Reminder: Glenn Greenwald will be at the Cato Institute tomorrow (Friday) at noon Eastern to talk about his paper: Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies. Peter Reuter will be responding, and Tim Lynch, moderating.
If you can’t get to the Cato Institute, you can watch the event live here.
The paper itself is now available to read online at Cato or you can download the pdf.
It’s a fascinating paper.
It’s amazing how little we have discussed Portugal and their drug policies in the states. I would imagine that is, in part, a function of how unfamiliar we are with the language. Fortunately, Glenn is fluent and bridges that gap for us.
Decriminalization in Portugal really works. It’s certainly not what I would wish for an end goal here – I want to see regulated legalization, not merely decriminalization. Yet what Portugal has in place is far superior to our criminalized approach. It’s more effective, it’s smarter, and it’s more… human. We can learn a lot. In particular, we can learn that moving away from criminalization will not result in the social breakdown that is the warped fantasy of prohibitionists.
So what led Portugal to pursue decriminalization?
… decriminalization was driven not by the perception that drug abuse was an insignificant problem, but rather by the consensus view that it was a highly significant problem, that criminalization was exacerbating the problem, and that only decriminalization could enable an effective government response. […]
Since Portugal enacted its decriminalization scheme in 2001, drug usage in many categories has actually decreased when measured in absolute terms, whereas usage in other categories has increased only slightly or mildly. None of the parade of horrors that decriminalization opponents in Portugal predicted, and that decrminalization opponents around the world typically invoke, has come to pass. In many cases, precisely the opposite has happened…
Glenn does a nice job of breaking down the statistics, and comparing them to the rest of the European Union, also noting that both drug-related disease and drug-related mortality rates have decreased since decriminalization.
So how does this work?
They worked very hard to take it out of the criminal justice system, recognizing that the criminal justice system is the worst place to turn to help people. Drug possession is still illegal, but being caught with up to 10 days supply of any drug is merely an administrative action, not a criminal action.
…police officers are required to issue citations to the offender, but they are not permitted to make an arrest. The citation is sent to the commission, and the administrative process will then commence.
Enter the Dissuasion Commission, which will hear from the alleged offender and
“gather the information needed in order to reach a judgement as to whether he or she is an addict or not, what substances were consumed, the circumstances in which he was consuming drugs when summoned, the place of consumption and his economic situation.” […]
… 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 emphasiezed.
Wow. Can you imagine that? Respect for drug users.
What does the Commission do then?
In 2005, there were 3,192 commission rulings. Of those, 83 percent suspended the proceeding; 15 percent imposed actual sanctions; and 2.5 percent resulted in absolution. That distribution has remained constant since the law’s enactment. Of the cases where sactions were imposed, the overwhelming majority merely required the offenders to report periodically to designated locales.
Identify the people with real problems and try to help them. Talk to the others and let them go.
How bizarre this is compared to what we see every day in the U.S.
If you can, check out the session with Glenn tomorrow (Friday), and report back here. I’d love to see it, but unfortunately, I’m in meetings at that time.
Another big one dares to suggest the marijuana legalization question: Joe Klein in Time Magazine.
But, beneath the furious roil of the economic crisis, a national conversation has quietly begun about the irrationality of our drug laws. It is going on in state legislatures, like New York’s, where the draconian Rockefeller drug laws are up for review; in other states, from California to Massachusetts, various forms of marijuana decriminalization are being enacted. And it has reached the floor of Congress, where Senators Jim Webb and Arlen Specter have proposed a major prison-reform package, which would directly address drug-sentencing policy.
Now, the article is pretty snarky, and Klein gives way too much legitimacy to the potential of marijuana legalization leading to a “less virtuous society,” and leaves out entirely the value of taking profits away from the black market — still, having this conversation in Time Magazine? Better than an expensive ad.
There was one section (a little over the top) where he really exaggerated the third rail effect of marijuana legalization — it just isn’t true any more, and he shows no evidence for it. But it was entertaining nonetheless to hear his description of some talk radio hosts…
In fact, the default fate of any politician who publicly considers the legalization of marijuana is to be cast into the outer darkness. Such a person is assumed to be stoned all the time, unworthy of being taken seriously. Such a person would be lacerated by the assorted boozehounds and pill poppers of talk radio. The hypocrisy inherent in the American conversation about stimulants is staggering.
[Thanks, Tom!]
