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
Comments
-
PogMoThoin wrote: »And what informed professional research and studies would those be? Don't just guess that there are some. This is a debate, that's how it works, you can't just make shít up to suit your argument. You used the word fact, now get some.
I'm very aware that you can't just make shít up to suit your argument.
If you thought there weren't reams of professional research and studies, you're mistaken.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/data-and-analysis/WDR.html
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-a...and-Crime.html
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-a...tin/index.html0 -
- Global Committee on reevaluating drug laws.
As most people know the history of cannabis' legal status is full of unscientific, biased and blatantly racist claims.
Do not assume that just because laws are in place that those laws are based on scientific reasoning, they're based on public opinion.
They're clearly in place based on social and scienctific research. Of course public opinion i'd guess is for the most part in favour of those laws aswell.
I've read that report from cover to cover and agree with much of it. It basically calls for decriminalisation as opposed to full legalisation.
The report figures are flawed though, which is disappointing.
http://www.cps.org.uk/files/factshee...Statistics.pdf0 -
They're clearly in place based on social and scienctific research. Of course public opinion i'd guess is for the most part in favour of those laws aswell.
They're not necessarily though.
Cannabis is the classic example. It was not outlawed for legitimate reasons yet still no politician in Ireland, the US, or the UK even touch on decriminalising it despite the fact that it has been recommended by numerous studies (and which you're in favour of).
In the UK they even ignored their own advisory board when it suggested they lower it's Class from B to C, instead they upped it to A.
Drugs are one of many topics politicians will willfully ignore scientific reports on in favour of public opinion because reports don't get them elected.0 -
They're not necessarily though.
Cannabis is the classic example. It was not outlawed for legitimate reasons yet still no politician in Ireland, the US, or the UK even touch on decriminalising it despite the fact that it has been recommended by numerous studies (and which you're in favour of).
In the UK they even ignored their own advisory board when it suggested they lower it's Class from B to C, instead they upped it to A.
Drugs are one of many topics politicians will willfully ignore scientific reports on in favour of public opinion because reports don't get them elected.
Quite true. Cannabis is the exception. There's no sense where that's concerned.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
What about ecstasy?
Has an extremely bad public image not supported by scientific opinion.
As David Nutt famously said; it's safer than horse riding.
Yeah would be in favour of decriminalising it. Not sure about selling it legally though. The Dutch manufacturers seem to be looking after the people who really want it so what's the point increasing supply by legalising it. They would just see it a competition and carry on regardless.
I have no quarrel with people who do it at all. Would rather bump into a group of ravers in a dark alley then a group of drunks any day.0 -
If you type "crime rates during prohibition" into Google every link says crime rates went up even drunken driving arrests went up.But crime actually went down. Like here if you were only to read the Evening Herald you would believe you are living in a warzone. Even sometimes I still think I am.0 -
Paul McCartney, 69, has said in Rolling Stone magazine this week that he plans to give up smoking Cannabis after 45 years.
I think he is a perfect example of why cannabis should be illegal.
This horrible drug destroyed this man's life. He never became of anything and contributed nothing to society.0 -
If you want to see strong evidence as to the general publics views on this matter then take a look at the comments below this opinion piece in todays Belfast Telegraph....... here.
Quoted below for mobile web users.cognitivelibertyuk 1p · 2 hours ago
Using drugs is not a moral wrong. Locking up individual drug-users alongside rapists and murderers is not justice. This is a civil liberties issue: the state should not have the right to tell us what we can and cannot put in our bodies, especially when so many of the banned substances have long histories of being used for religious and spiritual purposes. www.cognitiveliberty.co.uk
DubBren 84p · 4 hours ago
My own view is that all drugs should be legalised and taxed. That they should be dispensed from Chemists or another location by Pharmacists. I think that to purchase all alcohol and drugs you should require a licence (separate ones for different classes), you need one to drive a car after all. If people are fully informed over the course of an afternoon of the potential harmful effects and instructed on how to remain safe, then I think they should be free to choose.
