Greenwald_WhitePaper_FINAL

Lessons for Creating Fair

and Successful Drug Policies

Drug

DECRIMINALIZATION

INPORTUGAL

GLENN GREENWALD

Lessons for Creating Fair

and Successful Drug Policies

Drug

DECRIMINALIZATION

IN PORTUGAL

GLENN GREENWALD

Cover design by Jon Meyers.

Printed in the United States of America.

ATO INSTITUTE

1000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

www.cato.org

On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal

took effect that decriminalized all drugs, includ-

ing cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal

framework, all drugs were “decriminalized,” not

“legalized.” Thus, drug possession for personal

use and drug usage itself are still legally prohib-

ited, but violations of those prohibitions are

deemed to be exclusively administrative viola-

tions and are removed completely from the crim-

inal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be

prosecuted as a criminal offense.

While other states in the European Union

have developed various forms of de facto decrim-

inalization—whereby substances perceived to be

less serious (such as cannabis) rarely lead to crim-

inal prosecution—Portugal remains the only EU

member state with a law explicitly declaring

drugs to be “decriminalized.” Because more than

seven years have now elapsed since enactment of

Portugal’s decriminalization system, there are

ample data enabling its effects to be assessed.

Notably, decriminalization has become increas-

ingly popular in Portugal since 2001. Except for

some far-right politicians, very few domestic politi-

cal factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law.

And while there is a widespread perception that

bureaucratic changes need to be made to Portugal’s

decriminalization framework to make it more effi-

cient and effective, there is no real debate about

whether drugs should once again be criminalized.

More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios

touted by preenactment decriminalization oppo-

nents—from rampant increases in drug usage

among the young to the transformation of Lisbon

into a haven for “drug tourists”—has occurred.

The political consensus in favor of decriminal-

ization is unsurprising in light of the relevant

empirical data. Those data indicate that decrimi-

nalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage

rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories,

are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly

when compared with states with stringent crimi-

nalization regimes. Although postdecriminaliza-

tion usage rates have remained roughly the same or

even decreased slightly when compared with other

EU states, drug-related pathologies—such as sexu-

ally transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug

usage—have decreased dramatically. Drug policy

experts attribute those positive trends to the

enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to

offer treatment programs to its citizens—enhance-

ments made possible, for numerous reasons, by

decriminalization.

This report will begin with an examination of

the Portuguese decriminalization framework as

set forth in law and in terms of how it functions

in practice. Also examined is the political climate

in Portugal both pre- and postdecriminalization

with regard to drug policy, and the impetus that

led that nation to adopt decriminalization.

The report then assesses Portuguese drug poli-

cy in the context of the EU’s approach to drugs.

The varying legal frameworks, as well as the overall

trend toward liberalization, are examined to enable

a meaningful comparative assessment between

Portuguese data and data from other EU states.

The report also sets forth the data concerning

drug-related trends in Portugal both pre- and

postdecriminalization. The effects of decriminal-

ization in Portugal are examined both in

absolute terms and in comparisons with other

states that continue to criminalize drugs, partic-

ularly within the EU.

The data show that, judged by virtually every

metric, the Portuguese decriminalization frame-

work has been a resounding success. Within this

success lie self-evident lessons that should guide

drug policy debates around the world.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Glenn Greenwald is a constitutional lawyer and a contributing writer at Salon. He has authored several books,

including A Tragic Legacy (2007) and How Would a Patriot Act? (2006).

Executive Summary

Introduction

Around the globe, countries approach drug

policy in radically different ways. In Commu-

nist China and various Muslim nations, drug

traffickers and, in some instances, even those

found guilty of possession of narcotics, receive

draconian prison sentences and are even exe-

cuted. At the other end of the policy spectrum,

most people think of the Netherlands, which

has long been perceived as leading the way in

drug liberalization and, at least in Amsterdam,

has long maintained a drug-tolerant culture,

though it has never legalized drugs. Most

countries, of course, fall somewhere in be-

tween. In the 1980s, the global policy trend was

toward harsher criminalization approaches,

even at the user level. In recent years, however,

as drug policymakers have attempted to for-

mulate policy recommendations for how best

to manage drug-related problems exclusively

on empirical grounds, there are signs that

countries in every region of the world are

reversing course.

This study will focus on one

such reversal in Europe—Portugal’s dramatic

2001 decriminalization policy.

Decriminalization, Depenalization, and

Legalization

On July 1, 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 statute, in

Article 29, uses the Portuguese word descrimi-

nalização—decriminalization—to describe the

new legal framework it implements. “Decrim-

inalization” applies to the purchase, posses-

sion, and consumption of all drugs for per-

sonal use (defined as the average individual

quantity sufficient for 10 days’ usage for one

person).

Even in the decriminalization framework,

drug usage and possession remain prohibit-

ed (i.e., illegal) and subject to police interven-

tion. But “decriminalization” means that

infractions have been removed completely

from the framework of the criminal law and

criminal justice system. Instead, they are

treated as purely administrative violations, to

be processed in a noncriminal proceeding.

It is important to distinguish between “de-

criminalization,” the de jure scheme enacted

by Portugal, and mere “depenalization,” the

prevailing framework in several EU states that

have not decriminalized drug usage. The cen-

tral agency of the European Union for coordi-

nating drug policy data is the European

Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug

Addiction and in 2005, that agency promul-

gated the following definitional distinction

between “decriminalization” and “depenaliza-

tion”:

“Decriminalisation” comprises removal

of a conduct or activity from the sphere

of criminal law. Prohibition remains the

rule, but sanctions for use (and its

preparatory acts) no longer fall within

the framework of the criminal law.

[By contrast],“depenalization” means

relation of the penal sanction provided

for by law. In the case of drugs, and

cannabis in particular, depenalization

generally signifies the elimination of cus-

todial penalties.

In sum, “decriminalization” means either that

only noncriminal sanctions (such as fines or

treatment requirements) are imposed or that

no penal sanctions can be. In a “depenalized”

framework, drug usage remains a criminal

offense, but imprisonment is no longer

imposed for possession or usage even as other

criminal sanctions (e.g., fines, police record,

probation) remain available. “Legalization”—

which no EU state has yet adopted—means

that there are no prohibitions of any kind

under the law on drug manufacturing, sales,

possession, or usage.

As set forth below, several EU states have

developed either formal or de facto forms of

depenalization, particularly for personal

cannabis usage. But no EU state other than

Portugal has explicitly declared drugs to be

“decriminalized.”

Portugal is the

only European

Union state

explicitly to

“decriminalize”

drug usage.

Portugal’s Decriminalization Regime:

How It Works

The 2001 Portuguese decriminalization

statute was enacted to revise the legal frame-

work applicable to the consumption of all nar-

cotics and psychotropic substances, together

with what the European Monitoring Center

for Drugs and Drug Addiction describes as

“the medical and social welfare of the con-

sumers of such substances without medical

prescription.” The statute’s operative decrimi-

nalization clause is set forth in Article 2(1),

which provides:

The consumption, acquisition and

possession for one’s own consumption

of plants, substances or preparations

listed in the tables referred to in the

preceding article constitute an administra-

tive offence. (emphasis added)

The referenced preceding article encompass-

es “narcotics and psychotropic substances”

and includes a table of all “plants, substances

or preparations” that were previously crimi-

nalized.

The key phrase—“for one’s own consump-

tion”—is defined in Article 2(2), as a quantity

“not exceeding the quantity required for an

average individual consumption during a peri-

od of 10 days.” Decriminalization does not ap-

ply to “drug trafficking,” which remains crimi-

nalized and is defined as “possession of more

than the average dose for ten days of use.”

No distinction is made between the types

of drug (so-called hard drugs or soft drugs),

nor does it matter whether consumption is

public or private. Personal possession and

consumption of all narcotics, no matter where

they occur or for what purpose, are now

decriminalized in Portugal. As noted, “decrim-

inalization” is not synonymous with “legaliza-

tion.” Drug usage is still prohibited under the

law of Portugal, but it is treated strictly as an

administrative, not a criminal, offense.

Thus, Article 15 of the law, entitled “Penal-

ties,” sets forth the authorized administrative

sanctions for violations. In lieu of criminaliza-

tion, the Portuguese law, in Article 5, establish-

es “Commissions for Dissuasions of Drug

Addiction,” the body solely responsible for

adjudicating administrative drug offenses and

imposing sanctions, if any. The first section of

the law’s penalty section, Article 15, provides,

“Non-addicted consumers may be sentenced to

payment of a fine or, alternatively, to a non-

pecuniary penalty.” Article 17, entitled “Other

Penalties,” provides in Section (1) that “instead

of a fine, the commission may issue a warning.”

