It does sound pretty good, but the US politicians try to do things on the cheap.
Spiegel from 2013:
(Emphasis added.)
The US closed lots of mental institutions decades ago for some good reasons, but we didn't spend the money necessary to treat those people in the community. I have little confidence that drug abuse treatment will get more funding if we stop putting people in jail for possession.
Not locking people up for drug possession is a very good thing. The war on drugs has been a disaster.
At this point, I agree that blanket legalization is a bad idea. Buying strongly addictive substances needs to be treated differently than a buying a pair of socks or something.
As long as there is a profit motive involved, and patent protections, I'm very leery of the idea freeing up pharmaceutical companies to sell any kind of feel-good or pain-numbing drugs they want. If, say, they were treated like public utilities with regulated profits and clear oversight then maybe. Maybe.
What about growing a few pot plants? That maybe should be treated the way Portugal does as well, until we know more. But should the potency be regulated somehow? How should driving while intoxicated rules apply (given that residues can remain in the body days/weeks later)? Should we only rely on subjective opinions of an officer ("he was weaving and driving too slowly") rather than measurements of some metabolite? I dunno (especially given what we've seen about local cops abusing people).
These are mostly academic questions for the millions of people who work for the federal government, but they're things we should all think about.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
[...]
Much the Same as a Parking Violation
As part of its war on drugs, Portugal has stopped prosecuting users. The substances listed in the Law 30/2000 table are still illegal in Portugal -- "Otherwise we would have gotten into trouble with the UN," Goulão explains -- but using these drugs is nothing more than a misdemeanor, much the same as a parking violation.
[...]
"We haven't found some miracle cure," Goulão says. Still, taking stock after nearly 12 years, his conclusion is, "Decriminalization hasn't made the problem worse."
At the moment, Goulão's greatest concern is the Portuguese government's austerity policies in the wake of the euro crisis. Decriminalization is pointless, he says, without being accompanied by prevention programs, drug clinics and social work conducted directly on the streets. Before the euro crisis, Portugal spent €75 million ($98 million) annually on its anti-drug programs. So far, Goulão has only seen a couple million cut from his programs, but if the crisis in the country grows worse, at some point there may no longer be enough money.
It is simply by chance that the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) has its headquarters in Lisbon. Frank Zobel works here, analyzing various approaches to combating drugs, and he says he can observe "the greatest innovation in this field" right outside his office door.
No drug policy, Zobel says, can genuinely prevent people from taking drugs -- at least, he is not familiar with any model that works this way. As for Portugal, Zobel says, "This is working. Drug consumption has not increased severely. There is no mass chaos. For me as an evaluator, that's a very good outcome."
(Emphasis added.)
The US closed lots of mental institutions decades ago for some good reasons, but we didn't spend the money necessary to treat those people in the community. I have little confidence that drug abuse treatment will get more funding if we stop putting people in jail for possession.
Not locking people up for drug possession is a very good thing. The war on drugs has been a disaster.
At this point, I agree that blanket legalization is a bad idea. Buying strongly addictive substances needs to be treated differently than a buying a pair of socks or something.
As long as there is a profit motive involved, and patent protections, I'm very leery of the idea freeing up pharmaceutical companies to sell any kind of feel-good or pain-numbing drugs they want. If, say, they were treated like public utilities with regulated profits and clear oversight then maybe. Maybe.
What about growing a few pot plants? That maybe should be treated the way Portugal does as well, until we know more. But should the potency be regulated somehow? How should driving while intoxicated rules apply (given that residues can remain in the body days/weeks later)? Should we only rely on subjective opinions of an officer ("he was weaving and driving too slowly") rather than measurements of some metabolite? I dunno (especially given what we've seen about local cops abusing people).
These are mostly academic questions for the millions of people who work for the federal government, but they're things we should all think about.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.