Jim_Brady 1p · 4 hours ago
This article isn't really very well researched at all and the writer falls into the old trap of accepting as fact certain untrue propaganda perpetrated by the media at large against the noble cannabis plant in an ongoing and ultimately futile attack at what is the inevitable outcome being legalisation.The cowardly and hypocritical UK govt says with one side of its' mouth that cannabis is unsafe and harmful while at the same time with the other side it grants a monopolic license to GW pharmaceuticals in Kent to grow 30 tons of top grade cannabis a year to produce a "safe medicine" in spray form known as Sativex which costs hundreds of pounds.It is totally ludicrous.
The British Medical Journal recommends a new direction http://bit.ly/xMBGpk
Please also see this Public Library of Science report contributed by the World Health Organization Mental Health Survey http://bit.ly/yG00Rp
The International Journal of Drug Policy conducted extensive research that concluded overwhelmingly that there was a significant correlation between drug law enforcement and drug market violence http://bit.ly/xEj2tl
The time is long past due for our weak politicians to start listening to the people.Estimates for job creation arising from legalising cannabis and regulating it are in the region of 100,000.New jobs ,it could potentially change the world.
8billion 88p · 5 hours ago
A UN report said the global drug trade generated an estimated US$321.6 billion in 2003.[1] With a world GDP of US$36 trillion in the same year.
=============================================
That was 2003, its probably double or treble that now.
All of that money goes to organised crime.
Proceeds are used to fund worse crimes like human trafficking.
Tens of Thousands of people have died as the Overlords enforce their territorial claims.
More than 47500 people have died in drug-related violence in Mexico alone since December 2006.
The solution, as previous posters is so simple that it is a crime to avoid the obvious. The reason drugs will not be legalised is our politicians are cowards.
DanFord43 1p · 5 hours ago
The World Health Organisation has done a study on this. the findings were that blanket prohibition does not reduce Cannabis consumption at all.. Cannabis prohibition also leads to a large increase in those using hard drugs like Heroin and Cocaine.
So why don't don't we try easing up on attacking Cannabis users who are often people with very painful conditions whose only release is through the consumption of this god given herb.
Easy_Lionel 84p · 6 hours ago
Legalise and tax all soft drugs, the government would make a considerable amount of money, decriminalise hard drugs saving billions on police resources. Use this money to treat these people without penalty as addiction is a reality and counter productive to punish. I'd like to see more police resources spent on human sex trafficking which is becoming a hidden but serious issue. The government shouldn't be hypocritical and not allow someone to smoke a joint at home when they can go out and drink as much as they like considering how much more damage is done with our socially acceptable legal drug of choice alcohol.
K1L4BT 82p · 6 hours ago
Scientific proof showing links to depression and schizophrenia? On a handful of occasions out of the millions that smoke pre existing conditions may come to the fore - stop scare mongering. No one has ever died from cannabis smoking. And the above symptoms sound like the effects of alcohol.
Ive smoked cannabis since I was 17, and Im well in my 40s now. I work in a very well paid job and have raised a family. Yet I have to pay a visit to dodgy areas to get what I want and my dealer is a spide with big hard man dogs and alot of bling and while his money goes on big wheels for his car who knows where his dealers money goes. Its a moral dilemma Im forced into because cannabis is well bvetted agaisnt by the pharma companies due to its positive effects. Would be much handier if I could buy from an authorised outlet that the gov could tax.
bigchiefally 97p · 6 hours ago
1. Completely legalise the likes of cannabis, ecstasy, speed etc Regulate their sales, ban any advertising for them and tax them.
The war on drugs is a futile waste of time. It isnt going to be won, ever. How much time and effort must our cops waste on such rubbish like E and cannabis when they could be out sorting out proper crimes? Sure they arent good for you and there are a very small but very sad number of ecstasy deaths each year (8 in 2010 apparently) but loads of other things arent good for you either and we allow them.
