In 2000, Portugal completely overhauled its policy on narcotics, decriminalizing the use of all illicit drugs. Portugal maintains that narcotics are illegal; however the offense was changed from a criminal one to an administrative one. If someone is caught with less than a ten days’ supply of any drug, they are given a relatively lenient punishment. “We figured perhaps this way we would be better able get things under control,” João Goulão, head of Portugal’s anti-drug program, explained in an interview with Der Spiegel. “Criminalization certainly wasn’t working all that well.”
By 2001, Portugal had officially decriminalized virtually every drug, from marijuana to LSD. Skeptics imagined that Lisbon would become a drug paradise and that narcotics use amongst teenagers would reach new heights. Both claims were wrong.
While experts are very pleased with the results of Portuguese decriminalization, many fear that other countries will feel pressured to follow in Portugal’s footsteps and board the decriminalization bandwagon without the necessary requirements for success. Taking into consideration some of the benefits and drawbacks of drug decriminalization, it is important to ask: does the Portuguese model work, and can it be applied elsewhere?
Despite Portugal’s own success, it must be understood that looking at countries on a case-by-case basis is a precondition for having any sort of discussion about changing drug policies in these nations. This way, countries can ensure that they do not rush to establish haphazard programs and laws that could end up doing more harm than good.
Portuguese Skepticism
The arguments against drug decriminalization certainly make sense; loosening restrictions on drug use should drive consumption up. However, drug policies and social trends are far more intricate and nuanced than such sweeping conclusions. In an interview with the HPR, Glenn Greenwald, journalist and expert on Portuguese drug policy, stated that Portugal’s policies of decriminalization came out of the country’s “spiraling, out-of-control drug problem” during the 1990s. A council of apolitical policy experts came together to formulate a policy with the sole goal of limiting drug use, and by 2001 drug use in Portugal was decriminalized, though still prohibited.
When people are caught with up to ten days’ worth of marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines, or any other street drugs, they are brought before an administrative body made up of a lawyer, a judge, and a psychologist or social worker. The commissioners have three options: “recommend treatment, levy a small fine, or do nothing.” Counseling is by far the most common approach, with services being provided in hospitals, community centers, and rehabilitation centers. Counseling takes the approach of accepting that drug use exists and creating a general atmosphere where people can safely use drugs.
However, if a person is caught with more than ten days’ worth of drugs, then more drastic penalties, such as jail time or augmented fines, apply. Dealers, on the other hand, are fined and/or jailed regardless of the amount of a substance being trafficked. This nuanced approach aims to treat drug use as a public health issue rather than a criminal one.
Since the enactment of these policies, drug use in Portugal has decreased. According to Michael Specter, a journalist for the New York Times and the Washington Post, “serious drug use is down significantly […] , the number of people seeking treatment has grown; and the rates of drug-related deaths and cases of infectious diseases have fallen.” Susana Ferreira, of the Wall Street Journal states, “the rate of HIV and hepatitis infection among drug users […] have also fallen since the law’s 2001 rollout.” This roll call of positive impacts underscores the profound effectiveness of Portugal’s daring drug policy.
Despite critics’ complaints that cocaine and synthetic drug use have risen since 2000, Ferreira points to a worldwide trend of rising popularity of these drugs as an explanation. Likewise, mildly increased usage among older age brackets compared to the 1990s is due to the cohort effect, “meaning that young people get older and take their habits with them.” Naysayers also blame the policy for rising street violence, yet the British Journal of Criminology found that the link between decriminalization and violence is tenuous at best. In fact, there are negligible changes in levels of violence before and after decriminalization, and economic depression is a far better indicator of violence. Thus, even its critics struggle to dent the success of Portugal’s decriminalization policy.
João Goulão, president of Portugal’s Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction is optimistic about decriminalization.
The International Conundrum
Many countries are toying with the idea of joining the “decriminalization bandwagon” by liberalizing their drug policies. Yet they often move towards liberalization without careful and deep analysis of their motivations. Uruguay, Colorado, and Washington all recently decriminalized the use of cannabis, yet none did so out of desperation. In these places, drug deaths and drug-related violence and deaths were already relatively low before decriminalization. In other words, they overhauled their drug policies for recreational purposes or the political spotlight. It is likely that they joined the “decriminalization bandwagon” due to pressure from the left and because liberalizing drug policies labels them as advanced and forward thinking. We should be wary of countries jumping to decriminalize to get a taste of popularity. If a country were to decriminalize without the necessary institutional support and procedures, drug use could skyrocket, ultimately missing the end goal.
An effective analysis of a country’s economy, political stability, hospitals, care centers, police force, and other institutions is a prerequisite to deciding whether or not decriminalization is the best path forward. Many countries serve as counterexamples for the need to deregulate drug markets in order to decrease the impacts of drugs. For example, Japan’s “zero tolerance” policy and hefty drug punishments have resulted in some of the lowest rates of drug use in the world. Sweden’s strict anti-drug stance has resulted in low hard drug use as well. The opposite also holds true: decriminalization can worsen a country’s drug problem. For example, in the 1990s Nepal experimented with drug liberalization policies, but the people of Kathmandu experienced “an explosive increase in HIV infections in about one half of all [injecting drug users].” There is no single worldwide solution to drug abuse.
Institutions matter
The viability of decriminalization, therefore, is a question of institutional effectiveness. Nepal’s experience with drug liberalization was a symptom of institutional weakness; the country decriminalized drug use but failed to implement any social programs to help users decrease their dependence on drugs. That institutional weakness is rooted in the Nepalese government’s struggle for rule of law and political legitimacy. If Nepal had an effective and efficient government with ample legitimacy, the result may have been different. In contrast, Portugal’s expansive social network and public health system enabled the country to establish a viable foundation for decriminalization.
In an interview with the HPR, Carlos Lauria from the Committee to Protect Journalists stated that institutional effectiveness is a key precondition for any kind of significant social health policy shift. “When the institutions that are supposed to carry out government policies are broken,” said Lauria, “the policies are broken.” Institutional strength can be achieved by having a strong bureaucracy, a stable government, a functioning economy, and a fair and effective justice system. When a country significantly lacks one or more of these characteristics, it can become very difficult to establish government legitimacy and thereby enforce effective drug policies.
Institutional effectiveness is a key determinant of policy effectiveness because a state requires a strong network of institutions and organizations to fulfill an undertaking as extensive as changing laws regulating narcotics. A state needs a cohesive hospital network to medically treat drug abusers, a responsive police force to catch dealers, and a fair justice system to try people fairly and uniformly. It is impossible to generate stable narcotics policies without the necessary foundations.
Lauria states that institutional effectiveness and governmental legitimacy are caught in a catch-22, whereby “the police cannot act because they don’t have the respect of the people and the people do not respect the police because they do not act.” Thus governments with established legitimacy and institutional effectiveness are at an advantage when formulating drug policies. This provides some explanation for why more developed and stable nations have a less volatile narcotics environment. Portugal’s policy, therefore, cannot be simply replicated in any other country with the expectation of eradicating drug problems. The Portuguese model, which was carefully analyzed and crafted for a uniquely Portuguese context, would most likely only work in a country with institutions analogous to those of Portugal.
Without a “one size fits all” model, we must give up the idea of a drug-free world. Some countries will react better to drug decriminalization than others, and in some parts of the world drug legalization may be necessary to address serious public health issues. Different contexts require different approaches to different drug problems: the shape of a specific tool only fixes a specific set of problems.
Image Credits: Flickr/Lollyman; Flickr/EMCDDA/Nuno Saraiva