So it seems decriminalizing drugs works...?

decriminalizing would mean a whole lot of people would be out of a job. And then what? They'll probably turn to crime.

there must be more to the world in which we live than justifying retarded policies on the number of jobs these policies created

One more thing, when are we going to realize that the drug problem is not really a criminal problem but more a health problem?

...research suggests that 5 years after decriminalization "illegal drug use among teens has declined and rates...

Add NZs use of meth and violent crime tendencies together under something like this and it would not be pretty imo.

I take your point that we need to be careful about transplanting Portugal's success into other countries, but I do think there is something in this research that is worth considering when thinking about drug policy. Do you think that prison and other criminal penalties are an effective way of reducing meth use and the associated violent crime in NZ? Has it worked so far?

Agreed. However, arguably decrminalization shifts the weight of the problem to the health sector, which given that it is already heavily under-resourced, could probably do without extra baggage.

If meth was regulated and cheaper, a lot of the crime that it creates, would be reduced.

Not so many people ripping each other off (and causing escalating violance) for their much required hit.

I used to manage a construction site not too far from a pharmacy where one of those programmes was operating, and guess what, you could spot the people coming in for their methadone rations from a mile away...... most of them looked like they hadn't slept in days, sometimes they'd show up about an hour before the pharmacy opened and just sit outside waiting for it to open up........and needless to say, obviously all jobless.

Portugal decriminalized possession of all drugs for personal use ... Recent research suggests that 5 years after decriminalization "illegal drug use among teens has declined /0,8599,1893946,00.html

we should ignore the results... it is after all only Portugal... and stay on our current course of prohibition as it is working so well, for all

or more evidence to suggest prohibition doesn't work yet this research won't make a blind bit of difference to the war on drugs

...people have to make their own choices in life, and face the consequences

REALLY?

let's decriminalise murder and manslaughter and see that illegal homicides will decline!

making laws that decriminalise drugs will not make drug dealers or users any more integrated into society than the majority people want them to be....

exceot for those underage dealing would all but be redundant

I think the point of that statistic was the demographic rather than the 'illegal' part.

In case your point was that if we decriminalize drugs, we should also decriminalize murder and manslaughter, I for one see a massive difference between personal possession of drugs as an offence on one hand, and murder and manslaughter on the other.

For example: if someone is found with possession of a small quantity of hard drugs for personal consumption: no specific police investigation is required, no pre-trial detention and as a rule no prosecution, while prosecution of production, import, export and large scale trafficking remains intact.

exceot for those underage dealing would all but be redundant

one of the arguments for legalisation is if all drugs are legal and controlled by the state the current market would change - for example if one has the option of P or coke (or even simple speed) and the means P wouldn't be the drug of choice, thus one could suggest that certain drugs that cause great harm may via market forces decline, add in public education and health inititives and its a whole new world... with lots of sparkly lights

that wasn't my point at all
by definition decriminalising an activity will reduce the number of that type of illegal acts won't it

You don't think the police in just about every country already do this? There is a big chunk of constabulary discretion.

Police have discretion to not enforce all sorts of crimes, what's your point?

What's the point of recommending a policy change that isn't actually a policy change?

What's the point of recommending a policy change that isn't actually a policy change?

What the fuck? Why would people choose coke over speed, given an equivalent price?

I've seen charts of the dopamine or whatever release of cocaine vs meth. Meth wins. Meth lasts longer. Meth will beat coke, hands down. The only reason coke survives is that it's less habit forming and has a classier image. On a get you fucked for cost scale, meth is the outright winner of every non-opiate drug.

And nobody is going to choose crappy 10% "speed" over 60% purity shit.

"Criminal Law must fail

Criminal law fails despite extensive penal provisions, intensive law enforcement and severe penalties. And it *must* fail because of two simple and well-established truths. Firstly: demand creates supply and thus provides the impetus to do what, in the case of illicit drugs, is prohibited by the law, and secondly: never in the history of mankind has criminal law succeeded in completely eliminating proscribed behavior, not even when the law was backed by almost universal public understanding and support. We all know that.

We have become accustomed to the idea that the criminal law can never prevent more than a given proportion of crime. Theft, rape and murder will always be with us and yet no one argues that these acts should be decriminalised because the criminal law has failed to eliminate them entirely. We just accept the deficient operation and limited success of the criminal law because the position that has been reached is the best one possible given the circumstances. But: things are different in the case of drug use because the deficient operation of the law takes us even further away from our goal. What happens, after all? The trafficker sells drugs in order to make money. If his profits were to dry up or be exceeded by the costs he incurs, he would go out of business and drugs would no longer be supplied.

Seizure of drugs

In theory his profits could dry up if it could be ensured that the drugs do not reach the customer. Naturally, the criminal law is not needed for this purpose. Any agency could confiscate illicit drugs. Yet it might be supposed that the law enforcement agencies, given all their resources and powers, would have a great success rate in the seizure of drugs. This, however, is not true; a 10% seizure-rate is the most optimistic estimate.

Costs passed on

The other course of action would be to allow the cost to rise so much that the traffickers have to work at a loss. This too cannot be effected through law enforcement. Of course, law enforcement measures push up the costs for the trafficker, but they have little effect because he simply passes the extra costs on to the consumers, who in turn pass them on to the general public. the latter are forced to finance the drugs market as the victims of theft, embezzlement, burglary, robbery and other drug-related crimes. So the price mechanism simply does not work.

No shortage

The seizure of drugs and the arrest of traffickers have little effect as well because both drugs and traffickers are quickly replaced. the enormous profits ensure that shortages occur hardly ever. Even worse: when a young dealer can make 500 dollars a day, this will influence the behavior of his peer group far more than any drug education program can possibly do.

Seizure of profits

Seizure of the profits from the drug trade - which at present is the subject of international negotiations and conventions - can only succeed if there is worldwide solidarity. Unfortunately this is in short supply. I need only say "Switzerland", "The Bahamas" or "Luxemburg" and you know what I mean.

Law Enforcement not an Ally

So far we have seen that law enforcement is a weak, highly overrated and grossly overpaid ally. That is dangerous enough when you are waging a war relying almost exclusively on that ally.

But the situation is worse. When we take a second look it becomes obvious that law enforcement is not an ally at all. The inevitably deficient operation and limited success of the criminal law transforms the drug trade into an entrepreneurs' paradise, creating and maintaining a black market which guarantees huge tax free profits and stabilises supply and price. Law enforcement does not, therefore, deter the trade.

Instead it encourages drug trafficking at every possible level and it is fostering an international mafia whose immense income, highly developed criminal organisation and far-flung interests are enabling it to extend its sphere of influence into legitimate business and into governments. In the drug war, therefore, law enforcement is not an ally: it is a traitor." ~ Dr. C. Frits Ruter

What the fuck? Why would people choose coke over speed, given an equivalent price?

I've seen charts of the dopamine or whatever release of cocaine vs meth. Meth wins. Meth lasts longer. Meth will beat coke, hands down. The only reason coke survives is that it's less habit forming and has a classier image. On a get you fucked for cost scale, meth is the outright winner of every non-opiate drug.

And nobody is going to choose crappy 10% "speed" over 60% purity shit.