2. Give away heroin and crack free to those who are willing to take them in regulated government run clinics after they sit through an hour long presentation on why they are bad and help on how to quit.
Harder and nastier drugs like crack and heroin do need to be regulated much more closely and I wouldnt ever like to see them being sold freely but if we could take the addict out of the realm of crime I bet any costs that occur in doing that would be more than reaped by savings from the drop in thefts and police time.
Alice274 1p · 6 hours ago
Looking at switzerland as an example we see that the dilemma is not actually so worrying. Addicts are able to receive heroin free on prescription. Not only does this stop dealers bothering to sell it to new users, it also gives heroin a firm image as a drug for sick addicts, not something cool for rebellious kids to try.
"The drug problem is no longer publicly discussed and has vanished from the political agenda. In some sense, the establishment of heroin distribution has had a positive effect on drug prevention. Heroin is no longer attractive, but is now seen as a “loser drug”; therefore, very few young people ever start using heroin"
http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%205%20...
Peter Reynolds 45p · 6 hours ago
Why don't we try taking a completely new approach to cannabis? Around three million people in Britain are regular users and whatever we do we're not going to be able to stop them.
We waste billions every year on police, court and prison resources when a large proportion of society uses cannabis without any problem at all. In fact, the only real problem with cannabis is that it's illegal.
The risks to health are very small - much, much less than alcohol or tobacco. By a recent analysis of mortality, hospital admissions, toxicity and propensity to psychosis, cannabis is nearly 3000 times safer than alcohol. Why not introduce a tax and regulate system and realise the benefits?
That way we'd have a properly regulated supply chain with no criminals involved, no theft of electricity, no human trafficking, no destruction of property and disruption of neighbourhoods. Then there would be some control over this huge market. There would be thousands of new jobs, sales would be from licensed outlets to adults only with guaranteed quality and safety. Then our police could start going after some real wrongdoing instead of trying to fight a crime that exists only because of a misguided government policy.
Also, very importantly, science now proves that cannabis is one of the safest and most effective medicines for a wide range of conditions. While the government promotes the lie that "there is no medicinal value in cannabis", it has granted an unlawful monopoly to GW Pharmaceuticals to grow 20 tonnes a year for, you guessed it, medicine!
Cannabis Law Reform (CLEAR) published independent research on 14th September 2011 that shows a cannabis tax and regulate regime would provide a net gain to the UK exchequer of £6.7 billion per annum as well as reducing all health and social harms.
The only thing that keeps the present absurd status quo in place is weak politicians corrupted by Big Booze and the GW Pharma monopoly.
Go to the CLEAR website for full details: www.clear-uk.org
Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/lindy-mcdowell/would-legalising-drugs-really-reap-a-good-harvest-16117918.html#ixzz1mYm1ArXc0 -
Apologies for the delay in responding .... wrote a big reply and then my computer crashed. Was too disheartened to write another straight away.:o
I've never seen it. Could you point me to it?based a wealth of informed professional research and constant study. Based on the characteristics of drugs and effects of drugs.
And of course, stapling your hand to a table doesn't justify banning staplers.
It's the same with drink. I used to binge drink but because of medication I'm taking, I don't any more and the benefits to me are obvious. A few pints is far more enjoyable than 12.
People who want to safely take drugs shouldn't be punished because some people are idiots who can't do them properly.
Indeed, if you want to currently safely take drugs you basically can't, because unlike most substances there's no quality control, regulation and you can't complain to anyone if it's not up to scratch.The arguments you criticise may be emotive. I reckon that's understandable . It doesn't make those arguments utterly irrelevant. I see plenty of emotion coming back from the 'legalise it' side aswell on these threads lately, in the form of contempt and ridicule for those who do not favour legalisation. Eg: "The tyranny of the moral majority" and stuff like that.
So, saying or implying that people on your side of the argument are ignorant of the facts and emotive and the other side are clued in, calm-headed and commonsensical is not exactly accurate in fairness.
There's nothing wrong with an emotive argument so long as it has substance.
