Alan W. Bock writing in the Orange County Register has some interesting things to say about how decriminalization in Portugal is going.
Since decriminalization lifetime prevalence rates (any consumption over a lifetime) have decreased, especially for the critical adolescent-young-adult population cohort. For 13-15-year-olds the rate decreased from 14.1 percent in 2001 to 10.6 percent in 2006. For 16-18-year-olds, the lifetime prevalence rate, which had increased from 14.1 percent in 1995 to 27.6 percent in 2001, fell to 21.6 percent in 2006. Perhaps most significantly, heroin use, which officials felt was the most socially destructive drug, fell from 2.5 percent to 1.8 percent from 1999-2005.
The number of drug-related HIV and AIDS cases has declined substantially every year, as have Hepatitis B and C infections and drug-related mortality rates.
When compared with the rest of the EU, usage rates in Portugal, which had been among the highest in Europe, are now among the lowest. Portugal now has the lowest lifetime prevalence for cannabis (marijuana) usage in Europe, 8.2 percent, while in Europe generally it is 25 percent. Portugal has a lifetime rate of 1.6 percent for cocaine, compared to 4 percent for Europe generally.
For whatever bundle of reasons, we should start getting accustomed to the idea that harsh anti-drugs laws are often correlated with a worsening of drug problems and decriminalization with bringing them into manageable bounds. Mr. Greenwald cites a 2008 survey of 17 countries showing that the U.S. had by far the highest level of cocaine use over a lifetime (16.2 percent to second-place New Zealand's 4.3 percent) and the highest level of cannabis use. As Greenwald writes, "stringent criminalization laws do not produce lower drug usage, and some data suggest the opposite may be true."
There appear to be second order effects of prohibition (profit to dealers - forbidden fruit) that overwhelm the first order effects such as punishment. It happens.
Mexico recently decriminalized small amounts of most drugs. Alan has some comments on that.
I would add that Mexico makes no provision for acquisition of drugs, which is likely to leave the black market largely undisturbed and still powerful. Decriminalization combined with a determination to end trafficking can leave users still dependent on the black market - as is still the case for all too many medical patients in California. The way to undermine a black market is to allow a white market to emerge.
Nonetheless, Mexico's move, combined with a court decision in Argentina last week that will have a similar impact on small-time users, has the potential to put a significant dent in the religion of prohibitionism. Now if we can just get politicians in the U.S. to pay attention.
Prohibitionism is a faith based on the idea that prohibiting substance abuse and the substances associated with it will lower the incidence of abuse at relatively low cost. It happens with all faiths, if the disconnect from reality is severe the faith loses ground. As with most sincerely held beliefs - it is the youth who see the Emperor Without Clothes first. After that it is just a matter of the faithful dying off.
I'm in favor of legalization, but those Portuguese statistics look cooked to me. I'm sorry, but there is simply no way I'm believing that usage rates will drop by one-third to one-half if controlled substances are uncontrolled.
Rhodium Heart · August 31, 2009 9:02 PM
RH,
Maybe. Maybe not. They conform in some respects to Dutch statistics on marijuana. Legal market = lower lifetime use. About 1/2 the USA number. Although it has been on the rise lately in Holland.
Evidently the "forbidden fruit" is very attractive.
You're relying solely on evidence provided by Glenn Greenwald to support your claim.
That's a pretty reliable indicator that your argument is full of shit.
Thomas Rick Ryan Ellison Wilson Ellers Ellensburg · September 1, 2009 4:57 AM
I would also be interested in your thoughts about Singapore and Malaysia, where the most stringent and, dare I say it, most draconian, anti-drug laws and legislation in the world exist.
Do you say that if it was legalised in these countries, the amount of drug usage would decrease? That the actual level of usage is right now higher than it would be if the govts lightened up, so to speak?
I really am interested to know. Because firearms are prohibited in both countries as well, and enforced beyond belief. It seems to be working, but the same trend and arguments should be observable for both issues (gun and drug control, I mean).
My take is that use wouldn't change much. But it might decline. Any increase would be temporary.
As to the rest. America has a culture of liberty and 300 million guns. I'd like to keep it that way. Even with its attendant costs. And just so you know - my brother was killed in 1974 by a gun in a neighborhood known to be heavily infested with drug dealers. The assumed motive was robbery. But no one knows for sure.
My theory of drug use:
People in chronic pain chronically take drugs. Which is why the drug market beyond a point is inelastic. After you chase away the casual users those in chronic pain will pay a lot for pain relief.
I can't stand Glenn Greenwald, and I've taken issue with him more times than I can remember over the years, but I have to admit that he is occasionally right, as he was when he stated his opposition to hate crime laws.
Attacking the correctness of a statement just because Glenn Greenwald said it is a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy. (If Greenwald said that the earth revolved around the sun, that would not make the statement wrong just because he said it.)
Thank you for your response. Forgive me for saying that I hope any (re)legalisation of scheduled drugs and poisons (or whatever they're called) will be towards that make people stoned and blissed out, as opposed to stuff that gets them hyper and wired. I can deal with a couple of stoners, but not with those stereotypical morons on PCP, for instance.
As for the guns issue, I believe it best if either NOBODY could have them (and everyone knew it) or EVERYBODY could have them (and everybody knew it). Since the former is pretty much impossible to guarantee, possibly the latter is the wiser course. I also believe that gun handling wisdom might take a while to seep into the public consciousness here in SEA. Witness the many fools who blow themselves up with home made firecrackers (and spoil the fun for the rest of us by having the govt ban those, too).
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
I'm in favor of legalization, but those Portuguese statistics look cooked to me. I'm sorry, but there is simply no way I'm believing that usage rates will drop by one-third to one-half if controlled substances are uncontrolled.