Part One of a Two-Part Special Series!
So I’m sure those of you who keep up with the news have read at some point or another that Portugal decriminalized all drugs in 2001. This decision was supported by a huge majority of their society, from lawmakers to law enforcement, social workers, medical professionals and of course, drug users.
On Tuesday I went to a presentation which was about a study that was recently released, detailing the effect of prohibition on drug market violence. It was a really interesting study, and I’ll probably write about it in another post. Afterwards, Rob Boyd (who runs OASIS at the Sandy Hill Community Health Centre, which is a program aimed at people who are HCV or HIV positive) sent an email to everyone who went giving them .pdf’s of the study. He included a study done by the CATO Institute, based in Washington, DC, looking at the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal. This caught my eye, and I printed it out and am reading it through.
Many things immediately interested me, among them their success rate, and also how the system itself works. I’ll start with the latter.
Decriminalization, for those of you not familiar with the term, is different from depenalization (which has been popular in many EU countries, either legislated or de facto) and legalization. In most countries around the world (the vast majority, actually), recreational drugs are entirely illegal, which means obviously that if caught possessing, consuming, selling, buying or in any way enjoying a drug, you are entitled to anything from a fine to death. Especially in Asian and Middle Eastern countries, the penalties are particularly harsh. In Canada, if you are under the influence of an illegal drug, it is not an offense; unless of course you are in the possession of more of that drug. However, in many countries even being suspected of being under the influnce of an illegal drug is enough to get you charged. Penalties range as I said before.
Decriminalizing drugs means that drug usage and possession remain prohibited and subject to police intervention — however, you cannot be charged criminally, which means you cannot end up with a criminal record or jail time. Instead, these infractions are dealt with ‘administratively’; in Portugal, being sent to a “Dissuasion Commission”, which I’ll detail more later.
Depenalizing drugs, which happens on a de facto basis in many countries (for example, Holland and Denmark) and is legislated in other countries, means that the law is still in effect; however, there are no custodial (jail) penalties given, unless the offence is trafficking, or anything but simple possession/influence. This means that you’ll probably end up with probation, community service, a fine, or a combination thereof. You still, however, end up with a criminal record, as the charge is still processed through the criminal justice system.
Legalization, on the other hand, completely removes penalties regarding drugs. Possessing, selling, buying and using drugs is completely legal, and is not subject to any police intervention at all. You can get high however you like, wherever and whenever you want, and is in theory the system that causes the least harm to drug users. It is difficult to create a working system to legalize drugs, and so we’re still a long way off from seeing this.
On July 1st, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Since the enactment of that law, Portugal is and remains the only European Union state explicitly to decriminalize drug usage. The law applies to the purchase, possession, and consumption of all drugs for personal use (defined as the average individual quantity sufficient for 10 days’ usage for one person, which I’m interested to know what they think constitutes). Being caught buying (but NOT selling), possessing or using drugs will get you stopped by the police, but you cannot be arrested, or detained. They simply give you a citation, which is basically a summons to appear before the “Dissuasion Commission” which I mentioned before.
These “Dissuasion Commissions” are made up of three people. One is selected/appointed from the Department of Justice, and is generally someone with a lot of experience in law. The other two can be anything from social workers, to medical professionals — anyone with relevant expertise to the proceedings. When you are given a citation, you appear before one of these Commissions (there’s at least one for each province of Portugal, in areas where there is more drug use, for example Lisbon, there are many more). They take an in-depth look at your situation — what drug you were using, where you used it, whether or not you’re addicted to said drug, how much you were possessing, etc. etc. They then determine an appropriate sanction. “Article 15(4) of the law sets forth a variety of factors the commissions should consider in determining what sanction, if any, should be imposed. Such factors include the seriousness of the act; the type of drug consumed; whether consumption was public or private; and whether usage is habitual.” The person appearing before the commission has a right to have a medical professional examine them to help determine this. I’m still not entirely clear on whether or not it’s better to be addicted or not — according to the law, if you’re not addicted you get a lighter citation and in some cases you get just an oral warning.
What really strikes me about these commissions is how they are set-up and run. I quote the study on this [emphasis mine]:
Portugese and European officials familiar with the Dissuasion Commission process emphasize that the overriding goal of that process is to avoid the stigma that arises from criminal proceedings. Each step of the process is structured so as to de-emphasize or even eliminate any notion of “guilt” from drug usage and instead to emphasize the health and treatment aspects of the process.
The alleged offender, for instance, can request that notice of the proceedings not be sent to his home in order to preserve privacy. Commission members deliberately avoid all trappings of judges, and the hearing is intentionally structured so as to avoid the appearance of a court. Members dress informally. The alleged offender sits on the same level as the commission members, rather than having the members sit on an elevated platform. Commission members are legally bound to maintain the complete confidentiality of all proceedings. At all times, respect for the alleged offender is emphasized.
Wow! What a fuckin’ concept! Show respect for drug users?? What a crazy idea! Treat them as equals to the members of the commission? No wonder they have such an incredible decrease not only in drug-related crime, but also a decrease in drug use IN GENERAL!
More to come in Part 2! Stay tuned for the numbers around their success!
