Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ten Years After Decriminalization, Drug Abuse Down by Half in Portugal

Options
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Define drug "abuse" ?

    In countries where the possession and/or consumption of particular drugs are illegal ANY use of said drugs is (rightly or wrongly) generally understood to constitute abuse.

    In countries where particular drugs are legal the use of said drugs is generally understood to constitute abuse only when the usage becomes problematic or involves indviduals below the legal minimum age.


  • Options
    #33
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    grazz wrote: »
    Prohibition does not work with any drug, it breeds crime and black markets. Alcohol would be no different if it was illegal, it would be a booming industry with criminals. ...
    Gee whiz, there is of course no market for smuggled tobacco products, there are no illegal alcohol sales and no prescription medications sneak out onto the illegal market here to be used to give drinkers / drug users a cheap "high" before they begin consuming their drug of choice?
    grazz wrote: »
    ... When any drug, marijuana included is legalised and people are treated like adults and allowed to experiment with completely natural substances found in nature, those drugs are just as social as alcohol, if not more given that people on weed dont start up fights and smash things...
    Sure people are treated like adults and when they all begin to behave like responsible adults we can do away with customs, revenue, the courts and the Gardai.
    grazz wrote: »
    ... Most people on other drugs would have no problem paying taxes on substances if they were legal like we pay on alcohol, ..
    What percentage of alcohol and tobacco sold in this country is smuggled / illegal? If you don't know how can you stand over your hypothesis about drug-users paying tax? If the trend is to avoid tax on substances which are currently legal, what basis have you for contending tax would be paid willingly on illegal drugs once they're legalised?
    grazz wrote: »
    ... I hate it with a passion when some try to make out that weed smokers are some sort of criminal sponsoring, tax dodgers. What other choice do people have when we have a nanny state that tells what we can and cant put into our bodies?
    Currently weed smokers are law-breakers. Through their illegal purchases they fund criminality.

    Possibly the "nanny state" has an interest in what citizens consume because the state has the obligation to care for citizens who become ill as a result of their drug use.


  • Options
    #34
    thebaz
    Registered Users Posts: 13,579 ✭✭✭✭thebaz


    RichieC wrote: »
    Decriminalising is the only logical route. It will never happen.

    not sure how you could or should, decriminilise crack / cocaine - where the high lasts only minutes - weed, ecstasy and heroin should be decriminilsed though, IMO


  • Options
    #35
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    mathepac wrote: »
    Currently weed smokers are law-breakers. Through their illegal purchases they fund criminality.

    Prohibition leaves the the supply of drugs to the black market. People have always sought, and likely will always seek, to alter the state of their conciousness.

    The sooner supporters of prohibition realise that their stance drives a the supply of drugs and resulting profits into the pockets of thugs and oppressors the better. People should be allowed to consume drugs peacefully without having to worry about arbitrary moralising and stupid, immoral, laws that will label them a criminal for a victimless 'crime'.
    Possibly the "nanny state" has an interest in what citizens consume because the state has the obligation to care for citizens who become ill as a result of their drug use.

    Lol.


  • Options
    #36
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    mathepac wrote: »
    Through their illegal purchases they fund criminality.

    Unless they grow their own or buy abroad ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Hmmm interesting stats. I'd be against the decriminalisation of drugs because I believed that could only lead to an increase in the use of drugs, something that would have serious consequences for society. I mean, people can readily see that massive damage that alcohol and nicotine causes in society, but tend to gloss over the societal consequences that legal drugs would have.

    Having said that, I am open to having my mind changed, so I'll have an aul perusal through that report. From what I glanced though, the article is somewhat misleading. "Problematic" drug abuse is down by half, but there's nothing to suggest that drug use itself is down. It could well have increased. Many people who have issues with alcohol in this country wouldn't be seen as having a "problematic" relationship with drink, but it still has massive personal and societal affects.


  • Options
    #38
    Temptamperu
    Registered Users Posts: 5,303 ✭✭✭Temptamperu


    Einhard wrote: »
    Hmmm interesting stats. I'd be against the decriminalisation of drugs because I believed that could only lead to an increase in the use of drugs, something that would have serious consequences for society. I mean, people can readily see that massive damage that alcohol and nicotine causes in society, but tend to gloss over the societal consequences that legal drugs would have.