Incidentally I hate the phrase "moral majority" and most similar "buzzwords".
And the "moral majority" isn't that much of a majority any more I suspect, particularly in liberal countries in western Europe.
For most things (contraception, abortion, divorce, having kids out of wedlock) we've abandoned that way of thinking.
So far my main argument has been about the debate itself rather than the item in question.
In terms of decriminalisation, the wikipedia entires for "Netherlands drug policy" and "Portugal drugs policy" contain pretty persuasive results.
To lessen the blow to people of a delicate persuasion it could be implemented incrementally, as I suggested.
As a counterpoint to that, Sweden, a paragon of stable democracy and fiscal responsibility, have a 0 tolerance approach to drugs, albeit, not as draconian as that of the US and their drug problems are worse than, for example, the netherlands, who have a more liberal policy.
As for total legalisation - my view on that isn't related to evidence. It's related to my principle of personal freedom and responsibility. If you want to do something that does no direct harm to others you should be entitled to.
I've been debating this for years and the best argument against i've encountered is along the lines of "well, alcohol is legal, and sure look how bad that's turned out".You seem to want to put distance from the statement of wanting to make them more available. However by being in favour of full legalisation, that is exactly what you propose.
Some of your bullet points highlight the problems with strict prohibition very well, but imv they're not clear reasons to legalise so much as decriminalise.
There are 2 arguments here as far as i'm concerned.
1 is decriminalisation. "Wanting to make them more available" was the only phrase I could think of at the time. I also included "incrementally" in that sentence which is key and I think the most important thing in that paragraph was about removing drug-related taboos.
I'm not trying to increase drug use. I don't take drugs, nor do I think they're a good idea.
There are many drugs which aren't dangerous enough to warrant them being illegal under any circumstances. If we act consistently in that way and ban all things that have similar dangers associated with them, we'd be banned from leaving the house.
Do you not find it somewhat suspicious how irrationally governments acted in banning cannabis and ecstasy? What makes you think their banning of other drugs was any more rational?0 -
Advertisement
-
This is the problem though, it's just not true. In America they reduced but still have a huge discrepency in sentencing for cocaine V crack cocaine even though studies show one is as addictive as the other. Guess which one is used more by black people. When yer man Nutt criticised the government in Britain and said the prohibition wasn't the right path he was put out on his arse. Did people admire him for speaking up? Some did, others (including on here) said he should've kept his mouth shut because he criticised his bosses.That may be true as a general point. Many including myself would argue though, that the worldwide laws forbidding the legal sale of street drugs are in place not because of ignorant decisions, but the total opposite in fact; based a wealth of informed professional research and constant study. Based on the characteristics of drugs and effects of drugs.
Outright prohibition just doesn't work. I'd love if no-one felt the need to ever take drugs or alcohol but it's not the world we live in. In one way it's similar to crime, we all want to see certain criminals punished properly but it's self-defeating to have them treated like animals in prison because most will be out some day so for all of us it's better that there's more of a rehabilitation element to prison etc. Similarly with drugs, the direct effects of drugs are often a tiny part of their overall impact, it's due to the law that many of the indirect effects even exist.0 -
gosuckonalemon wrote: »Paul McCartney, 69, has said in Rolling Stone magazine this week that he plans to give up smoking Cannabis after 45 years.
I think he is a perfect example of why cannabis should be illegal.
This horrible drug destroyed this man's life. He never became of anything and contributed nothing to society.
What the hell was he smoking when he thought that marrying Heather Mills was a good idea?
Just say no Macca.0 -
Guatemala has gone out of control, so now legalisation is on the agenda.
The country has one of the world's highest murder rates outside of a war zone, with 52 deaths per 100,000 citizens each year. About 98 per cent of murders go unsolved.Guatemalan leader: the only way to beat gangs is to legalise drugs
http://www.independe..._medium=twitter
The US's failure to cut demand for narcotics leaves Central America no choice, says President
The President of Guatemala has floated the prospect of legalising drugs in a bid to stop criminal gangs bringing even more bloodshed to Central America, and will attempt to win regional support for an idea which is likely to face fierce opposition in Washington.
