This story always comes back every year. With some ground knowledge on this, as I worked previously for Portugal Ministry of Health (Regional Subdivision). All this is price, and the programme works because drugs go where the money is, i.e. not Portugal, goes to the UK and Germany.
On the other hand, Alcoholism is a massive issue in Portugal, and there is no Government action.
From what I hear (as someone now living in rural Portugal), a turning point came when most of the electorate knew someone suffering from a drug addiction. Be it a family member, partner, or friend - there came a point when the majority of people could not only see the problems caused by the epidemic, but could also empathise with those with addictions.
As a result of this understanding/empathy, it was possible to pass this legislation.
I see parallels with the legalisation of same-sex marriage. I saw somewhere that there is a correlation between support of same-sex marriage and actually knowing that a family member or friend is LQBTQ.
It seems to me that once people can empathise on a personal level, new approaches become acceptable (/ enter the Overton Window).
How this relates to the opioid crisis in the USA I do not know. I’ll leave someone else with more familiarity with the situation to pontificate on that.
“The world” is not just US and UK. Here in Switzerland, you can register as e.g. a heroin user, and be provided with cheap Swiss pharmaceutical quality heroin, for the nominal price, in specialized centers for drug users (you obviously can’t take it away, consumption is only allowed on premises — where medical and psychological help is available, and counseling programs for quitting drugs are advertised).
The program is immense success, there are no drug dealers on our streets anymore (can’t compete with cheap drugs from the government), drug-related crime has plummeted, and drug users numbers are falling down too (due to these counseling programs).
And yes, marijuana is now fully legalized (up to some percentages of THC) and you can buy it with grocery stores just like cigarettes. Nobody seems to be particularly interested, there were no significant changes in consumption culture, etc.
Up to 1% of THC which is useless, according to the total absense of peer reviewed clinical trials on CBD and also no fun.
Europe would be perfect if literally anywhere got this sorted out
Sure, the general lack of life ruining prison sentences is ok and a stark contrast from the US, Middle East and South East Asia. And further decriminalization is ok. But where are the gummies! The edibles! Recreational highs from a convenience store are totally absent.
Hanging out with “edgy” people in Europe feels like high school 20 years ago. I really like the West Coast US culture of working professionals having weed and edibles casually.
> And yes, marijuana is now fully legalized (up to some percentages of THC) and you can buy it with grocery stores just like cigarettes. Nobody seems to be particularly interested, there were no significant changes in consumption culture, etc.
I disagree. I find the inundation of marijuana products in San Francisco pretty shocking and frankly as disagreable as general alcohol ads.
I think drug addiction is really misunderstood and this leads to bad policy. The two popular narratives that drug addiction is a moral failing or a disease are both wrong. In some ways it is more simple than that: drug addiction is a coping mechanism.
Most people who get addicted to drugs are using them to escape pain. This is occasionally physical but usually mental. It is memories of traumatic experiences or abuse, loss, stress, etc.
That is why incarceration is so counterproductive, you are just giving the addict more pain they need to escape. Also treating drug addiction itself without understanding and addressing the underlying reason for it will just lead to constant relapsing.
I recommend the book Chasing the Scream for people who want a better understanding of drug addiction.
That's reductionist. The bigger picture is: why do some people end up with drug addiction as their coping mechanism, but others don't. Why aren't all abuse victims drug addicts? What separates the ones who fall down that hole and the ones who don't? Opportunity? If not opportunity, then what is that X factor? That's why you get to the larger questions of disease, responsibility, and moral failing.
Using drugs to treat a physical addiction is first and foremost a "coping mechanism" for treating the physical addiction.
When a serious alcoholic is puking themselves nearly to death as they try and get sober, they aren't trying to escape some childhood trauma or "stress". They are trying to escape a physical addiction that has already dramatically altered their mind and body and may possibly kill them.
You may be confusing the cause of drug use with the consequences of repeatedly using addictive drugs. Eventually, the drug addiction replaces all other problems. It's not a representation of other problems.
A lot of comments about why decriminalization of drug use is a no brainer. I'd like to point out that it's not that simple. From what I understand from different "experiments" like Portugal, it's a lot depending on context (eg culture) and how it's done. For example, easier access (lower taxes) on alcohol caused a rise in alcoholics and alcohol related deaths in Finland). Not everyone living in Colorado is happy about the outcome there either (sorry for no references, but please look it up if you'd like).
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done but like a startup venture, an idea is worth very little and the environment/market + how it's realized makes all the difference!
Alcohol and nicotine are extremely addictive and damaging, and you know what happens during prohibition.
Same as cultures differ, so do the drugs. The effects of labeling sick people (I believe the rare fully healthy people don't get addicted easily.) as criminals are however the same everywhere.