In theory, offenders can be fined an amount

between 25 euros and the minimum national

wage. But such fines are expressly declared to be

a last resort. Indeed, in the absence of evidence

of addiction or repeated violations, the imposi-

tion of a fine is to be suspended.

While the Dissuasion Commissions are not

authorized to mandate treatment, they can

make suspension of sanctions conditioned on

the offender’s seeking treatment. This is typi-

cally what is done, though in practice, there are

very few ways to enforce the condition, since

violations of a commission’s rulings are not,

themselves, infractions of any law.

In fact,

Dissuasion Commissions are directed by Ar-

ticle 11(2) to “provisionally suspend proceed-

ings”—meaning to impose no sanction—where

an alleged offender with no prior offenses is

found to be an addict but “agrees to undergo

treatment.”

Where the offender is deemed to be a non-

addicted consumer of drugs and has no prior

offenses, the commissions are mandated by

Article 11(1) of the decriminalization law to

“provisionally suspend proceedings,” whereby

no sanction is imposed. Article 11(3) vests the

commissions with discretion to “provisionally

suspend proceedings” even for an addict who

has a prior record, provided he or she agrees to

undergo treatment. Alternatively, under Article

14, a commission, in the case of an addict with

a prior record, can impose sanctions but then

immediately suspend them contingent on

ongoing treatment. In the event that treatment

is completed and there is no subsequent

offense, the proceeding will be deemed closed

after a specified time period.

In theory, the Dissuasion Commissions are

able to impose on offenders found to be

Personal

possession and

consumption of

all narcotics,

no matter where

they occur or for

what purpose,

are now

decriminalized

in Portugal.

addicts a wider range of sanctions under

Article 17, including suspension of the right to

practice a licensed profession (doctor, lawyer,

taxi driver); a ban on visiting high-risk locales

(nightclubs); a ban on associating with speci-

fied individuals; requiring periodic reports to

the commission to show there is no ongoing

addiction or abuse; prohibitions on travel

abroad; termination of public benefits for sub-

sidies or allowances; or a mere oral warning.

Article 15(4) sets forth a variety of factors

the commissions should consider in determin-

ing what sanction, if any, should be imposed.

Such factors include the seriousness of the act;

the type of drug consumed; whether consump-

tion was public or private; and whether usage is

occasional or habitual. The commissions are

vested with the sole discretion to determine the

extent to which these factors should be consid-

ered and how they should determine the

appropriate disposition of cases.

Minors who are cited for drug possession

or usage enter the same process and, pur-

suant to Article 3, are aided by a legal repre-

sentative, who is authorized to make deci-

sions for the minor. But furnishing drugs to

a minor (or people with mental illness) con-

tinues to be forbidden by the general law that

regulates drug issues and is considered an

aggravating circumstance to the ongoing

prohibition on “trafficking and other illicit

activities,” which is punishable by imprison-

ment of between 4 to 12 years.

Decriminalization in Practice

Pursuant to the 2001 law, each of the 18

administrative districts in Portugal estab-

lished at least one Dissuasion Commission to

oversee the administrative process for those

cited for drug usage or possession (large dis-

tricts, such as the one encompassing Lisbon,

have more than one). As provided for by

Article 7 of the decriminalization law, each

commission consists of three members—one

who is appointed by the Ministry of Justice

and the other two members appointed jointly

by the Minister of Health and the govern-

ment’s coordinator of drug policy. The mem-

ber appointed by the Ministry of Justice will

have a legal background, while at least one of

the other two members (usually both) will

have a medical or social services background

(physician, psychologist, social worker).

Even in the decriminalization framework,

police officers who observe drug use or pos-

session are required to issue citations to the

offender, but they are not permitted to make

an arrest. The citation is sent to the commis-

sion, and the administrative process will then

commence. The cited offender appears before

the commission within 72 hours of the cita-

tion’s issuance. If the commission finds com-

pelling evidence of drug trafficking, it will

refer the case to criminal court.

The effect that the decriminalization regime

has had on police conduct with regard to drug

users is unclear and is the source of some debate

among Portuguese drug policy experts. There

are, to be sure, some police officers who largely

refrain from issuing citations to drug users on

the grounds of perceived futility, as they often

observe the cited user on the street once again

using drugs, leading such officers to conclude

that the issuance of citations, without arrests or

the threat of criminal prosecution, is worthless.

Other police officers, however, are more

inclined to act when they see drug usage now

than they were before decriminalization, as

they believe that the treatment options offered

to such users are far more effective than turn-

ing users into criminals (who, even under the

criminalization scheme, were typically back on

the street the next day, but without real treat-

ment options). One 2007 paper contended:

The law enforcement sector was seen as

supportive of the reform, particularly

because they perceived decriminaliza-

tion and referral to education and treat-

ment as offering a better response to

drug users than under the previous leg-

islative approach. Key informants assert-

ed law enforcement have embraced the

more preventative role for drug users.

Some Portuguese drug officials believe

this dichotomized reaction among police

officers to be split largely along generational

Furnishing

drugs to a minor

(or people with

mental illness)

continues to be

forbidden by the

general law.

Many physicians

believe that

reporting

suspected drug

use to the

authorities

would violate

doctor-patient

confidentiality.

lines: older officers are inclined to believe

that the decriminalization scheme makes

issuing citations a waste of their time, where-

as younger officers view the administrative

process as the best hope for containing

addiction. The inability to quantify negative

events—that is, officers who refrain from

issuing citations on the grounds of perceived

futility—renders anecdotal evidence the most

reliable for assessing police behavioral reac-

tion to decriminalization.

What is clear is that the number of cases

referred to the administrative process has in-

creased slowly and more or less steadily since

the enactment of decriminalization in 2001,

suggesting (without proving) that officers

are issuing citations at least at the same rates,

if not more enthusiastically, than when the

law was first enacted (see Figure 1).

In theory, under Article 3 of the decrimi-

nalization law, both private and government

physicians are permitted to notify the

Dissuasion Commissions if they have reason

to suspect drug use in their patients. In reali-

ty, however, such reporting is extremely rare

for several reasons, including the widespread

belief among physicians that such reporting

violates doctor-patient confidentiality.

As noted, the decriminalization law sets

forth numerous criteria that Dissuasion

Commissions are to consider in determining

the proper disposition of each case. Article 10

of the decriminalization law directs the com-

mission to hear from the alleged offender

and to “gather the information needed in

order to reach a judgment 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 situ-

ation.” Which of these are to be weighed, and

the weight they are to receive, are left to the

sole discretion of the commission members.

The alleged offender has the right to request

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

2001

ÛVHPHVWHU

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 1

Administrative Infraction Proceedings and Decisions, by Year

'HFLVLRQV3URFHHGLQJV

Year

Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),

“The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2006 Annual Report (2007), p. 35.

Year in which the deed punishable as a misdemeanor occurred. Information gathered as of March 31 of the year after

the occurrence of the deed punishable as a misdemeanor.

that a therapist of his choice take part in the

proceedings and/or that a medical examina-

tion be conducted to aid in determining the

various factors the commission might con-

sider.

Portuguese 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 inten-

tionally structured so as to avoid the appear-

ance 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.

In determining what, if any sanction,

should be imposed, the commission often

takes account of the seriousness of the drug

that was used. The EMCDDA identifies the

probable sanction for possession of cannabis

as “suspension of sanction with probation.”

In 2005, there were 3,192 commission rul-

ings. Of those, 83 percent suspended the pro-

ceeding; 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 sanctions

were imposed, the overwhelming majority

merely required the offenders to report peri-

odically to designated locales.

Cannabis continues to be the substance for

which the greatest percentage of drug offenders

are cited. The percentages for the other sub-

stances remain roughly the same (see Figure 2).

Before the enactment of the decriminaliza-

tion law, opponents insisted that the pro-

posed change in law would make Portugal a

center of so-called drug tourism. Paulo Portas,

leader of the conservative Popular Party, said:

“There will be planeloads of students heading

for [Portugal] to smoke marijuana and take a

lot worse, knowing we won’t put them in jail.

We promise sun, beaches and any drug you

like.”

Such fears have turned out to be com-

pletely unfounded.

Roughly 95 percent of

those cited for drug offenses every year since

decriminalization have been Portuguese.

Close to zero have been citizens of other EU

states (see Table 1).

Political Climate in Portugal Pre- and

Postdecriminalization

The political impetus for decriminalization

was the perception that drug abuse—both in

itself and its accompanying pathologies—was

becoming an uncontrollable social problem,

and the principal obstacles to effective govern-

ment policies to manage the problems were the

treatment barriers and resource drain imposed

by the criminalization regime. Put another

way, decriminalization was driven not by the

perception that drug abuse was an insignifi-

cant 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.