This isn’t really a drug policy reform post, but there’s a connection that I’ll get to.
You may have heard about the ridiculous District Attorney George Skumanick, Jr. of Wyoming County, Pennsylvania and his “sexting” case. (Simply put, sexting is when kids take pictures of themselves or friends naked and sometimes pass them around on their cell phones – an easily anticipated technological development that the law can’t understand at all, having never been a teen.)
In this particular case, the D.A. went after girls in the pictures and threatened to charge them as accomplices to child pornography because they allowed themselves to be photographed.
The threatened charges of sexual abuse of a minor could come with jail time and registration as sex offenders. […]
Neither of the two photos in question depicts sexual activity or reveals anything below the waist.
One is a picture taken two years ago at a slumber party showing Marissa Miller (now 15) and her friend Grace Kelly from the waist up, both wearing white bras. The other depicts Nancy Doe (a pseudonym used to protect the girl‰s real identity) standing outside a shower with a bath towel wrapped around her body beneath her breasts.
That’s the evidence that has George Skumanick all hot and bothered.
Here’s where it gets interesting. Despite the fact that there is no there, there, the D.A. offered the girls a deal:
If they didn‰t want to face charges, they could be placed on probation, subject to random drug testing, and attend a six- to nine-month re-education program dealing with pornography and sexual violence.
Drug testing? … Drug testing?
What does that have to do with anything? Is there a drug testing kickback that D.A.s get or does he just want them to pee for him? Is this now automatically added to everything? “Your parking meter expired. That’ll be $10 and pee into this cup.”
The other connection that this case has to drug policy is the disturbing trend of prosecutors completely failing to understand (or care) when their actions are more damaging to the individual than the activity for which the individual is being persecuted.
That needs to change.
Mark Kleiman thinks White House Spokesman Gibbs did pretty well.
Andrew Sullivan, following HuffPo blogger Paul Armentano thinks that Robert Gibbs, the White House press spokesman, was “inarticulate, vapid, and embarrassed” in answering a question about legalizing cannabis as an economic stimulus.
Actually, I thought Gibbs did pretty well. Perhaps he was simply trying to avoid saying, “What sort of dumbass question is that, and what have you been smoking?”
The argument “We should legalize cannabis to stimulate the economy” is one of those arguments that could only be believed by someone with a strong motive for believing it regardless of the facts.
[Note, I also talked about Gibbs here]
Kleiman thought this was doing well:
“Uh, he, he does not think that, uh, uh, that that is uh, uh, [pause] he opposes it, he doesn’t think that that’s the, the right plan for America.”
Keep in mind that this was not in response to a question about marijuana being an economic stimulus package as Kleiman inferred, but rather to a reporter wanting to know “Why?” “Why he feels that way about legalizing marijuana?”
Of course, Kleiman is right that legalization can’t happen overnight, and it wouldn’t have an immediate economic effect (although plenty of the stimulus projects passed by Congress will take years before even breaking ground), and there is the factor of legal economic activity merely replacing illegal economic activity (which is economic activity nonetheless, although it would cut down on the truckloads of cash going to Mexico and Canada).
But Obama asked the people for ideas. Ordinary people. Not economists or policy experts. And they delivered. These were not stupid, vapid questions as you’d think from listening to Obama and Gibbs or reading Kleiman. They were questions that seriously tried to address economic factors and also, properly, tied them into other issues of concern to the people.
Here’s a couple of the top vote-getters
“Will you consider decriminalizing the recreational/medical use of marijuana(hemp) so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and a multibillion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?”
“With over 1 out of 30 Americans controlled by the penal system, why not legalize, control, and tax marijuana to change the failed war on drugs into a money making, money saving boost to the economy? Do we really need that many victimless criminals?”
Are these questions deserving of a joke? Or of a sputtering inability to respond? Are they really worth thinking “What sort of dumbass question is that, and what have you been smoking?” When we ask the people for questions and they come up with questions like that, do they not deserve an answer?
Look, call it a device to avoid getting into a political battle about marijuana. Or a crazy-like-a-fox maneuver by Obama to get us talking about marijuana legalization without him having to get in the fray. That’s fine. I’m starting to believe.
But to say that Gibbs did a good job?
Please.
