Opponents of more permissive regimes doubt that black market activities and related problems will disappear or even decline sharply. However, to answer this question, it is still necessary to know the specificities of the regulatory system, in particular the conditions of supply. When drugs are sold openly on a commercial basis and prices are close to production and distribution costs, the potential for illegal undercutting seems rather slim. In a more restrictive regime, such as state-controlled outlets or medical prescription systems, illicit sources of supply would be more likely to persist or expand to meet legally unmet demand. In short, the desire to control access to containment consumption must be weighed against emerging black market opportunities. Systems that risk a persistent black market require more questions – about how new black markets work over time, whether it is likely to be more benign than existing ones, and more generally whether the trade-off with other benefits is always worth it. Another factor to consider is the appeal of forbidden fruits. For young people, often attracted by taboos, legal drugs can be less tempting than they are today. This is the experience of the Netherlands: after the Dutch government decriminalized marijuana in 1976 so that it could be sold and consumed openly in small quantities, use steadily declined – especially among teenagers and young adults.
Before decriminalization, 10% of Dutch 17- and 18-year-olds used marijuana. By 1985 this figure had fallen to 6.5%. Despite this disappointment, 2016 brought a number of other promising developments: Chile and Australia opened their first medical cannabis clubs; Following the lead of several others, four other U.S. states have introduced medical cannabis and four others have legalized recreational cannabis. Denmark has opened the world`s largest drug consumption centre, the France its first; South Africa has proposed legalizing medical cannabis; Canada has outlined a plan to legalize recreational cannabis nationally and open more supervised injection sites; and Ghana announced that it would decriminalize all personal drug use. Manichean beliefs have long dominated the ideology behind drug policy. Despite widespread advocacy for evidence-based policies [1] and human rights policies [2], these beliefs have presented drug use as exceptionally dangerous behaviour and have maintained the goal of a drug-free society to this day [3]. Nevertheless, the decriminalization movement around the world seems to be becoming more and more attractive [4]. An example of this is the so-called Portuguese Drug Policy Model (MPDP), whose implementation, since 2001, decriminalizes the public and private use, acquisition and possession of all illicit drugs (which is quite innovative in this respect), provided that they do not exceed the amount required for the consumption of an average person for 10 days (Law No. 30/2000, 29 November 2000).
The distinction between soft and hard drugs has been abolished [5]. The recent sharp increase in our incarceration rate has made the United States the world`s leading prison guard, with a prison population now exceeding one million, up from about 200,000 in 1970. Nonviolent offenders make up 58% of the federal prison population, an extremely expensive population to maintain. In 1990, States alone paid $12 billion, or $16,000 per prisoner. While drug incarceration is one of the main causes of the increase in the local tax burden, it has neither stopped the sale and use of drugs nor improved public safety. Unfortunately, there is no direct research on legalization, as no country has legalized drugs yet. However, the magnitude of the cost savings for the company can be assumed. Cunha MI. From Neighborhood to Prison: Women and the War on Drugs in Portugal. In: Sudbury J, ed.
Global lockdown. New York: Routledge; 2005. S. 155-65. The Commission`s principles are consistent with the hegemonic discourse on abstinence. Its main objective is to promote adherence to treatment or the decision to abstain from drug use (Legislative Decree No. 130-A/2001). While referrals to health care facilities are voluntary, it is mandatory for individuals caught using drugs to physically report to the boards. This is somewhat contrary to the prevailing perspective on drug use in the health sector, where consent is crucial. This is, for example, the position recommended by the Mental Health Act (Law No. 36/98).
The crucial point is that the commissions – although they are under the responsibility of the Ministry of Health, their teams are mainly composed of psychosocial technicians and their objective is to favour a health approach – exist with the end of the treatment of administrative offences and the imposition of sanctions, a circumstance that represents a kind of irremediable contradiction. To this end, the following documents were analysed: (1) the three main texts of the United Nations drug conventions (1961, 1971, 1988), which constitute the international legal instruments on drugs; (2) key local drug laws; and (3) data collected by the Directorate-General for Drug Addiction and Drug Addiction (SICAD) on the drug use situation in Portugal. Three deadlines are particularly relevant: (1) between 1970 and 2000, when the production of local laws was often imbued with an ambivalence between punishment and support for drug addicts; (2) between 2000 and 2008, when drug-related crime disappeared from the Portuguese legal landscape; 3) since 2008, when the crime of drug consumption was recovered by Supreme Court Decision No. 8/2008 for cases where the quantities determined exceed those established. Proponents of drug legalization believe that the cheap and widespread supply of high-quality drugs will eliminate the illicit drug market, regulate quality and price, and reduce enforcement costs, including arrest and incarceration. They predict that governments will spend less money on enforcement, benefit from a new source of tax revenue, and that drug-related crime will decline as drugs ranging from marijuana to heroin become widely available, more or less like alcohol and tobacco. Easing the availability of psychoactive substances that are not already commercially available, opponents generally argue, would lead to an immediate and substantial increase in consumption. To support their claim, they point to the prevalence of opium, heroin and cocaine addiction in various countries prior to the entry into force of international controls, the increase in alcohol consumption following the repeal of the Volstead Act in the United States, and studies showing higher rates of abuse among health professionals with better access to prescription drugs. Without explaining the basis of their calculations, some have predicted a dramatic increase in the number of people who use drugs and become addicted.
These increases would result in significant direct and indirect costs to society, including increased public health spending as a result of overdoses, foetal malformations and other drug-related accidents such as car accidents; loss of productivity due to absenteeism and accidents at work; and more drug-induced violence, child abuse and other crimes, not to mention school unrest. The best evidence of the failure of prohibition is the government`s current war on drugs. Instead of implementing a strategy of prevention, research, education and social programs aimed at solving problems such as persistent poverty, long-term unemployment and the deteriorating living conditions in our inner cities, this war has used a law enforcement strategy. As this military approach continues to devour billions of taxpayers` money and land tens of thousands of people in prison, illicit drug trafficking thrives, violence escalates, and drug abuse continues to weaken lives. Added to this is the largely uncontrolled spread of the AIDS virus among drug addicts, their sexual partners and offspring. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposes criminal drug prohibition. Not only has prohibition manifestly failed as a drug control strategy, but it subjects law-abiding citizens to arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment for what they do in private. By trying to enforce drug laws, the government is violating the fundamental rights to privacy and personal autonomy guaranteed by our Constitution. The ACLU believes that people should not be punished if they don`t hurt others — even if they hurt themselves. There are better ways to control drug use, ways that will ultimately lead to a healthier, freer and less criminal society. Globally, the report estimates that 11.2 million people inject drugs worldwide. About half of that number were living with hepatitis C, 1.4 million with HIV and 1.2 million with both.
The abandonment of criminalization and incarceration of drug addicts has led to a radical change in the profile of prisoners. In 2001, more than 40% of convicted Portuguese prisoners were incarcerated for drug-related offences, which is significantly higher than the European average, and 70% of reported offences were drug-related.13 While the European average has gradually increased over the last twenty years (from 14% to 18%), The proportion of people convicted of drug-related offences in Portuguese prisons fell dramatically to 15.7% in 2019, which is below the European average.14 Most of this decline occurred in the first decade following decriminalisation and the introduction of a health-based approach.