In fact, Portuguese decriminalization oc-

curred only after extensive study by an elite com-

mission, Comissão para a Estratégia Nacional de

Combate à Droga (Commission for a National

Anti-Drug Strategy). That commission was cre-

ated “in response to a rapidly rising drug prob-

lem in the 1990s, principally, but not exclusively,

involving heroin use.”

Notably, the 2001

change to the Portuguese legal framework was

intended to implement “a strong harm-reduc-

tionistic orientation,” and “the flagship of these

laws is the decriminalization of the use and pos-

session for use of drugs.”

In its 1998 report, the Portuguese commis-

sion ultimately recommended decriminaliza-

tion as the optimal strategy for combating

Portugal’s growing abuse and addiction prob-

lems. The commission emphasized that the

Fears of

“drug tourism”

have turned out

to be completely

unfounded.

objective of its decriminalization strategy was

to reduce drug abuse and usage. Thus, as its report

stated, its recommendations were intended to

• redirect the focus to primary prevention;

• extend and improve the quality and re-

sponse capacity of the health care net-

works for drug addicts so as to ensure

access to treatment for all drug addicts

who seek treatment;

• guarantee the necessary mechanisms to

allow the enforcement by competent

bodies of measures such as voluntary

treatment of drug addicts as an alterna-

tive to prison sentences.

The commission concluded that legaliza-

tion, as opposed to mere decriminalization,

was not a viable option due, in large part, to the

fact that numerous international treaties

impose the “obligation to establish in domes-

tic law a prohibition” on drug use. Decriminal-

ization was consistent with that obligation as

Portuguese law continued to prohibit usage,

but simply no longer classified violations as a

criminal offense.

Following issuance of the commission’s

report, the federal government’s Council of

Ministers, in 1999, approved the commis-

sion’s report almost in its entirety. In 2000,

the council produced its own policy recom-

mendations, which were consistent with the

commission’s, including recommending full-

scale decriminalization.

With both the expert commission and the

government’s council agreeing on the need for

a harm-reduction approach generally, and

decriminalization specifically, the proposal

encountered relatively little political resistance.

Thereafter, in October 2000, the Portuguese

Parliament, supported by the national presi-

dent, enacted legislation implementing the

council’s recommendations in full, and

decriminalization took effect on July 1, 2001.

Interviews with Portuguese drug officials

confirmed that before decriminalization, the

most substantial barrier to offering treatment

to the addict population was the addicts’ fear

In its 1998 report,

the Portuguese

commission

recommended

decriminalization

as the optimal

strategy for

combating

addiction

problems.

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

2001

ÛVHPHVWHU

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 2

Administrative Infraction Proceedings, by Year,

by Type of Drug

Proceedings

Year

+HURLQ &RFDLQH &DQQDELV 0XOWLGUXJV

Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),

“The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2005 Annual Report (2006), p. 37.

Year in which the deed punishable as a misdemeanor occurred. Information gathered as of March 31 of the year after

the occurrence of the deed punishable as a misdemeanor.

of government officials as a result of criminal-

ization. João Castel-Branco Goulão, the chair-

man of Portugal’s principal drug policy agency,

the Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction

(Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência—

or IDT), emphasized that before the 2001

decriminalization law, his principal challenge

was drug addicts’ fear of seeking treatment—

The most sub-

stantial barrier

to offering

treatment to the

addict population

was the addicts’

fear of arrest.

Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal), “The

National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2005 Annual Report (2006), p. 99.

Individuals acquitted and repeat offenders (repeat offenders are only entered one time for the year in question) are not

included for analysis purposes.

Year in which the deed punishable as a misdemeanor occurred.

Information gathered as of March 31 of the year after the occurrence of the deed punishable as a misdemeanor.

Between March 31, 2002, and March 31, 2003, commissions entered 282 more cases from the courts, with a date of

occurrence of the deed punishable as misdemeanor referring to the year 2001; between March 31, 2003, and March 31,

2004; 496 more cases from the courts referring to the year 2002; between March 31, 2004, and March 31, 2005, 725

more cases from the courts referring to 2003, and between 3/31/2005 and 3/31/2006, 770 more cases from the courts

referring to 2004.

Table 1

Individuals

in Misdemeanor Case, according to Year,

Country of Nationality

particularly from the state agencies offering

it—because they were afraid of being arrested

and prosecuted. One prime rationale for

decriminalization was that it would break

down that barrier, enabling effective treatment

options to be offered to addicts once they no

longer feared prosecution. Moreover, decrimi-

nalization freed up resources that could be

channeled into treatment and other harm-

reduction programs.

A related rationale for decriminalization

was that removal of the stigma attached to

criminal prosecution for drug usage would

eliminate a key barrier for those wishing to

seek treatment. Even in those nations where

drug users are not typically punished with

prison—such as Spain—the stigma and burden

of being convicted of a criminal offense

remain. “It is this stigmatization that the

Portuguese policy explicitly aims to prevent.”

Even before decriminalization, prosecution

—and certainly imprisonment—for mere pos-

session or use were rare, but not unheard of. At

times, the use of the criminal process against

those accused solely of usage approached the

levels of those accused of trafficking (see

Figure 3).

The citizenry’s fear of being iden-

tified as a user was thus immense, and the

stigma attached to such accusations was sub-

stantial, even in the absence of a prison sen-

tence.

Indeed, interviews with Portuguese politi-

cal officials and drug policy experts confirm

that they did not embrace decriminalization

despite their belief that it would lead to in-

creased usage. Rather, they embraced decrim-

inalization as the best option for minimizing

all drug-related problems, including addic-

tion:

Decriminalization is not expected to

increase the amount of drugs available

or the use of new types of drugs.

However, there is a general belief that

decriminalization increases the need

for prevention, for example, to com-

The citizenry’s

fear of the stigma

attached to such

accusations was

substantial, even

in the absence of

a prison sentence.

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Figure 3

Individuals Charged, By the Year and Drug-Related Status

Individuals Charged

Year

Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),

“The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2005 Annual Report (2006), p. 150.

User Dealer/UserDealer

municate to the public that decrimi-

nalization does not condone drug use.

. . . There is a consensus that decrimi-

nalization, by destigmatizing drug use,

will bring a higher proportion of users

into treatment, thereby increasing the

need for treatment.

Put another way, Portuguese decriminaliza-

tion was never seen as a concession to the

inevitability of drug abuse. To the contrary, it

was, and is, seen as the most effective govern-

ment policy for reducing addiction and its

accompanying harms. For that reason, the

National Plan against Drugs and Drug Addictions

for 2005–2012 (prepared in 2004) centers on

ongoing strategies for prevention, demand

reduction, and harm-reduction, as well as

maximizing treatment resources and avail-

ability for those who seek it.

The Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction

remains the leading agency in Portugal for over-

seeing drug policy. It continues to define its

core mission, and the core purpose of the

decriminalization law, as follows:

This law reinforces the resources in the

context of demand reduction by send-

ing to treatment drug addicts and

[includes] those that are not addicts

but need a specialized intervention.

With this Law, we expect to contribute

to the resolution of the problem in an

integrated and constructive way, look-

ing at the drug addict as a sick person,

who nevertheless must be responsible

for a behavior that is still considered an

offense in Portugal.

As the institute puts it, “Demand reduction

is clearly IDT’s central task.”

Portugal Viewed in

the Context of the

European Union

Although there is still wide variance in

drug policy among the EU states, there are

certain clear trends that have emerged in the

EU generally, particularly with regard to how

the law ought to deal with personal drug con-

sumption. Although many EU states contin-

ue to emphasize criminal aspects in dealing

with drug users, many states are increasingly

moving toward a health-based approach,

viewing personal drug usage as a health prob-

lem rather than a criminal one.

Danilo Balotta, the institutional coordina-

tor for the EMCDDA, uses the French term

“healthification” to describe the clear trend in

the EU’s consensus approach to drug policy.

Specifically with regard to cannabis, a de facto

move away from criminalization is virtually

unanimous. The EMCDDA’s 2007 annual

report put it this way: “A general trend in

Europe has been to move away from criminal

justice responses to the possession and use of

small amounts of cannabis and towards

approaches oriented towards prevention or

treatment.”

An excerpt from the EMCDDA’s

2005 paper, Illicit Drug Use in the EU: Legislative

Approaches, observes:

In the EU Member States, notwith-

standing different positions and atti-

tudes, we can see a trend to conceive the

illicit use of drugs (including its prepara-

tory acts) as a relatively “minor” offence,

to which it is not adequate to apply

“sanctions involving deprivation of lib-

erty.”

Despite this, the agency warns that “it would

be a mistake to define [these changes] as a

trend in a ‘relaxation’ or a ‘softening’ of the

drug laws in Europe.”

Even where there is a

strong de-emphasis on incarceration and

other criminal sanctions for drug use, the

aim in most EU countries is merely to for-

mulate more efficient and proportionate

sanctions—not legalize drug use.