    Having said that, I am open to having my mind changed, so I'll have an aul perusal through that report. From what I glanced though, the article is somewhat misleading. "Problematic" drug abuse is down by half, but there's nothing to suggest that drug use itself is down. It could well have increased. Many people who have issues with alcohol in this country wouldn't be seen as having a "problematic" relationship with drink, but it still has massive personal and societal affects.
    Im sorry but how would it be different to now? People who want drugs can get them, whenever they want. People that dont want them dont take them but could still get them with relitive ease. Ehy would them be decriminalised be any different?


  • Options
    #39
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,991 ✭✭✭mathepac


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    ...
    The sooner supporters of prohibition realise that their stance drives a the supply of drugs and resulting profits into the pockets of thugs and oppressors the better. People should be allowed to consume drugs peacefully without having to worry about arbitrary moralising and stupid, immoral, laws that will label them a criminal for a victimless 'crime'...
    I know this is "only" an AH thread, but even so I've always found it useful when someone wishes to rebut a point I made if, based on their response, I can form the notion that they might actually have read my post first.


  • Options
    #40
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    mathepac wrote: »
    What percentage of alcohol and tobacco sold in this country is smuggled / illegal?
    A very, very tiny percentage.

    DECRIMINALISATION, class, is where the possession of small amounts of drugs is not a crime, and gets you referred for treatment without involving the justice system.

    LEGALISATION is where drugs are legally available.

    Seriously? Its working. It can work here. Lets make it happen.


  • Options
    #41
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Temptamperu wrote: »
    Im sorry but how would it be different to now? People who want drugs can get them, whenever they want. People that dont want them dont take them but could still get them with relitive ease. Ehy would them be decriminalised be any different?

    If you make something more widely available then it is generally more widely consumed. I think that's pretty logical.

    For example, someone who might never think about using a particular drug might decide to do so considering their availability, and the fact that they are out in the open so to speak.

    I know that a lot of people on the criminalisation side have fairly reactionary, eh, reactions (:pac:), but I think that some on the decriminalisation side tend to make out like there is no potential for negative consequences.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Einhard wrote: »
    I'd be against the decriminalisation of drugs because I believed that could only lead to an increase in the use of drugs

    If an increase in drug use was the price to pay for a reduction in the carnage and misery that surrounds the illegal drug trade then don't you think that would be the lesser of two evils?


  • Options
    #43
    grazz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37 ✭grazz


    Einhard wrote: »
    If you make something more widely available then it is generally more widely consumed.

    So what!! If people want to experiment and so long as they are paying their way and harming nobody else, then its nobody's business what they choose to take. I can tell you that the atmosphere in Amsterdam cannabis cafes is a very peaceful and non-intimidating experience, on the other hand, many areas such as Temple Bar are virtually no go areas after the pubs have closed down. And how many people have died from illegal drugs like marijuana? Virtually none. How many people have died from using legal drugs like drink and cigarettes? Millions! How many punch ups would you see outside a cannabis cafe in Amsterdam, and how many weed smokers go around after their night out in Amsterdam smashing public and private property and take up hospital beds that could be used for sick patients like binge drinkers selfishly do.


  • Options
    #44
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Einhard wrote: »
    If you make something more widely available then it is generally more widely consumed. I think that's pretty logical.

    For example, someone who might never think about using a particular drug might decide to do so considering their availability, and the fact that they are out in the open so to speak.

    I know that a lot of people on the criminalisation side have fairly reactionary, eh, reactions (:pac:), but I think that some on the decriminalisation side tend to make out like there is no potential for negative consequences.

    A lot of people could tell you it's a lot easier to get drugs than alcohol until one gets near 18 years old.


  • Options
    #45
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    If an increase in drug use was the price to pay for a reduction in the carnage and misery that surrounds the illegal drug trade then don't you think that would be the lesser of two evils?

    Well it depends really. Firstly, I think it's important that carnage and misery don't just attend the drug trade, but drug use as well. I think the decrim side often ignore this. They point out sometimes that alcohol is legal despite the massive damage it can cause, and then merrily use that as a reason why drugs should also be legalised.

    That being the case- that misery attends drug use- the benefits brought about by a reduction in drug dealing might well be counteracted by an increase in the negative societal consequences of increased drug use.