I think you are conflating decriminalization with taxation, and decriminalization with legalization, because alcohol is a legal drug. Most people I know who are in favor of legalizing other drugs also support their taxation; at the very least to a point where (a) consumption is heavily disincentivized, (b) external negativities are paid for, and (c) black markets nearly disappear.
I don't have a strong opinion on Portugal's drug policy. But I do think there's a flaw in the premise of this article: the success of Portugal's policy here was dependent on Portugal's culture, history, population, and a host of other factors that can't be replicated in another country.
It's as though I think the United States Constitution is a great thing — as in fact I do — and say, "The radical US Constitution has worked. Why hasn't the world copied it?" You can't lift one feature of a culture out, apply it in isolation, and expect it to function as it did in context.
Deciminalisation first. Stop treating everybody like a criminal. It is so mf oppressive, to everybody.
"In many ways, the law was merely a reflection of transformations that were already happening in clinics, in pharmacies and around kitchen tables across the country. The official policy of decriminalisation made it far easier for a broad range of services (health, psychiatry, employment, housing etc) that had been struggling to pool their resources and expertise, to work together more effectively to serve their communities."
From the headline of the article alone, it seems that part of the reason the world hasn't copied it is that it's labeled as "radical", when it really isn't (or shouldn't be) radical at all.
I recently read some something that had the following premise:
Immigrants leave their family and friends behind. People who are more empathetic have a harder time doing this.
Therefore, countries with net emigration will grow more empathetic. Countries with net immigration will grow less.
While just anecdotal, this is something that I've confirmed with my experiences.
I'll add in that countries which were founded on a genocide that happened not too long ago, probably will have echos of this continuing for a long time. Backwaters also tend to be less aggressively restrictive of freedom, as greedy, aggressive people naturally navigate out of them.
It's a reasonable question, and I can't call the current US policy as sane in any way.
There is, though, some need to account for culture. I doubt, for example, that replicating gun control laws from the UK to the US would result in similar gun violence stats.
That said, at the very least, country wide decriminalized marijuana seems like a good start for the US. It's probably less overall harm than alcohol. The long window of employment THC tests probably holds this back.
It's unfortunate that this sounds so tin foil hat because it is absolutely true.
There is no grand conspiracy to keep drugs illegal. There is a vast, semi well intentioned system built over a century that people adapted to over time to profit off of and now that they are profiting they are not going to give it up easily. Because of the governmental nature of the people who profit they are also very well positioned to lobby for themselves. The sheer number of small actors who benefit from this system has made it unbelievably entrenched.
Indeed, for opiates the DEA makes it essentially impossible for addicts to get working treatment like Suboxone, basically guaranteeing they’ll continue to be arrested and/or OD.
I absolutely disagree with it. OK it maybe that oil companies are slowing down progress of renewables/preventing acceptance of climate change, because thing has enough money for that. But that opioid crap is simply too cheap to matter on a national level. It's just a bunch of doctors getting some new BMWs writing made up prescriptions and some corporate execs getting a few million extra bonuses for boosting opioid sales. To matter that much to impact politics in the plain view of millions people suffering, it must be a trillion dollar pie. Like oil, or military-industrial complex, or like Microsoft at the very least. It absolutely isn't.
How do illegal drugs convert to “money” and “power”?
(Apart from the US where opiate manufacturers are big lobbyists and some weed could both strip you of your right to vote and put you in a for-profit prison. The US is an outlier here)
I disagree, the problem is that status quo problems are "acceptable". If a politician legalizes drugs they become personally responsible for every death from those legal drugs.
This only works if there are treatment options available which won’t happen in the US. Otherwise prisons wouldn’t be full of people with mental health problems.
A lot of this depends on how evenly people suffering are distributed through society.
One reason queer rights caught on so quickly is that LGBTQ people are evenly distributed across racial, ethnic and class boundaries. A rich white kid is exactly as likely to be trans, say, as a poor Brown or Black kid. People suffering from drug addictions in the US are more concentrated among certain communities.
Same-sex marriage never achieved enough support to be legalized [0][1]. It was voted against throughout the country including liberal states such as California. Same-sex marriage was legislated by a small number of judges.
I'm not making an argument for or against so please don't debate me on the merits of this issue. I am merely pointing out that the people did not decide this issue. A very small number of elites did.
You are wading into the complex web of how democracy works in the US. Denigrating the "elite" Supreme Court and ignoring all the other elites and distortions involved in any state legislation seems disingenuous.
Same-sex marriage rights were obtained in several states via a vote in the legislature. And Americans overwhelmingly support the US Constitution and court system. So "the people" were involved in both of those paths.
> 'Cause free labor's the cornerstone of US economics
it isn't
> 'Cause slavery was abolished, unless you are in prison; you think I am bullshittin', then read the 13th Amendment
This is true, they didn't listen when Kanye said it awkwardly, but it's been true the whole time.