The ongoing generalized belief in crimi-

nalization notwithstanding, all EU states

have agreed within the last several years to

broad principles for formulating drug policy.

The EMCDDA refers to this consensus as

GBE: a global, balanced, evidence-based ap-

Portuguese

decriminalization

was never seen as

a concession to

the inevitability

of drug abuse.

proach to drug policy. In this formulation,

“global” designates an acknowledgment that

all aspects of drug policy—prevention and

anti-trafficking efforts—require international

efforts. “Balanced” requires a sense of both

proportion and a roughly equal emphasis on

supply reduction and demand reduction.

“Evidence-based” requires that all policy judg-

ments be grounded in data and exclude moral

and ideological considerations.

This trend is evident not only in the slow

de facto movement away from criminaliza-

tion of small amounts of cannabis, but also

in the increasing acceptance across the EU of

even more controversial “harm reduction”

policies. As EMCDDA’s 2007 annual report

documented:

Historically, the topic of harm reduc-

tion has been more controversial. This

is changing, and harm reduction as a

part of a comprehensive package of

demand reduction measures now ap-

pears to have become a more explicit

part of the European approach. This is

evident in the fact that both opioid

substitution treatment and needle and

syringe exchange programmes are now

found in virtually all EU Member

States. . . .

In 10 years, the availability of harm-reduction

measures, such as opioid substitution treat-

ment, has increased tenfold across the EU.

As noted above, other EU nations have

adopted what amounts to de facto decriminal-

ization, but have not explicitly declared drug

usage “decriminalized.” In Spain, for instance,

“a drug consumer will still be judged by a crim-

inal court, although he or she will never be sent

to prison for drug consumption alone.”

Moreover, a gap in Spain’s drug laws exists

whereby public drug consumption is prohibit-

ed, but private drug usage is not, and Spanish

legislatures have left this gap standing.

Other forms of de facto decriminalization

have occurred in Germany, where a court ruled

that imprisonment for petty drug possession

offenses implicates constitutional concerns,

and in Luxembourg, which only permits pun-

ishment by a fine for cannabis usage. None-

theless, Portugal remains the only EU state to

decriminalize explicitly, and the criminaliza-

tion framework continues to predominate in

the EU for most drug offenses.

Effects of Portuguese

Decriminalization

Since Portugal enacted its decriminaliza-

tion scheme in 2001, drug usage in many cat-

egories has actually decreased when measured

in absolute terms, whereas usage in other cat-

egories has increased only slightly or mildly.

None of the parade of horrors that decrimi-

nalization opponents in Portugal predicted,

and that decriminalization opponents around

the world typically invoke, has come to pass. In

many cases, precisely the opposite has hap-

pened, as usage has declined in many key cate-

gories and drug-related social ills have been far

more contained in a decriminalized regime.

The true effects of Portuguese decriminal-

ization can be understood only by comparing

postdecriminalization usage and trends in

Portugal with other EU states, as well as with

non-EU states (such as the United States,

Canada, and Australia) that continue to crimi-

nalize drugs even for personal usage. And in

virtually every category of any significance,

Portugal, since decriminalization, has outper-

formed the vast majority of other states that

continue to adhere to a criminalization regime.

Effects Viewed in Absolute Terms

Usage Rates. Since decriminalization, life-

time prevalence rates (which measure how

many people have consumed a particular drug

or drugs over the course of their lifetime) in

Portugal have decreased for various age groups.

For students in the 7th–9th grades (13–15

years old), the rate decreased from 14.1 per-

cent in 2001 to 10.6 percent in 2006.

For

those in the 10th–12th grades (16–18 years

old), the lifetime prevalence rate, which

increased from 14.1 percent in 1995 to 27.6

percent in 2001, the year of decriminalization,

Prevalence

rates for the

15–19 age group

have actually

decreased

in absolute

terms since

decriminalization.

has decreased subsequent to decriminaliza-

tion, to 21.6 percent in 2006.

For the same

groups, prevalence rates for psychoactive sub-

stances have also decreased subsequent to

decriminalization.

In fact, for those two critical groups of

youth (13–15 years and 16–18 years), preva-

lence rates have declined for virtually every

substance since decriminalization (see Figures

4 and 5).

For some older age groups (beginning with

19- to 24-year-olds), there has been a slight to

mild increase in drug usage, generally from

2001 to 2006, including a small rise in the use

of psychoactive substances for the 15–24 age

group,

and a more substantial increase in the

same age group for illicit substances general-

ly.

For other age groups of older citizens, in-

creases in lifetime prevalence rates for drugs

generally have ranged from slight to mild.

Such an increase in lifetime prevalence rates for

the general population is virtually inevitable in

every nation, regardless of drug policy and regardless

of whether there is even an actual increase in drug

usage. The IDT’s Goulão explained why:

This is an expected result, even when

there is not an increase in drug use,

because of the cohort effect (in the

sample, from one study to the other,

older people that never try drugs are

replaced for a new generation among

whom a significant percentage already

had that experience).

Cannabis Cocaine Ecstasy

Amphetamines

Heroin

Hallucinatory

Mushrooms

LSD GHB Ketamine Methadone

Figure 4

National Investigation in School Environment, 2001 and 2006, 3rd Cycle (7th, 8th, and 9th years), Portugal,

Prevalence Over Entire Life

Percent

Illicit Substances

Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal, Draft 2007 Annual Report, slide 13.

2001 2006

When it comes to assessing the long-term

effects of drug policy and treatment approach-

es, Portuguese drug policy specialists, like pol-

icy specialists in most countries, consider the

adolescent and postadolescent age groups

(15–24) to be the most significant. The behav-

ior of those younger age groups is widely con-

sidered by drug policymakers around the

world to be the most malleable, and trends

that appear during those years are far and

away the most potent harbingers for long-

term behavioral changes. The University of

Michigan’s Lloyd Johnston, the principal

researcher behind a 2003 study revealing some

increasing trends in the drug usage rates

among American youth, put it this way:

The 8th-graders have been harbingers

of change observed later in the upper

grades, so the fact that they are no

longer showing declines in their use of

a number of drugs could mean that the

declines now being observed in the

upper grades also will come to an end

soon.

A 2008 study of drug usage trends in 17

nations on five different continents similarly

found that the late adolescent years are key in

determining future, lifelong drug usage:

In most countries, the period of risk

for initiation of use was heavily concen-

Cannabis Ecstasy Cocaine

Amphetamines

LSD

Hallucinatory

Mushrooms

Heroin GHB Ketamine Methadone

Figure 5

National Investigation in School Environment, 2001 and 2006, Secondary (10th, 11th, and 12th years), Portugal,

Prevalence Over Entire Life

Percent

Illicit Substances

Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal, Draft 2007 Annual Report, slide 14.

2001 2006

trated in the period from the mid to late

teenage years; there was a slightly older

and more extended period of risk for

illegal drugs compared to legal drugs.

As one would expect, then, Portuguese offi-

cials emphasize the dramatic trends seen in

these younger groups since the decriminaliza-

tion law was enacted. Prevalence rates for the

15–24 age group have increased only very

slightly, whereas the rates for the critical

15–19 age group—critical because such a sub-

stantial number of young citizens begin drug

usage during these years—have actually de-

creased in absolute terms since decriminalization

(see Figure 6).

Perhaps most strikingly, while prevalence

rates for the period from 1999 to 2005, for the

16–18 age group, increased somewhat for

cannabis (9.4 to 15.1 percent) and for drugs

generally (12.3 to 17.7 percent), the prevalence

rate decreased during that same period for

heroin (2.5 to 1.8 percent),

the substance

that Portuguese drug officials believed was far

and away the most socially destructive:

At the time of introducing decriminal-

ization the Portuguese drug problem

was notable due to a high level of prob-

lematic drug use and drug-related prob-

lems. This was associated primarily with

use of heroin, with a particular problem

of injecting drug use and the related

risks of HIV/AIDS and viral hepatitis.

These postdecriminalization decreases were

preceded by significant increases in drug-relat-

ed problems in Portugal in the 1990s.

Throughout the 1990s, the number of arrests

for drug offenses generally, and heroin use

specifically, rose steadily.

By 1998, more than

60 percent of drug-related arrests were for use

or possession, rather than for sale or posses-

sion to sell. The amount of drugs seized during

that decade rose significantly as well.

In almost every category of drug, and for

In almost every

category of drug,

and for drug

usage overall,

the lifetime

prevalence rates

in the predecrimi-

nalization era

of the 1990s

were higher

than the post-

decriminalization

rates.

15–2415–1920–24

Figure 6

Portugal, 2001 and 2007, General Population (15–24 years old), Lifetime Prevalence

(any illicit drug)

20072001

Percent

Age Ranges

Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal, Draft 2007 Annual Report, slide 8.