    But those on the decrim never seem to address that concern. It's always just the potential benefits of legalisation, and nothing about the potential negative effects.
    grazz wrote: »
    So what!! If people want to experiment and so long as they are paying their way and harming nobody else, then its nobody's business what they choose to take.

    Right so. I await the instruction from government that all those who are hospitalised because of alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, or just plain recklessness are to be turned away at the emergency room door.

    The use of drugs of any kind doesn't stayed limited to the individual; the effects are felt across society, and those societal impacts have to be taken into account in such a debate.
    And how many people have died from illegal drugs like marijuana? Virtually none.

    "Virtually none"? I don't know, and neither do you I imagine, so let's not pretend that either of us have the stats on that one.
    How many people have died from using legal drugs like drink and cigarettes? Millions!

    This is an incredibly odd argument. Your point seems to be that because some types of drugs are legal and kill millions then all sorts of drugs should be legal. And screw the consequences.
    How many punch ups would you see outside a cannabis cafe in
    Amsterdam, and how many weed smokers go around after their night out in Amsterdam smashing public and private property and take up hospital beds that could be used for sick patients like binge drinkers selfishly do.

    If we were merely speaking of the decriminalisation of cannabis you might have a point. However, this thread is debating the legalisation of all drugs. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer not to have heroin freely available to anyone who might want it. Unless there was compelling evidence that made a case for this, and thus far I haven't seen it.
    amacachi wrote: »
    A lot of people could tell you it's a lot easier to get drugs than alcohol until one gets near 18 years old.

    So we should make it even more widely available?

    And to be honest...some drugs might be more easily available than alcohol for the under 18s, but I doubt that's true of heroin and the like.


  • Options
    #46
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    Einhard wrote: »
    But those on the decrim never seem to address that concern. It's always just the potential benefits of legalisation, and nothing about the potential negative effects.
    If you read up you'll see that decriminalisation has led to less drug abuse.
    So we should make it even more widely available?

    And to be honest...some drugs might be more easily available than alcohol for the under 18s, but I doubt that's true of heroin and the like.
    It wouldn't be more easily available, are you purposely being obtuse? Alcohol is legal and one has to be over 18 to buy it which in one's teens often means finding someone else to get it for them. Cannabis is illegal yet is easily available to just about anyone once they hit their teens.
    You might be surprised about heroin. The thing that makes it hardest to get when young is to find a dealer who you don't know. With hash and usually coke (along with precription stuff) there's no biggie. Getting to a dealer through friends is a lot harder because most won't help out.


  • Options
    #47
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Einhard wrote: »
    Well it depends really. Firstly, I think it's important that carnage and misery don't just attend the drug trade, but drug use as well.

    I think you're mixing up drug use and drug abuse.


  • Options
    #48
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Einhard wrote: »
    If we were merely speaking of the decriminalisation of cannabis you might have a point. However, this thread is debating the legalisation of all drugs.
    I think you should be aware of the difference between legalisation and decriminalisation. Its not like it wasn't made clear a few posts back.


  • Options
    #49
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    amacachi wrote: »
    If you read up you'll see that decriminalisation has led to less drug abuse.

    It's cut down on problematic use. Not necessarily on drug use.

    If criminalisation cut down on drug use then there'd really be little argument against it.

    I don't necessarily accept that cannabis is that easily available. One might be able to get it fairly handily once one decides to purchase it, but one has to make that decision first and that is influenced by societal norms. One of the reasons why so many irish teens drink is because it's all around them. It's normal for them to want to drink. I fear that legalising drugs could lead to such a normalisation.
    You might be surprised about heroin. The thing that makes it hardest to get when young is to find a dealer who you don't know. With hash and usually coke (along with precription stuff) there's no biggie. Getting to a dealer through friends is a lot harder because most won't help out.

    Again, i wasn't so much talking about the getting of one's hands on drugs, but all the processes involved. Making something more obviously available normalises it and generally leads to wider consumption. That's my worry with drugs. That people who might not have used them before might now decide to give them ago because they were more readily and obviously available.

    For example, I know of a number of people who hadn't used drugs before (saving alcohol, nicotine etc) but did so through head shops when they became available.