> That's why they givin' drug offenders time in double digits
Maaaaybe sometimes, but if you come at it from that perspective you aren't going to convince enough people to change their minds.
The way it's been sold to the public is not from the perspective of benefitting prisons; so you need to address the argument that the public is given: that illicit drugs are so dangerous that the enforcement is worth it.
There are lots of countries without "reaganomics" or any private prisons, which are extremely strict and punitive when it comes to illicit drugs.
It looks like the law is going in the right direction though, the recent sentencing reform has been great, decriminalization (or at least, sentencing/institutions that do more good than harm) should be the next step, but it's not at the top of anyone's platform as far as I can tell.
Added: another story on Hacker News today, related to prison labour in a country which isn't the U.S. (I see absolutely nobody crying foul): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20427122
That may be a big part of the reason in the US, but Germany for example isn't big on decriminalization either, and we don't have anything similar to the US prison complex. I think a large part over here is that people think it's wrong and they don't believe in the individual's right to make a choice they consider wrong. Worldwide it's probably a mix of the two: powerful interests profiteering from the status quo and politicians and parts of the voting population not valuing individual freedom that much.
[+] [-] hugoromano|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ernst_klim|6 years ago|reply
What do you mean? Russia is one of the main drug consumers, and that's not where money is.
[+] [-] badrabbit|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adamcharnock|6 years ago|reply
As a result of this understanding/empathy, it was possible to pass this legislation.
I see parallels with the legalisation of same-sex marriage. I saw somewhere that there is a correlation between support of same-sex marriage and actually knowing that a family member or friend is LQBTQ.
It seems to me that once people can empathise on a personal level, new approaches become acceptable (/ enter the Overton Window).
How this relates to the opioid crisis in the USA I do not know. I’ll leave someone else with more familiarity with the situation to pontificate on that.
[+] [-] atemerev|6 years ago|reply
The program is immense success, there are no drug dealers on our streets anymore (can’t compete with cheap drugs from the government), drug-related crime has plummeted, and drug users numbers are falling down too (due to these counseling programs).
And yes, marijuana is now fully legalized (up to some percentages of THC) and you can buy it with grocery stores just like cigarettes. Nobody seems to be particularly interested, there were no significant changes in consumption culture, etc.
[+] [-] rolltiide|6 years ago|reply
Europe would be perfect if literally anywhere got this sorted out
Sure, the general lack of life ruining prison sentences is ok and a stark contrast from the US, Middle East and South East Asia. And further decriminalization is ok. But where are the gummies! The edibles! Recreational highs from a convenience store are totally absent.
Hanging out with “edgy” people in Europe feels like high school 20 years ago. I really like the West Coast US culture of working professionals having weed and edibles casually.
[+] [-] grenoire|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] conanbatt|6 years ago|reply
I disagree. I find the inundation of marijuana products in San Francisco pretty shocking and frankly as disagreable as general alcohol ads.
[+] [-] crunchyfrog|6 years ago|reply
Most people who get addicted to drugs are using them to escape pain. This is occasionally physical but usually mental. It is memories of traumatic experiences or abuse, loss, stress, etc.
That is why incarceration is so counterproductive, you are just giving the addict more pain they need to escape. Also treating drug addiction itself without understanding and addressing the underlying reason for it will just lead to constant relapsing.
I recommend the book Chasing the Scream for people who want a better understanding of drug addiction.
[+] [-] daenz|6 years ago|reply
That's reductionist. The bigger picture is: why do some people end up with drug addiction as their coping mechanism, but others don't. Why aren't all abuse victims drug addicts? What separates the ones who fall down that hole and the ones who don't? Opportunity? If not opportunity, then what is that X factor? That's why you get to the larger questions of disease, responsibility, and moral failing.
[+] [-] phil248|6 years ago|reply
When a serious alcoholic is puking themselves nearly to death as they try and get sober, they aren't trying to escape some childhood trauma or "stress". They are trying to escape a physical addiction that has already dramatically altered their mind and body and may possibly kill them.
You may be confusing the cause of drug use with the consequences of repeatedly using addictive drugs. Eventually, the drug addiction replaces all other problems. It's not a representation of other problems.
[+] [-] asveikau|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cjblomqvist|6 years ago|reply
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done but like a startup venture, an idea is worth very little and the environment/market + how it's realized makes all the difference!
[+] [-] ganzuul|6 years ago|reply
Same as cultures differ, so do the drugs. The effects of labeling sick people (I believe the rare fully healthy people don't get addicted easily.) as criminals are however the same everywhere.