15–24 15–19 20–24

drug usage overall, the lifetime prevalence rates

in the predecriminalization era of the 1990s

were higher than the postdecriminalization

rates.

Moreover, the level of drug trafficking,

as measured by the numbers of those convict-

ed of that offense, has steadily declined since

2001 as well (see Figure 7).

Drug-Related Phenomena. As predicted, and

desired, when Portugal enacted decriminaliza-

tion, treatment programs—both in terms of

funding levels and the willingness of the popu-

lation to seek them—have improved substantial-

ly.

That, in turn, has enhanced the ability of

local and state government officials to provide

disease-avoiding services to the population:

The number of people in substitution

treatment leapt from 6,040 in 1999 to

14,877 in 2003, an increase of 147% . . . .

The number of places in detoxification,

therapeutic communities and half-way

houses has also increased. . . . The

national strategy has led directly to in-

creases in the scale of treatment and pre-

vention activities in Portugal.

While proponents of criminalization some-

times depict an increase in the number of indi-

viduals seeking treatment as indicative of wors-

ening drug problems, empirical evidence

suggests that the opposite is almost certainly

true. Between (a) addicts who are afraid to seek

treatment due to fear of criminal penalties and

(b) addicts who freely seek treatment in a

decriminalized framework, the latter option is

clearly preferable, as such increased treatment

decreases the amount of addiction and, as

important, enables the management and

diminution of drug-related harms. For precisely

that reason, as treatment enrollment has in-

creased in the postdecriminalized setting, drug-

related harms have decreased substantially.

According to the 2006 report of the

Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of the

Portuguese Health Ministry, “Available indica-

tors continue to suggest effective responses at

The number of

newly reported

cases of HIV and

AIDS among

drug addicts

has declined

substantially

every year since

2001.

2,400

2,000

1,600

1,200

800

400

2000 2001

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 7

Individuals Sentenced by Year, and by Drug-Related Status

Individuals Sentenced

Year

Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),

“The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2006 Annual Report (2007), p. 53.

With the entry into effect, starting July 1, 2001, of Law no. 30/2000 of November 29, the use of illegal drugs was

decriminalized and became a misdemeanor. However, growing drugs—as provided under Article 40 of Legislative

Decree no. 15/93 of January 22—continues to be considered a felony.

Dealer Dealer/UserUser

treatment level . . . and [at] the harm reduction

level.”

Moreover, the percentage of drug

users among newly infected HIV-positive indi-

viduals continues to decline.

Since 2004,

general infection rates for HIV have remained

stable—a positive trend, which, according to

the 2006 report,

may be related . . . to the implementa-

tion of harm reduction measures,

which may be leading to a decrease in

intravenous drug use . . . or to intra-

venous drug use in better sanitary con-

ditions, as indicated by the number of

exchanged syringes in the National

Programme “Say no to a second hand

syringe.”

Most significant, the number of newly

reported cases of HIV and AIDS among drug

addicts has declined substantially every year

since 2001 (see Figure 8).

The percentage of newly diagnosed HIV

and AIDS patients who are drug addicts has

steadily decreased over the same time (see

Figure 9).

Likely for the same reasons, there has

been, since 2000, a mild decrease in the rates

of new hepatitis B and C infections nation-

wide,

all of which are attributed by analysts

to the enhanced treatment programs enabled

by decriminalization:

With its relatively high rates of heroin

use by injection, Portugal has had a seri-

ous problem with the transmission of

HIV and other blood-borne viruses. For

example, in 1999 Portugal had the high-

est rate of HIV amongst injecting drug

users in the European Union . . . . This is

a major target of a public health ap-

proach to drug use, with opiate substi-

Drug-related

mortality rates

have decreased

as well.

1,400

1,200

1,600

1,000

800

600

400

200

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005*

2006

Figure 8

HIV/AIDS Notifications: Drug Users and Nondrug Users, by Year of Diagnosis

Individuals

Year

Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),

“The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2006 Annual Report (2007), p. 26.

Infection by HIV was integrated into the list of diseases of mandatory declaration.

AIDS Drug UsersHIV Drug Users

AIDS Nondrug Users

HIV Nondrug Users

tution treatment and needle exchange

being an important element of the

Portuguese response. Between 1999 and

2003, there was a 17% reduction in the notifi-

cations of new, drug-related cases of HIV . . . .

There were also reductions in the numbers of

tracked cases of Hepatitis C and B in treat-

ment centres, despite the increasing num-

bers of people in treatment.

Beyond disease, drug-related mortality rates

have decreased as well. Although the number

of toxicological exams undertaken as part of

postmortem investigations has increased sub-

stantially every year since 2002, the number of

positive results is far lower than the levels dur-

ing 2000 and 2001 (see Figure 10).

In 2001, for instance, 280 toxicological

tests found a positive result (out of 1,259 tests

undertaken). In 2006, the number of positive

results was only 216 (out of a much higher

2,308 tests undertaken).

In absolute numbers, drug-related deaths

from 2002 to 2006 for every prohibited sub-

stance have either declined significantly or

remained constant compared with 2001. In

2000, for instance, the number of deaths from

opiates (including heroin) was 281. That num-

ber has decreased steadily since decriminaliza-

tion, to 133 in 2006 (see Figure 11).

As is true for drug usage rates, these post-

decriminalization decreases were preceded by

significant increases in drug-related problems

in Portugal throughout the 1990s. Through-

out the predecriminalization 1990s, the num-

ber of acute drug-related deaths increased

every year, increasing more than tenfold from

1989 to 1999, reaching a total of almost 400

by 1999 (see Figures 12 and 13).

The total number of drug-related deaths

has actually decreased from the predecriminal-

ization year of 1999 (when it totaled close to

400) to 2006 (when the total was 290).

Like drug-related deaths, predecriminal-

ization drug-related AIDS cases skyrocketed

throughout the 1990s,

while the prevalence

The total number

of drug-related

deaths has

actually decreased

from the prede-

criminalization

year of 1999

(when it totaled

close to 400)

to 2006 (when the

total was 290).

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005* 2006

Figure 9

HIV/AIDS Notifications, Percent Drug Users and Nondrug Users, by Year of Diagnosis

HIV Drug Users

HIV Non drug Users

AIDS Drug Users

AIDS Non drug Users

Percent

Year

Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),

“The National Situation relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2006 Annual Report (2007), p. 26.

Infection by HIV was integrated into the list of diseases of mandatory declaration.

350

300

250

200

150

100

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

1,255

1,259

318

280

1,166

156

152

1,356

1,656

219

2,173

216

2,308

Figure 10

Toxicological Examinations and Positive Results, by Year

Year

Positive Results

Positive Results Toxicological Examinations

Toxicological Examinations

Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),

“The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2006 Annual Report (2007), p. 30.

300

250

200

150

100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Figure 11

Deaths,

by Year, by Substance

Deaths

Year

CannabisCocaine Methadone Amphetamines

Opiates

Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),

“The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2006 Annual Report (2007), p. 31.

Cases of death with positive results in toxicological exams of drugs or narcotics conducted in the National Institute of

Legal Medicine.

Includes heroine, morphine, and codeine.

Includes amphetamines, methamphetamines, MDA, and MDMA.

rates for HIV and hepatitis were far higher.

Thus, even in those drug-related categories

that have worsened in absolute terms since

decriminalization, those categories compare

quite favorably with predecriminalization

trends in the 1990s.

Although education and awareness efforts

in the 1990s began to stem the tide of HIV

infection and those of other sexually transmit-

ted diseases even before decriminalization,

these trends, as demonstrated above, accelerat-

ed even more favorably postdecriminalization.

Researchers who interviewed numerous drug

policymakers in Europe generally and Portugal

specifically found unanimity in support of the

view that these positive trends were due to

decriminalization, and specifically to Portugal’s

ability to provide more extensive and effective

treatment and education programs:

All the interviewees agreed that decrim-

inalization has been beneficial for exist-

ing drug users, principally because

decriminalization has resulted in earlier

intervention and the provision of more

therapeutic and targeted responses to

both drug and drug-related problems.

Through providing problematic drug

users with a better system of detection

and referral to treatment, the [Dissua-

sion Commissions] increase the ability

to address the causes of and harms from

problematic drug use.

Decriminalization Effects Viewed in

Context of Trends in the European Union

Beyond comparing postdecriminalization

trends in Portugal with predecriminalization

trends, the effects of Portuguese decriminal-

ization should be assessed in the context of

trends in Europe generally during the same

period. There is, however, a serious difficulty

in undertaking such a comparison. Although

the EMCDDA is tasked with coordinating

the compilation of uniform drug statistics

among EU states, its lack of compulsory

authority, as well as the lack of resources in

many EU states, means that there is very little

real reporting uniformity. Many EU states,

particularly the poorer ones, often allow

many years to elapse before undertaking

The effects

of Portuguese

decriminalization

should be

assessed in the

context of trends

in Europe

generally during

the same period.