    It's a concern I have, and I think it's valid. I haven't seen evidence anywhere that legalising drugs leads to a reduction in their use.
    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    I think you're mixing up drug use and drug abuse.

    No, I made the distinction. Drug use is is often attended by misery or carnage. My aunt was an alcoholic. Those two adjectives would accurately describe aspects of her life.
    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    I think you should be aware of the difference between legalisation and decriminalisation. Its not like it wasn't made clear a few posts back.

    LOl thanks for the snide tone. I missed it. I'll check it out.


  • Options
    #50
    Lord TSC
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 42,415 Mod ✭✭✭✭Lord TSC


    I always look at the arguement of "Other countries have done it" and think "True, but Ireland isn't other countries."

    We have a culture of abusing alcohol as it is, whereby we don't know how to "drink responsibily"; everything is about getting as plastered as possible. Alcohol as it is controls most of Irish society. We are a society of abuse.

    So why should I think the same isn't going to happen with drugs? Why should I believe Ireland wouldn't simply follow the same path of abuse with drugs as well, and let them engulf our society? I get it worked in portugal, but they don't have the same fixation on abusing mind-altering substances as we do....


  • Options
    #51
    Tomk1
    Registered Users Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Tomk1


    pirelli wrote: »
    Heroin use has dropped in Ireland too im guessing. There were epidemics all over the world and i think educating people on the dangers of drug abuse have tackled the epidemic. It is a statistic that can derived from many factors and i wouldn't contribute this to just a change in legislation it was more significantly and decision to tackle a problem rather then ignore it.

    I think people more educated about heroin and whether you legalise it or not is i irrelevant and it is the effort and approach that changed even here in ireland with a more sympathetic system.

    If you look more closely at portugal you will likely find they established a service to educate people and deal with addicts effectively.I doubt they just handed out heroin.

    A couple of towns near me have been hit hard by H in the last year, and meth is on the way.

    As regard to Hash, let people (over 21) get a permit for say a €100/yr to grow a maximum of 4 Hash plants, for self use. Maybe to qualify for the permit, would have to attend a day course on the hazards of drugs. If their caught growing more or suppling then revoke their permit = no more smoke.

    I don't nor have any interest in smoking hash, but I think it's about time we (ireland) started taking a mature attitude to drug use and also remove it from the hands of criminals.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Teamshadowclan wrote: »
    We have a culture of abusing alcohol as it is, whereby we don't know how to "drink responsibily"; everything is about getting as plastered as possible. Alcohol as it is controls most of Irish society. We are a society of abuse.
    What a pile of shite.


  • Options
    #53
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    What a pile of shite.

    You don't think we abuse alcohol in this country?


  • Options
    #54
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Tomk1 wrote: »

    I don't nor have any interest in smoking hash, but I think it's about time we (ireland) started taking a mature attitude to drug use and also remove it from the hands of criminals.

    Just because you advocate an approach doesn't necessarily mean that that is the "mature attitude".


  • Options
    #55
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Einhard wrote: »
    You don't think we abuse alcohol in this country?
    Some do, same as in any country. Most do not, and this culture of abuse crap is just that.
    McCoy wrote in The Irish Times that that spending on alcohol is recorded differently across the EU in contrast to Ireland. When comparisons of alcohol consumption are made, distinction is normally made between spending on alcohol in pubs on the one hand and in off-licences on the other. In most European countries only spending in off-licences is attributed to the category "alcohol" in national statistics, whereas money spent in pubs and restaurants is included in categories such as "recreation" or "entertainment".
    The Irish numbers, in contrast, include spending in off-licences and pub sales combined. A recent Drinks Industry Group of Ireland report estimated that 70 per cent of alcohol in Ireland is bought in pubs and restaurants. This is a substantially higher proportion than our European counterparts, largely due to the greater propensity for Irish people to drink in pubs and restaurants rather than at home. The inclusion of both categories therefore greatly inflates alcohol expenditure levels in Ireland in comparison with other EU countries. While there is a continuing trend towards more off-licence sales in Ireland, it is the classification distinction that significantly explains the exaggerated comparisons of Irish alcohol expenditure with other countries.