[+] [-] arcturus17|6 years ago|reply
I think you are conflating decriminalization with taxation, and decriminalization with legalization, because alcohol is a legal drug. Most people I know who are in favor of legalizing other drugs also support their taxation; at the very least to a point where (a) consumption is heavily disincentivized, (b) external negativities are paid for, and (c) black markets nearly disappear.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] computer_czar|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] JasonFruit|6 years ago|reply
It's as though I think the United States Constitution is a great thing — as in fact I do — and say, "The radical US Constitution has worked. Why hasn't the world copied it?" You can't lift one feature of a culture out, apply it in isolation, and expect it to function as it did in context.
[+] [-] angel_j|6 years ago|reply
"In many ways, the law was merely a reflection of transformations that were already happening in clinics, in pharmacies and around kitchen tables across the country. The official policy of decriminalisation made it far easier for a broad range of services (health, psychiatry, employment, housing etc) that had been struggling to pool their resources and expertise, to work together more effectively to serve their communities."
[+] [-] aschmid|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 4ntonius8lock|6 years ago|reply
Immigrants leave their family and friends behind. People who are more empathetic have a harder time doing this.
Therefore, countries with net emigration will grow more empathetic. Countries with net immigration will grow less.
While just anecdotal, this is something that I've confirmed with my experiences.
I'll add in that countries which were founded on a genocide that happened not too long ago, probably will have echos of this continuing for a long time. Backwaters also tend to be less aggressively restrictive of freedom, as greedy, aggressive people naturally navigate out of them.
[+] [-] tyingq|6 years ago|reply
There is, though, some need to account for culture. I doubt, for example, that replicating gun control laws from the UK to the US would result in similar gun violence stats.
That said, at the very least, country wide decriminalized marijuana seems like a good start for the US. It's probably less overall harm than alcohol. The long window of employment THC tests probably holds this back.
[+] [-] andrewstuart|6 years ago|reply
This keeps a strong criminal element and does not protect drug users from contaminated drugs.
[+] [-] 1024core|6 years ago|reply
Because there's too much money* to be made in keeping the status quo.
* I use the terms "money" and "power" to mean the same here.
[+] [-] anm89|6 years ago|reply
There is no grand conspiracy to keep drugs illegal. There is a vast, semi well intentioned system built over a century that people adapted to over time to profit off of and now that they are profiting they are not going to give it up easily. Because of the governmental nature of the people who profit they are also very well positioned to lobby for themselves. The sheer number of small actors who benefit from this system has made it unbelievably entrenched.
[+] [-] gumby|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] conanbatt|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anovikov|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a3n|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alkonaut|6 years ago|reply
(Apart from the US where opiate manufacturers are big lobbyists and some weed could both strip you of your right to vote and put you in a for-profit prison. The US is an outlier here)
[+] [-] achenatx|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pier25|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ididntdothis|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hamilyon2|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hamilyon2|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minikites|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] damnyou|6 years ago|reply
One reason queer rights caught on so quickly is that LGBTQ people are evenly distributed across racial, ethnic and class boundaries. A rich white kid is exactly as likely to be trans, say, as a poor Brown or Black kid. People suffering from drug addictions in the US are more concentrated among certain communities.
[+] [-] dang|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acpetrov|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zcid|6 years ago|reply
I'm not making an argument for or against so please don't debate me on the merits of this issue. I am merely pointing out that the people did not decide this issue. A very small number of elites did.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_legislation_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_constitutio...
[+] [-] dang|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glennpratt|6 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_m...
[+] [-] greglindahl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ahelwer|6 years ago|reply
'Cause free labor's the cornerstone of US economics
'Cause slavery was abolished, unless you are in prison
You think I am bullshittin', then read the 13th Amendment
Involuntary servitude and slavery it prohibits
That's why they givin' drug offenders time in double digits
Killer Mike, "Reagan"
https://youtube.com/watch?v=6lIqNjC1RKU
[+] [-] microcolonel|6 years ago|reply
it isn't
> 'Cause slavery was abolished, unless you are in prison; you think I am bullshittin', then read the 13th Amendment
This is true, they didn't listen when Kanye said it awkwardly, but it's been true the whole time.
> That's why they givin' drug offenders time in double digits
Maaaaybe sometimes, but if you come at it from that perspective you aren't going to convince enough people to change their minds.
The way it's been sold to the public is not from the perspective of benefitting prisons; so you need to address the argument that the public is given: that illicit drugs are so dangerous that the enforcement is worth it.
There are lots of countries without "reaganomics" or any private prisons, which are extremely strict and punitive when it comes to illicit drugs.
It looks like the law is going in the right direction though, the recent sentencing reform has been great, decriminalization (or at least, sentencing/institutions that do more good than harm) should be the next step, but it's not at the top of anyone's platform as far as I can tell.
Added: another story on Hacker News today, related to prison labour in a country which isn't the U.S. (I see absolutely nobody crying foul): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20427122
[+] [-] luckylion|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rambo5|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|6 years ago|reply