1987

100

200

300

400

500

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Source: Mirjam van het Loo, Ineke van Beusekom, and James P. Kahan, “Decriminalization of Drug Use in Portugal:

The Development of a Policy,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 582, Cross-National

Drug Policy (July 2002): 53.

Figure 12

Number of Acute Drug-Related Deaths, 1987–1999

Year

Number of Deaths

500

400

300

200

100

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Figure 13

Deaths,* According to Year

Deaths

Year

Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),

“The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2005 Annual Report (2006), p. 71.

*Cases of death with positive results in drug toxicological exams conducted in the National Institute of Legal Medicine.

2000 2001

100

125

150

175

2002 2003 2004 2005

Figure 14

Indexed Trends in Reports for Drug Law Offenses in EU Member States, 2000–2005

Cocaine All reports Cannabis Heroin

Source: European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction, “The State of the Drug Problem in Europe,”

Annual Report (2007), p. 25.

Index (15–175)

Year

comprehensive drug-related surveys, and

even those states that report more regularly

often measure metrics that are slightly differ-

ent—when compared with both prior metrics

they surveyed and the metrics surveyed by

other EU states.

Despite these difficulties, some meaning-

ful comparisons can still be made. Drug sta-

tistics rarely change radically from one year

to the next. Thus, comparisons between EU

states of metrics such as prevalence rates and

drug-related social problems can still be use-

ful even if they are taken from different years

or measuring population clusters that are

defined slightly differently. Comparisons

with slightly different statistics lack mathe-

matical exactitude, but they still afford sub-

stantial analytical utility.

Across EU states, according to the

EMCDDA’s 2007 annual report (“The State of

the Drug Problem in Europe”), “drug use in

general remains at historically high levels, but

it has stabilised in most areas, and in some

areas there are even signs that merit cautious

optimism.”

That EU trend of historically

high usage rates can be seen for cannabis and

cocaine, the two most widely used drugs in the

EU, respectively (followed far behind by ecstasy

and amphetamines; usage of crack cocaine

remains negligible in the EU).

Across the EU,

the number of drug offenses in absolute terms

has risen steadily since 2000 (see Figure 14).

For cannabis usage, “current levels are by

historical standards very high” (“although

only a relatively small proportion of cannabis

users are using the drug on a regular and

Despite

difficulties,

some meaningful

comparisons can

still be made.

United Kingdom

Denmark

France

Belgium (Fr.)

Ireland

Spain

Germany

Netherlands

Norway

Greece

Luxembourg

Sweden

Finland

Portugal

Figure 15

European Union (2001–2005), General Population (15–64 Years), Cannabis, Prevalence

over Entire Life

Percent

Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),

Draft 2007 Annual Report, slide 9.

Member States

intensive basis”).

For cocaine, it is estimated

that in 2007, 4.5 million Europeans used it,

up from 3.5 million the year before.

All met-

rics point to an “upward trend” in cocaine

usage across the EU.

In the context of these EU-wide trends,

usage rates in postdecriminalization Portugal

are notably low. Indeed, as a 2006 report on

Portuguese drug policy concluded, five years

after decriminalization, “The prevalence of

drugs in Portugal, both in general and the

school populations, is below EU average.”

For the period 2001–2005, Portugal—for

the 15–64 age group—has the absolute lowest

lifetime prevalence rate for cannabis, the most

used drug in the EU. Indeed, the majority of

EU states have rates that are double and triple

the rate for postdecriminalization Portugal

(see Figures 15 and 16).

Similarly, for usage rates of cocaine (the sec-

ond-most commonly used drug in Europe) for

the same period and the same age group, only five

countries had a lower prevalence rate than the

Portuguese rate. Most EU states have double,

triple, quadruple, or even higher rates than Portu-

gal’s, including some with the harshest criminal-

ization schemes in the EU (see Figure 17).

Indeed, subsequent to decriminalization in

Portugal, for almost every narcotic, the lifetime

prevalence rates—the percentage of adults who

will use a particular drug over the course of

their lifetime—is far lower in Portugal than in

Europe generally. For cannabis, compare the

2006 lifetime prevalence rate for Portugal (8.2

percent)

with the rate in Europe generally (25

percent).

Indeed, the 8.2 percent lifetime preva-

lence rate in Portugal (meaning 8.2 percent of

Portuguese citizens in the studied age range

consumed cannabis at least once in their life) is

almost the equivalent of the prevalence rate for

EU states just from the last year alone (7.1 percent)

(meaning that 7.1 percent of EU citizens have

consumed cannabis in the last year).

Country-by-country prevalence rates in the

EU for amphetamine

and ecstasy usage sim-

ilarly show Portugal with among the lowest

usage rates in the EU (compare, for instance,

Portugal’s ecstasy prevalence rate [1.6 percent]

with the higher rates in virtually every EU

country).

One finds the same conclusions

for the EU country-by-country prevalence rate

for heroin and injection usage (compare the

2006 prevalence rate for students for heroin

use in Portugal of 2.6 percent

with the sever-

al EU countries with substantially higher

rates; see Figure 18).

For cocaine, the lifetime prevalence rate for

the student age group in Portugal is 1.6 per-

cent whereas for Europe generally, it is sub-

stantially higher—4 percent.

As the EMCD-

DA reported in its 2007 report, “Based on

recent national population surveys in the EU

and Norway, it is estimated that cocaine has

been used at least once . . . by more than 12 mil-

lion Europeans, representing almost 4 percent

of all adults.”

Again, postdecriminalization, Portugal—

with 1.6 percent—is near the bottom of preva-

lence rates, whereas across the EU, “national

figures on reported lifetime use range from 0.2

percent to 7.3 percent, with three countries re-

porting values of more than 5 percent (Spain,

Italy, the United Kingdom).”

For cocaine

usage, Europe is generally experiencing an

“overall increase in use.”

Increases (in the

15–34 age group) can be seen in most EU

states (see Figure 19).

By and large, usage rates for each category

of drugs continue to be lower in the EU than

in non-EU states with a far more criminal-

ized approach to drug usage:

Estimated cannabis use is, on average,

considerably lower in the European

Union than in the USA, Canada or

Australia. As regards stimulant drugs,

levels of ecstasy use are broadly similar

worldwide, although Australia reports

high prevalence levels, and, in the case

of amphetamine, prevalence is higher

in Australia and the USA than in

Europe and Canada. The prevalence of

cocaine use is higher in the USA and

Canada than in the European Union

and Australia.

Indeed, a 2008 survey of drug usage among

Americans found that the United States has the

The majority of

EU states have

rates that are

double and triple

the rate for post-

decriminalization

Portugal.

Czech Republic

Ireland

France

United Kingdom

Slovenia

Italy

Slovakia

Denmark

Estonia

Russia (Moscow)

Croatia

Ukraine

Bulgaria

Poland

Latvia

Hungary

Portugal

Iceland

Lithuania

Finland

Malta

Faroe Islands

Sweden

Cyprus

0 10 20 30 40 50

2003 1999 1995

Figure 16

European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs

Sixteen-Year-Old Students

Prevalence over Entire Life, Cannabis (percent)

Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),

“Os Adolescentes e a Droga” (“Adolescents and Drugs”), 2003, p. 6.

highest level of illegal cocaine and cannabis use

in the world. The findings were the result of sur-

veys conducted in 17 countries, in the Americas

(Colombia, Mexico, and the United States),

Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the

Netherlands, Spain, and Ukraine), the Middle

East and Africa (Israel, Lebanon, Nigeria, and

South Africa), Asia (China and Japan), and

Oceania (New Zealand).

As reported by Science

Daily on July 1, 2008:

A survey of 17 countries has found that

despite its punitive drug policies the

United States has the highest levels of ille-

gal cocaine and cannabis use. The study,

by Louisa Degenhardt (University of New

South Wales, Sydney, Australia) and col-

leagues, is based on the World Health

Organization’s Composite International

Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and is pub-

lished in this week’s Plos Medicine.

The authors found that 16.2% of

people in the United States had used

cocaine in their lifetime, a level much

higher than any other country sur-

veyed (the second highest level of co-

caine use was in New Zealand, where

4.3% of people reported having used

cocaine). Cannabis use was highest in

the US (42.4%), followed by New Zea-

land (41.9%).

The prevalence rate for cocaine usage in the

United States was so much higher than the

other countries surveyed that the researchers

formally characterized it as an “outlier”:

The US was an outlier in lifetime cocaine

use, with 16% of respondents reporting

that they had tried cocaine at least once

compared to 4.0%–4.3% in Colombia,

Mexico, Spain, and New Zealand, and

By and large,

usage rates for

each category of

drugs continue to

be lower in the

EU than in

non-EU states

with a far more

criminalized

approach to

drug usage.