Otto Perez Molina used a meeting with Mauricio Funes, his counterpart from neighbouring El Salvador, to discuss the concept earlier this week. He described it as the only way to respond to America's failure to cut the demand for illicit drugs from consumers. Mr Molina intends to seek support for legalising drugs from other Central American leaders at a summit next month. "We're bringing the issue up for debate," he announced to reporters in Guatemala City. "If drug consumption isn't reduced, the problem will continue."
The decision to explore legalisation comes amid soaring crime rates in the country, which is regarded as prime real estate by Mexican drug cartels competing to shift cocaine from South America, where it is grown, to the US, where most of it is consumed.
Since current policies don't appear to be stemming that flow, Guatemala needs "to find alternate ways of fighting drug trafficking," Mr Molina says. "In the last 30 years with a traditional combat with arms and deaths, it can't be done and we have to be open to viable alternatives." The President remains vague on exactly how legalisation will work in practice. His best stab at outlining the nuts and bolts of the policy came in a radio interview, in which he said: "It wouldn't be a crime to transport, to move drugs. It would all have to be regulated."
Advocates of the policy argue that current laws place a highly lucrative industry in the hands of criminals. A kilogram of cocaine, which retails for about $3,000 (£1,900) in Colombia, is worth about $70,000 on the streets of America and the business of smuggling it is worth an estimated $38bn a year.
Those profit margins have led to institutionalised corruption and endemic violence. Guatemala has one of the world's highest murder rates outside of a war zone, with 52 deaths per 100,000 citizens each year. About 98 per cent of murders go unsolved.
Mr Molina's endorsement of legalisation still comes as a surprise. A right-leaning former army general, he was elected in November after promising to robustly fight crime.
After taking office, Mr Molina apparently experienced a change of heart. In an interview this week, he said that reducing crime requires a comprehensive raft of policies that address poverty and other social issues.
"Hunger is also violence and is also a security problem," he said, admitting that this way of thinking is at odds with Washington's policy of supporting police and military crackdowns. "We are not doing what the United States says. We are doing what we have to do."
Otto Perez Molina: A 'firm hand'
Former army general Otto Perez Molina won the 2011 presidential election on the slogan "mano dura" or "firm hand", a stance he vowed to take against Guatemala's deteriorating security situation.
The right-leaning Mr Molina, of the Patriotic Party, attracted support from non-elites tired of spiralling crime during his campaign. He is not without skeletons, having served in military intelligence during Guatemala's brutal civil war.0 -
Apologies for the delay in responding .... wrote a big reply and then my computer crashed. Was too disheartened to write another straight away.:o
No probs:)
Sorry i'm not quoting your full post. Just a few quick points.I've never seen it. Could you point me to it?
There's so much stuff out there; it's such a heavily researched area, you just wouldn't know where to start. I've already put links in one of the posts above.People who want to safely take drugs shouldn't be punished because some people are idiots who can't do them properly.
The people who "can't do them properly" are not idiots. They're addicts. This seems to be a common misconception; blame the idiotic addicts who are ruining it for the rest of us. 'We're tough and we can handle our drugs. Why should we suffer?'
Would agree with you though if you say that people who do take drugs shouldn't be punished, ie criminalised.To lessen the blow to people of a delicate persuasion it could be implemented incrementally, as I suggested.
Another common misconception. That all the people who are against legalising and/or decriminalising are "of a delicate persuasion". It seems to me that there are people of a delicate persuasion on both sides of this debate.Do you not find it somewhat suspicious how irrationally governments acted in banning cannabis and ecstasy? What makes you think their banning of other drugs was any more rational?
Not sure what you mean by other drugs. I can only take it to mean cocaine, heroin, speed etc. If you're asking what makes me think that this was a rational decision, i would say it's because of the charactaristics of those drugs themselves and the effects they had on the community that made it rational for them to be banned from legal sale.
