firstly that the Tobacco industry is a troll that feeds off the most vulnerable. But it is ultimately a health issue. The thing with health issues is that the best way to deal with them is regulation and compassion, not prohibition and jail. The Alcohol industry is the same, many people my age don’t want to agree with me that minimum unit pricing is a good way of curbing harmful drinking… but the evidence shows that it works, so bring it on.
Please also remember, I’m not only advocating the legal regulation of all drugs so I can get ‘off my face’. The prohibitive nature of certain drugs leads those from ‘poorer backgrounds’ into a spiral of poverty and criminality instead of attacking the root causes of inequality and a lack of compassion for the most vulnerable. The current laws are an affront on all of our civil liberties. Also, ecstasy is in many respects safer than Alcohol, in terms of its LD50, intoxicant effects and addictive potential. Most people who try crack or Heroin don’t become addicted – how many people become addicted to diamorphine after a hospital visit for a broken arm etc.? And Cannabis, by nearly every metric, is safer than all of those drugs (also, I advise you to google Alcohol and mental health to see which of these two really cause more mental health problems http://www.drinkaware.co.uk/alcohol-and-you/health/alcohol-and-mental-health “As many as 70% of successful male suicides are alcohol related”). As a parent, if one of your kids (hopefully when older than 18) wanted to try e.g. ecstasy, would you prefer they bought the drug from a chemist, with a warning label and directions for safe use.. or from a dealer who could have cut it with anything to increase their profit?
The thing is, all of these drugs can be used in a manner in which the harm is reduced from the situation we have now. I also agree that most drugs are NOT safe for our young, but as you say, many of those that are prohibited are actually easier to get hold of than Alcohol.. sorry to use the tired expression, but ‘dealers dont ask for ID’.
I want an evidence-based policy that respects Human rights. I want a tightly-regulated market with strict controls on quality, appropriate taxes to discourage use, no advertising and strong retribution for those found flouting age-limit laws. Absent harm to others why can’t we individually decide how temporarily change our consciousness and compassionately help those who do develop problems with medical care rather than jail and a criminal record? But fundamentally, what we have doesn’t work and considering all the costs, a legally (and tightly) regulated system could not be worse than prohibition.
If I might intercede in an interesting discussion, and remind you that it is not Prohibition that is sought but the wisdom to abstain without having the “Law is an ass” opinion forced on to one, at the same time as a sachet of Cocaine.
I met a man (I have known him many years) recently who solemnly declared that because sodomy is no longer a crime, it is therefore a good thing to do.
I had to remind him that merely because the law is no longer concerned in the act of sodomy it did not make it morally RIGHT.
Exactly the same applies to the legalisation of cocaine. The law would not say “Cocaine is good for you ! Take it!” The moral decision that of what it is wise to do, is left to you.
A question of philosophy, not law.
With regard to the medicinal value of Cocaine for MS sufferers(?), in particular, I seriously doubt if that particular Malarquie
would be heard of again, if it were legal.
Medicinal values are questionable at the best of times.