6.1

5.9

4.6

3.6

3.2

3.0

2.7

2.5

2.3

2.2

1.2

1.1 1.1 1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.4

0.2

Estonia

Italy

Netherlands

Germany

Ireland

Norway

Denmark

Austria

France

Latvia

Finland

Czech Republic

Slovakia

Belgium

Hungary

Portugal

Poland

Greece

Lithuania

Romania

Luxembourg

nited Kingdom*

Figure 17

European Union (2001–2005), General Population (15–64 Years), Cocaine, Prevalence

over Entire Life

Percent

Member State

Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),

Draft 2007 Annual Report, slide 10.

Excludes Scotland and Northern Ireland.

extremely low proportions in countries

in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.

The study also found that “the proportions

of respondents who ever used cannabis were

highest in the US (42%).”

The magnitude of

the United States’ drug usage rates compared

with every other country surveyed is illustrat-

ed in Table 2, which shows the lifetime preva-

lence rates for cannabis and cocaine for each.

A similar table (Table 3), reflecting preva-

lence rates in each country among the nations’

youth (15 years and younger and, separately,

21 years and younger), also reflects the vastly

higher rates in the United States.

The report explicitly found that stringent

criminalization laws do not produce lower

drug usage, and that some data suggest the

opposite may be true:

Countries with more stringent policies

towards illegal drug use did not have

lower levels of such drug use than

countries with more liberal policies. In

the Netherlands, for example, which

has more liberal policies than the US,

1.9% of people reported cocaine use

and 19.8% reported cannabis use.

A draft of this Cato report was submitted

to several U.S. drug policy officials—in the U.S.

Drug Enforcement Administration’s head-

quarters, the DEA office in Madrid (which has

jurisdictional responsibility for interacting

A 2008

survey of drug

usage among

Americans found

that the United

States has the

highest level of

illegal cocaine

and cannabis use

in the world.

Latvia (2002) MM

Cyprus (2005) TP

Finland (2002) CR

Czech Republic (2005) TM

Greece (2005) CR

Slovakia (2005) TM

Germany (2005)

Netherlands (2001)

Spain (2002) TM

Austria (2004) CR

Italy (2005)

Ireland (2001) CR

Malta (2005) CR

Figure 18

Estimates of the Prevalence of Problem Opioid Use, Ages 15–64, 2001–2005

Source: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, “The State of the Drug Problem in Europe,” 2007

Annual Report (2007), p. 65.

Note: The symbol indicates a point estimate; a bar indicates an estimation uncertainty interval, which can be either a

95% confidence interval or an interval based on sensitivity analysis. Target groups may vary slightly owing to differ-

ent estimation methods and data sources; therefore, comparisons should be made with caution. Where no method is

indicated, the line given represents an interval between the lowest lower bound of all existing estimates and the high-

est upper bound of them. Estimation methods: CR = capture–recapture; TM = treatment multiplier; TP = truncated

Poisson; MM = mortality multiplier.

Rate per 1,000 people

1990

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Spain

United Kingdom

Italy

Denmark

Estonia

Slovakia

Netherlands

Finland

Hungary

Greece

Germany

France

Norway

Figure 19

Trends in Last Year Prevalence of Cocaine Use among Young Adults, Ages 15–34

Percent

Year

Sources: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, “The State of the Drug Problem in Europe,” Annual Report (2007), p. 59.

England and Wales.

In Denmark, the value for 1994 corresponds to “hard drugs.”

Region

Americas

Europe

Middle East

and Africa

Asia

Oceania New Zealand

China

Japan

South Africa

Nigeria

Lebanon

Israel

Ukraine

Spain

Netherlands

Italy

Germany

France

Belgium

United States

Mexico

Colombia 94.3

85.9

91.6

91.1

91.3

95.3

73.5

93.3

86.4

97.0

58.3

53.3

57.4

40.6

89.1

65.4

94.8

4,426

5,782

5,692

1,043

1,436

1,323

1,779

1,094

2,121

1,719

4,859

1,031

2,143

4,315

887

1,628

12,790

0.5

0.6

0.9

1.8

1.2

0.9

1.8

1.4

1.1

0.6

0.8

3.0

1.6

1.2

1.6

1.8

0.3

48.1

60.2

73.6

49.0

48.3

51.9

48.0

58.0

53.1

60.6

47.9

67.4

16.8

31.9

48.6

53.1

51.3

1.2

0.9

1.2

2.2

2.1

1.9

1.3

1.9

1.8

0.7

2.6

1.1

2.0

1.8

0.7

10.8

7.8

42.4

10.4

19.0

17.5

6.6

19.8

15.9

6.4

11.5

4.6

2.7

8.4

1.5

0.3

41.9

0.6

0.5

1.0

1.6

0.8

1.3

1.0

0.5

0.9

0.5

0.6

0.4

0.1

0.7

4.0

16.2

1.5

1.9

1.0

1.9

4.1

0.1

0.9

0.7

0.1

0.7

0.3

0.0

4.3

0.4

0.6

0.4

0.5

0.3

0.2

0.7

0.0

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.3

0.0

0.3

Country Unweighted n Alcohol Tobacco Cannabis Cocaine

Percent Percent Percent PercentSE SE SE SE

Table 2

Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use in Selected Countries, 2008

Source: Louisa Degenhardt and others, “Toward a Global View of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use:

Findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys,” Public Library of Science Medicine 5, no. 7 (2008): p. 1057.

with Portuguese drug officials), and the Office

of National Drug Control Policy—along with

a list of specific questions for which a response

was requested. Those questions focused on

the rationale for the U.S. approach to drug

criminalization in light of the far higher drug

usage rates among Americans, trends that, in

general, appear to be worsening, contrasted

with the far better rates in decriminalized

Portugal. Despite repeated requests, none

responded to those questions.

According to EU drug policy officials, the

United States has displayed very little interest

in understanding the improving trends in

Europe generally, and in Portugal specifically,

that have clearly resulted in an environment of

drug liberalization and decriminalization.

Quite the contrary, over the last two decades,

the United States has single-mindedly agitat-

ed for greater criminalization approaches and

appears, at least to EU officials, interested sole-

ly in enforcement actions, rather than empiri-

cally vindicated policy changes at the user lev-

el designed to manage usage rates and amelio-

rate drug-related harms.

Around the world, it is apparent that

stringent criminalization policies do not pro-

duce lower drug usage rates. If anything, the

opposite trend can be observed. The sky-high

and increasing drug usage rates in the highly

criminalized United States, juxtaposed with

the relatively low and manageable rates in

decriminalized Portugal, make a very strong

case for that proposition.

Conclusion

None of the fears promulgated by oppo-

nents of Portuguese decriminalization has

come to fruition, whereas many of the benefits

predicted by drug policymakers from institut-

Region Country Unweighted n

Americas

Europe

Middle

East and

Africa

Asia

Oceania New Zealand

Japan

South Africa

Nigeria

Lebanon

Israel

Ukraine

Spain

Netherlands

Italy

Germany

France

Belgium

United States

Mexico

Colombia

China

12,790

887

4,315

2,143

1,031

4,859

1,719

2,121

1,094

1,779

1,323

1,436

1,043

5,692

5,782

4,426

1,628

Alcohol

By 15 years old

Percent SE

By 21 years old

Percent SE

74.1

30.4

9.4

31.4

24.3

15.2

39.3

52.8

59.6

44.9

82.1

68.2

67.0

50.1

29.0

57.4

31.7

1.5

6.7

1.4

3.2

5.2

1.2

3.9

4.8

7.7

3.6

3.2

8.3

2.5

1.9

2.3

5.1

94.1

91.9

39.5

52.5

45.8

62.7

98.5

92.1

89.7

76.3

97.8

94.5

88.5

93.1

77.5

92.2

73.6

0.9

5.8

2.0

3.1

6.5

1.6

1.1

2.1

6.4

3.6

1.1

2.2

6.1

1.3

1.2

5.2

By 15 years old

Percent SE

By 21 years old

Percent SE

By 15 years old

Percent SE

By 21 years old

Percent SE

By 15 years old

Percent SE

By 21 years old

Percent SE

—

11.0

6.9

18.0

8.9

46.0

—

43.6

21.4

12.3

0.9

4.9

—

2.4

1.4

1.3

15.2

—

1.6

1.7

2.8

3.7

43.2

72.1

—

71.6

52.5

37.5

—

31.0

10.1

51.1

54.7

1.6

3.9

—

2.8

1.6

1.9

—

1.6

1.7

6.4

5.0

Tobacco

0.3

1.3

8.5

7.0

3.3

13.0

15.3

4.7

20.2

2.2

2.9

26.8

—

1.6

0.2

0.4

—

0.2

0.7

2.6

3.0

1.1

3.3

4.3

2.5

1.8

0.5

0.6

1.4

—

0.5

0.2

0.3

—

13.7

12.3

27.7

34.6

13.7

41.0

44.1

22.2

54.0

8.0

10.2

61.8

—

11.0

1.9

5.7

—

1.1

2.6

4.4

7.1

2.5

4.8

5.3

6.6

2.8

1.1

1.2

1.5

—

1.4

0.9

2.7

—

Cannabis

0.0

—

0.1

0.0

2.5

0.6

0.8

0.1

—

0.0

—

0.1

0.0

0.8

0.3

0.1

—

0.5

—

5.3

1.0

0.9

6.1

1.9

0.6

16.3

4.1

3.1

5.0

—

0.2

—

1.8

0.6

2.7

1.3

0.4

1.6

0.7

0.8

—

Cocaine

Table 3

Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use for Youths 15 Years and Younger and 21 Years and Younger in

Selected Countries, 2008

Source: Louisa Degenhardt et al., “Toward a Global View of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use: Findings from the WHO World Mental Health

Surveys,” Public Library of Science Medicine 5, no. 7 (2008): 1059.

