Thursday, April 2, 2009

Decrim in Portugal 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. 10:27:15 PM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

It's High 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!] 8:40:07 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []

D.A.s Gone Wild 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. 12:01:09 AM | drug policy | Related  | permalink | comment []