Breaking news…
Administration sources confirmed today that President Obama has chosen a successor to Michele Leonhart as head of the Drug Enforcement Administration. Leonhart was a holdover from the Bush administration and there has been significant speculation regarding the future of the leadership of this controversial agency, particularly given the tension between raids of medical cannabis dispensaries and statements made by Attorney General Eric Holder.
While the new nominee is not currently working in law enforcement, he has had extensive direct experience with the DEA and with federal prosecutors. According to a Justice Department spokesperson, “There’s nobody better qualified to understand the historic mission of the DEA than Thomas B. Kin Chong. The DEA has been an integral part of his entire career.”
When reached for comment this morning, Thomas B. Kin Chong (or Tommy, as he likes to be called) said, “Hey, man, don’t you know what time it is? That’s not cool, man. Why are you always calling me on April 1?”
More on this breaking story as it develops.
I haven’t commented about the guy who’s been shopping around the video that supposedly shows Joe Biden’s daughter doing cocaine, because I just wasn’t interested.
Eric Sterling has it right.
This person is a disgusting sleazebag. […]
None of us would ever want a videotape of our child’s indiscretions made public. Persons who seek to profit from such indiscretions are contemptible.
All of us should empathize with Ashley Biden. Whether this video accurately depicts her or not, she has been victimized. We know that about twenty million Americans use illegal drugs, and that half of all American adults have used an illegal drug at least once. She is being held up to ridicule for something that does not deserve ridicule. Even if she had snorted cocaine at a party, her privacy has been terribly invaded. (It is worth noting that there will be people who will feel completely justified in attacking Ashley Biden because she is suspected of using cocaine. There will be people who will feel justified attacking Vice President Biden for the policy positions he has taken because his daughter is rumored to have used cocaine. He is not responsible for his adult daughter’s use of drugs.)
Well, it turns out that it’s even sleazier than we originally heard. The attorney that was shopping around the video has bailed, and now it appears that the guy with the video not only supplied the cocaine, but used a hidden camera to make the videotape.
Legal expert Stan Goldman told RadarOnline.com: ‹Look, this is very serious business — even the government cannot conduct this kind of activity (although federal agents can possess drugs without violating the law). He could be charged with possession of illegal drugs, distributing them and also trying to profit from their sale. I‰m not surprised that that the lawyer ‘brokering the deal‰ ditched the guy because he could not be seen to be benefiting from the ‘fruits of the crime.’Š
I have plenty of disagreements with Joe Biden and his views on drug policy, but there’s no way that I would trade his daughter’s privacy for the mere opportunity of a cheap hypocrisy accusation. It is my hope that his daughter is left alone, that the videographer disappears (for his own good), and this “story” ends.
I also desire that every other person in the world who uses drugs without harming anyone else is left alone, and I will continue to fight for that.
One good bit of news. It appears that none of the newspapers approached was willing to bid on the video. Perhaps they have some ethics? (Or maybe they’re going bankrupt and just couldn’t afford it.)
Note: The Onion also has a funny take in their “person in the street” interviews…
George Furlong, Humane Officer: ‹I don’t get it. What’s the hook here? Does she do cocaine really well? Is it an impressive amount of cocaine?Š
Peggy Bryan, Watch Assembly Inspector: ‹If she was snorting it through one of those pocket Constitutions that Kucinich hands out, I‰ll go get my checkbook.Š
President Obama’s no dummy. He’s intelligent and he’s educated. He’s from Chicago.
Is he purposely throwing softballs?
President Obama: Well, what‰s happened is that President Calderon I think has been very bold and rightly has decided that it‰s gotten carried away. The drug cartels have too much power, are undermining and corrupting huge segments of Mexican society. And so he has taken them on in the same way that when, you know, Elliot Ness took on Al Capone back during Prohibition, oftentimes that causes even more violence. And we‰re seeing that flare up.
Obama talking to CBS’s Bob Schieffer [Via Scott Morgan]
He’s got to be smart enough to know that talking about prohibition and Capone is just going to lead to talking about ending prohibition. Drug policy reformers have set that up for the past few years by heavily promoting the word “prohibition” in conjunction with the drug war. I even did some promotion of the Capone connection. A lot of people are going to make that connection.
Is he stupid? Is he brilliantly devious? What’s going on, here?
drey on Mountain states Mormonism misleads on marijuana: “ultra round pool is simply amazing. The Altimate Guide To ipoolgo Manual Air Pumps For Inflatable Pools, ipoolgo. Manual Air…” Apr 29, 21:31