    In the context of a comprehensive measurement of alcohol spending, it could be argued that the Irish proportion of expenditure on alcohol is not overestimated; rather other countries' expenditure ratios are underestimated. The recent national accounts from the Central Statistics Office show that expenditure on alcohol in Ireland is 8.6 per cent of total personal expenditure, which has declined from 10.8 per cent in the mid-1990s. The recent EU-funded report claims that Ireland spends three times more than any other country on alcohol. However, using directly comparable data, a far different story is told.
    Between 1995 and 2004, households in Ireland spent an average of 2.6 per cent of their personal expenditure on alcoholic beverages - when measured as off-licence consumption. In Greece the proportion is smaller, at 0.9 per cent, but certainly not 10 times smaller as widely reported. Ireland was surpassed by Finland, Luxembourg and the Czech Republic, which had averages of 3.8 per cent, 3 per cent and 5.2 per cent respectively. When on-licence trade is factored back in, Ireland would emerge towards the top of the expenditure league, but by no means anywhere near the exaggerated multiples normally reported.

    Expenditure figures are a combination of the actual quantity of alcohol consumed and its price. The fact that taxes on alcohol are higher in Ireland than in most EU member states inflates the expenditure levels without necessarily implying greater consumption levels. Per-capita alcohol consumption levels in Ireland are high by international standards, but not disproportionately so. The trend over the last decade was for actual alcohol consumed to rise as income levels increased significantly, but at the same time the proportion of expenditure on alcohol declined. A number of factors led to the increase in alcohol consumed, particularly the huge growth in the numbers of people in the 18-25 age group and increased inward migration of adults.
    Did you pick up the difference between legalisation and decriminalisation?


  • Options
    #56
    Temptamperu
    Registered Users Posts: 5,303 ✭✭✭Temptamperu


    Einhard wrote: »
    And to be honest...some drugs might be more easily available than alcohol for the under 18s, but I doubt that's true of heroin and the like.

    It is easier to get heroin both before your 18 and you dont have restrictions on when it can be sold. It is incredibaly easy to get, I could go out and be back in 10 minutes with some right now whereas I would not be able to get booze... go figure huh.


  • Options
    #57
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    Some do, same as in any country. Most do not, and this culture of abuse crap is just that.


    Did you pick up the difference between legalisation and decriminalisation?

    Seriously, do you have to act like such an arse? It's not like I'm attacking you personally, yet you seem incapable of passing a remark without making it a snide one. It's not that I "didn't pick up on difference", it's that I didn't see your post, and was using the two interchangably because posts in AH generally aren't required to aspire to the semantic heights of post grad theses.

    I'm opposed to legalisation and criminalisation. As I stated though, I'm open to having my mind changed.


  • Options
    #58
    Doc Ruby
    Registered Users Posts: 3,956 ✭✭✭Doc Ruby


    Einhard wrote: »
    Seriously, do you have to act like such an arse?
    You didn't bother to read a post that was made minutes before your own, and now you're trying to save face by getting abusive. Fair enough, thats how you deal with it.

    And I do in fact feel that the negative and false stereotype of the drunken Irish needs to be stamped out.


  • Options
    #59
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Temptamperu wrote: »
    It is easier to get heroin both before your 18 and you dont have restrictions on when it can be sold. It is incredibaly easy to get, I could go out and be back in 10 minutes with some right now whereas I would not be able to get booze... go figure huh.

    That may be because of where you are. Would heroin be as easily available in the rural Laois as it is in parts of Dublin?

    Also, do you see the point I'm making about normalisation?

    If legalisation or criminalisation lead to reduction in drug use, or even was beneficial to society, I'd be behind it 100%. I simply don't think that that's necessarily the case.


  • Options
    #60
    PogMoThoin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,874 ✭✭✭✭PogMoThoin


    Sorry, I started this thread and it seems some of you jumped in without reading the opening post, I'm talking about decrimalising, no mention of legalisation at all. There is a huge difference


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    Doc Ruby wrote: »
    You didn't bother to read a post that was made minutes before your own, and now you're trying to save face by getting abusive. Fair enough, thats how you deal with it.

    And I do in fact feel that the negative and false stereotype of the drunken Irish needs to be stamped out.

    No, I missed the earlier post because I've been busy replying to the points that everyone else has made. Your responses on this page have been unnecessarily snide- hence why I asked do you have to ask like an arse. No need for that attitude really.


Advertisement