- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Ten years ago, the Lisbon neighborhood was a hellhole, a "drug supermarket" where some 5,000 users lined up every day to buy heroin and sneaked into a hillside honeycomb of derelict housing to shoot up. In dark, stinking corners, addicts — some with maggots squirming under track marks — staggered between the occasional corpse, scavenging used, bloody needles. At that time, Portugal, like the junkies of Casal Ventoso, had hit rock bottom: An estimated 100,000 people — an astonishing 1 percent of the population — were addicted to illegal drugs. So, like anyone with little to lose, the Portuguese took a risky leap:They decriminalized the use of all drugs in a groundbreaking law in 2000.
Portugal's drug policy pays off; US eyes lessons - Yahoo! News
Interesting. Here is what Portugal did. The drugs were still illegal, however, consequences resulted in treatment and counseling rather than prison.
Here are some of their results:
1) There were small increases in illicit drug use among adults, but decreases for adolescents and problem users, such as drug addicts and prisoners.
2) Drug-related court cases dropped 66 percent.
3) Drug-related HIV cases dropped 75 percent. In 2002, 49 percent of people with AIDS were addicts; by 2008 that number fell to 28 percent.
4) The number of regular users held steady at less than 3 percent of the population for marijuana and less than 0.3 percent for heroin and cocaine — figures which show decriminalization brought no surge in drug use.
5) The number of people treated for drug addiction rose 20 percent from 2001 to 2008.
Interestingly enough, the government found that there was no additional cost. Monies were just diverted from the legal system to the public health system.
The benefits of this plan are pretty obvious, though I would like to see some statistics on recidivism of the addicts that received treatment.
This is very similar to the plan that I have outlined here at DP, several times. Do you think this could work in the US, and if so, how?
Interesting. Here is what Portugal did. The drugs were still illegal, however, consequences resulted in treatment and counseling rather than prison.
Here are some of their results:
1) There were small increases in illicit drug use among adults, but decreases for adolescents and problem users, such as drug addicts and prisoners.
2) Drug-related court cases dropped 66 percent.
3) Drug-related HIV cases dropped 75 percent. In 2002, 49 percent of people with AIDS were addicts; by 2008 that number fell to 28 percent.
4) The number of regular users held steady at less than 3 percent of the population for marijuana and less than 0.3 percent for heroin and cocaine — figures which show decriminalization brought no surge in drug use.
5) The number of people treated for drug addiction rose 20 percent from 2001 to 2008.
Interestingly enough, the government found that there was no additional cost. Monies were just diverted from the legal system to the public health system.
The benefits of this plan are pretty obvious, though I would like to see some statistics on recidivism of the addicts that received treatment.
This is very similar to the plan that I have outlined here at DP, several times. Do you think this could work in the US, and if so, how?
Interesting. Here is what Portugal did. The drugs were still illegal, however, consequences resulted in treatment and counseling rather than prison.
Here are some of their results:
1) There were small increases in illicit drug use among adults, but decreases for adolescents and problem users, such as drug addicts and prisoners.
2) Drug-related court cases dropped 66 percent.
3) Drug-related HIV cases dropped 75 percent. In 2002, 49 percent of people with AIDS were addicts; by 2008 that number fell to 28 percent.
4) The number of regular users held steady at less than 3 percent of the population for marijuana and less than 0.3 percent for heroin and cocaine — figures which show decriminalization brought no surge in drug use.
5) The number of people treated for drug addiction rose 20 percent from 2001 to 2008.
Interestingly enough, the government found that there was no additional cost. Monies were just diverted from the legal system to the public health system.
The benefits of this plan are pretty obvious, though I would like to see some statistics on recidivism of the addicts that received treatment.
This is very similar to the plan that I have outlined here at DP, several times. Do you think this could work in the US, and if so, how?
How many more tax dollars would have to be allocated to a program such as this?
How many more tax dollars would have to be allocated to a program such as this?
the Convention has no termination clause, and therefore would remain in effect even if only one signatory remained
How much do taxpayers foot by funding current policy objectives? Basic logic would dictate these costs would fall.
Wouldn't shooting addicts be cheaper? :mrgreen:
You should ask some of the (former) addicts in this thread if they would have preferred being shot before they had an opportunity to go clean and turn their lives around
Interesting. Here is what Portugal did. The drugs were still illegal, however, consequences resulted in treatment and counseling rather than prison.
Here are some of their results:
1) There were small increases in illicit drug use among adults, but decreases for adolescents and problem users, such as drug addicts and prisoners.
2) Drug-related court cases dropped 66 percent.
3) Drug-related HIV cases dropped 75 percent. In 2002, 49 percent of people with AIDS were addicts; by 2008 that number fell to 28 percent.
4) The number of regular users held steady at less than 3 percent of the population for marijuana and less than 0.3 percent for heroin and cocaine — figures which show decriminalization brought no surge in drug use.
5) The number of people treated for drug addiction rose 20 percent from 2001 to 2008.
Interestingly enough, the government found that there was no additional cost. Monies were just diverted from the legal system to the public health system.
The benefits of this plan are pretty obvious, though I would like to see some statistics on recidivism of the addicts that received treatment.
This is very similar to the plan that I have outlined here at DP, several times. Do you think this could work in the US, and if so, how?
LISBON, Portugal – In a Dec. 26 story, The Associated Press reported that the United States is studying drug reforms in Portugal, and that White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske visited Portugal to learn about its experience with decriminalizing drugs. The story should have made clear that Kerlikowske does not think Portugal's approach is right for the United States.
How much do taxpayers foot by funding current policy objectives? Basic logic would dictate these costs would fall.
No more (and in all likelihood less) tax dollars than have been pissed away for decades in enforcement costs related to in an ineffective policy of prohibition.
Portugals experiment is one that the world should take notice of and to use as a guideline to design drug policies that would actually do more good than they do harm. I agree 100% with Goldenboy, the one major shortcoming (and it is large) is that the black market still exists, but unless we get a virtual anonymous agreement by ALL nations to scuttle the Single Convention treaty, it is as good as it gets (I forget the exact figures, but the treaty is still binding unless virtually all signators agree on not being bound by it).
Decriminalization (which is what Portugal did) is all that can occur since the treaty mandates that unless there is a constitutional conflict there MUST be a penalty for drug possession, the Single Convention is the best insurance policy the drug gangs, cartels and runners have to insure they stay in business.
Even decriminalization is better than prohibition for actually being able to deal with the problem, but it is on par with treating a cold with chicken soup - it helps some, but there are still major symptoms left untreated or ignored despite there being options to treat the entire stuffy head runny nose, coughing aching.. ect.
edit to add this regarding the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs:
United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A government program that costs less and saves money? Yeah, Ok!
LISBON, Portugal – In a Dec. 26 story, The Associated Press reported that the United States is studying drug reforms in Portugal, and that White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske visited Portugal to learn about its experience with decriminalizing drugs. The story should have made clear that Kerlikowske does not think Portugal's approach is right for the United States.
common sense should tell you that one government program can cost less then another government program.
Wouldn't shooting addicts be cheaper? :mrgreen:
Even if this program cost less, it's still more, because that other program isn't going to suddenly cost less than it already does...LOL!!!!
Creating a government program to lower government spending is like ****ing for virginity.
most interesting to me is the almost obsessive fascination many in this forum demonstrate for drugs and homosexuality
to each his own, of course
party on, peeps
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?