What makes you think the banning of the drugs other than cannabis and ecstacy was irrational?0 -
In terms of decriminalisation, the wikipedia entires for "Netherlands drug policy" and "Portugal drugs policy" contain pretty persuasive results.
To lessen the blow to people of a delicate persuasion it could be implemented incrementally, as I suggested.
As a counterpoint to that, Sweden, a paragon of stable democracy and fiscal responsibility, have a 0 tolerance approach to drugs, albeit, not as draconian as that of the US and their drug problems are worse than, for example, the netherlands, who have a more liberal policy.
Comparing countries is interesting, but has it's drawbacks. There are obviously other factors that come into play. To find out if your contention that Netherlands is faring better than Sweden, i suppose this site would be the place to find out.
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/0 -
I didn't see a thread on the report (besides the one half a year ago) so I made this.
SourceOn July 1st, 2001, Portugal decriminalized every imaginable drug, from marijuana, to cocaine, to heroin. Some thought Lisbon would become a drug tourist haven, others predicted usage rates among youths to surge.
Eleven years later, it turns out they were both wrong.
Over a decade has passed since Portugal changed its philosophy from labeling drug users as criminals to labeling them as people affected by a disease. This time lapse has allowed statistics to develop and in time, has made Portugal an example to follow.
The resulting effect: a drastic reduction in addicts, with Portuguese officials and reports highlighting that this number, at 100,000 before the new policy was enacted, has been halved in the following ten years. Portugal's drug usage rates are now among the lowest of EU member states, according to the same report.
One more outcome: a lot less sick people. Drug related diseases including STDs and overdoses have been reduced even more than usage rates, which experts believe is the result of the government offering treatment with no threat of legal ramifications to addicts.
I don't know why it hasn't garnered more attention. So AH what do you think of all of this?0 -
Still can't get a Light!
21/25
0 -
Paddy still clings to prohibition, Crime levels involving violence continue to grow..:rolleyes:0
-
worked in Hamsterdam..0
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
The Portuguese were very clever about it. They still kept distribution a criminal offence but decriminalised possession allowing them to place greater resources on dealing with the actual target, large scale suppliers. Also, by changing a user from a criminal to someone who has a "disease" you reduce the "cool" aspect of drug use.
People seem to think if drugs are legalized society will fall apart and everyone will go about their day out of their head, yet we have a drug that is regularly available within 5-10 minutes of most people yet they're not staggering around out of their head for the majority of their lives. It's called alcohol.0 -
Every time there is a thread about drugs this is brought up but I have yet to see it alter the views of an anti-drugs poster. Fair play to Portugal for taking action that probably raised eyebrows at the time for the benefit of it's citizens.0
-
Making criminals out of people who choose to take drugs is immoral.0
-
The Portuguese were very clever about it. They still kept distribution a criminal offence but decriminalised possession allowing them to place greater resources on dealing with the actual target, large scale suppliers. Also, by changing a user from a criminal to someone who has a "disease" you reduce the "cool" aspect of drug use.
People seem to think if drugs are legalized society will fall apart and everyone will go about their day out of their head, yet we have a drug that is regularly available within 5-10 minutes of most people yet they're not staggering around out of their head for the majority of their lives. It's called alcohol.
I don't agree with all of this, but that is one lucid post for the cesspit that is AH.
Nate0 -
-
Didn't they institute some programme that if you;re found with over a certain amount of drugs you get sent to like a rehab centre as well?0
-
a lot to be said for legislation and of course the tax revenue that could come in on cannabis shops and sale and produce of it,it would create lots of jobs too even in this recession we could kick it a lot faster than the 10+ years thats predicted for us to get out of it..0
-
Advertisement
-
When we stayed in Lisbon, it was pretty much city centre. On the way home to the hotel every day we had to negotiate the prostitutes and hashish sellers. Most were ok but some were a bit aggressive, I can imagine not everyone welcomes them right on their doorstep.0
Advertisement