Not asked in this country.

Fewer than 30 persons in the entire sample of this country used this drug, so estimates have not been produced.

ing a decriminalization regime have been real-

ized. While drug addiction, usage, and associat-

ed pathologies continue to skyrocket in many

EU states, those problems—in virtually every rel-

evant category—have been either contained or

measurably improved within Portugal since

2001. In certain key demographic segments,

drug usage has decreased in absolute terms in the

decriminalization framework, even as usage across

the EU continues to increase, including in those

states that continue to take the hardest line in

criminalizing drug possession and usage.

By freeing its citizens from the fear of prose-

cution and imprisonment for drug usage,

Portugal has dramatically improved its ability

to encourage drug addicts to avail themselves of

treatment. The resources that were previously

devoted to prosecuting and imprisoning drug

addicts are now available to provide treatment

programs to addicts. Those developments,

along with Portugal’s shift to a harm-reduction

approach, have dramatically improved drug-

related social ills, including drug-caused mor-

talities and drug-related disease transmission.

Ideally, treatment programs would be strictly

voluntary, but Portugal’s program is certainly

preferable to criminalization.

The Portuguese have seen the benefits of

decriminalization, and therefore there is no

serious political push in Portugal to return to

a criminalization framework. Drug policy-

makers in the Portuguese government are vir-

tually unanimous in their belief that decrimi-

nalization has enabled a far more effective

approach to managing Portugal’s addiction

problems and other drug-related afflictions.

Since the available data demonstrate that they

are right, the Portuguese model ought to be

carefully considered by policymakers around

the world.

Notes

1. See Elisabeth Malkin and Marc Lacey, “Mexican

President Proposes Decriminalizing Some Drugs,”

New York Times, October 2, 2008; Helen Popper,

“Argentina Eyes Legalizing Paco,” Toronto Sun, Aug-

ust 19, 2008; “Swiss Voters Back Legalized Heroin,”

New Zealand Herald, December 1, 2008; and “Cana-

dian Government Tries Anew to Decriminalize Ma-

rijuana,” Reuters, November 2, 2004. Note also Jose

De Cordoba, “Latin American Panel Calls U.S. Drug

War a Failure,” Wall Street Journal, February 12, 2009.

2. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and

Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), “Illicit Drug Use in

the EU: Legislative Approaches,” 2005, p. 4.

3. Mirjam van het Loo, Ineke van Beusekom, and

James P. Kahan, “Decriminalization of Drug Use

in Portugal: The Development of a Policy,” Annals

of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

582, Cross-National Drug Policy (July 2002): 59.

4. Ibid.

5. Caitlin Hughes and Alex Stevens, “The Effects

of Decriminalization of Drug Use in Portugal,”

Briefing Paper no. 14, the Beckley Foundation

Drug Policy Programme, December 2007, p. 6.

6. Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de

Portugal (IDT), “The National Situation Relating to

Drugs and Dependency,” 2006 Annual Report

(2007), p. 35.

7. EMCDDA, “Illicit Drug Use in the EU,” (2005)

p. 27.

8. Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de

Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction

of Portugal), “The National Situation Relating to

Drugs and Dependency,” 2005 Annual Report

(2006), p. 87.

9. IDT, “The National Situation,” (2007) p. 88.

10. IDT, “The National Situation,” (2006) p. 35.

11. Ibid., p. 37.

12. Quoted in Daniel McGrory, “Portugal Police

Won’t Arrest Drug Takers,” Times (London), July

14, 2001.

13. Fernando Negrão, a former police chief and the

head of Portugal’s Institute on Drugs and Drug

Addiction, says, “There were fears Portugal might

become a drug paradise [for tourists], but that sim-

ply didn’t happen.” Quoted in Alison Roberts,

“How Portugal Dealt with Drug Reform,” BBC

News, December 29, 2007.

14. IDT, “The National Situation,” (2006) p. 39.

15. Ibid., p. 99.

16. Van het Loo, van Beusekom, and Kahan,

“Decriminalization of Drug Use in Portugal,” p. 54.

17. Ibid., p. 49.

There is no

serious political

push in Portugal

to return to a

criminalization

framework.

18. Ibid., p. 54.

19. Ibid., p. 58.

20. IDT, “The National Situation,” (2006) p. 150.

21. Van het Loo, van Beusekom, and Kahan,

“Decriminalization of Drug Use in Portugal,” p. 60.

22. Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de

Portugal, pamphlet intended for public con-

sumption by the citizenry.

23. Ibid.

24. European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and

Drug Addiction, “The State of the Drug Problem

in Europe,” 2007 Annual Report, pp. 12–13.

25. EMCDDA, “Illicit Drug Use in the EU,”

(2005) p. 22.

26. Ibid.

27. EMCDDA, “The State of the Drug Problem in

Europe,” (2007) p. 13.

28. Ibid., p. 33.

29. Van het Loo, van Beusekom, and Kahan, “De-

criminalization of Drug Use in Portugal,” p. 58.

30. Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de

Portugal, Draft 2007 Annual Report, slide 3.

31. Ibid., slide 4.

32. Ibid., slides 5–6.

33. Ibid., slides 13–14.

34. Ibid., slide 7.

35. Ibid., slide 8.

36. Communication with author, July 2008.

37. Quoted in Bob Curley, “Youth Drug Use De-

clines, but Alcohol, Future Trends Are Concerns,”

Join Together, December 19, 2003.

38. Louisa Degenhardt, Wai-Tat Chiu, Nancy

Sampson, Ronald C. Kessler, James C. Anthony,

Matthias Angermeyer, Ronny Bruffaerts, Giovanni

de Girolamo, Oye Gureje, Yueqin Huang, Aimee

Karam, Stanislav Kostyuchenko, Jean Pierre Lepine,

Maria Elena Medina Mora, Yehuda Neumark, J.

Hans Ormel, Alejandra Pinto-Meza, José Posada-

Villa, Dan J. Stein, Tadashi Takeshima, and J.

Elisabeth Wells, “Toward a Global View of Alcohol,

Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use: Findings

from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys,”

Public Library of Science Medicine 5, no. 7 (2008): e141

DOI, 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050141 (emphasis

added).

39. IDT, Draft 2007 Annual Report, slide 8.

40. L. V. Tavares, P. M. Graça, O. Martins, and M.

Asensio, “External and Independent Evaluation

of the ‘National Strategy for the Fight against

Drugs’ and of the ‘National Action Plan for the

Fight against Drugs and Drug Addiction—Hori-

zon 2004,’” Portuguese National Institute of Pub-

lic Administration, Lisbon, 2005.

41. Hughes and Stevens, “The Effects of Decrim-

inalization of Drug Use in Portugal,” pp. 2, 5.

42. Van het Loo, van Beusekom, and Kahan, “De-

criminalization of Drug Use in Portugal,” p. 52.

43. Ibid., p. 53.

44. Ibid.

45. IDT, “The National Situation,” (2007) p. 53.

46. IDT, “The National Situation,” (2006) p. 3.

47. Hughes and Stevens, “The Effects of Decrim-

inalization of Drug Use in Portugal,” pp. 2, 5.

48. IDT, “The National Situation,” (2006) p. 3.

49. Ibid., p. 4.

50. Ibid.

51. IDT, “The National Situation,” (2007) p. 26.

52. Ibid., p. 26.

53. IDT, “The National Situation,” (2006) p. 4.

54. Hughes and Stevens, “The Effects of

Decriminalization of Drug Use in Portugal,” p. 3.

55. IDT, “The National Situation,” (2007) p. 30.

56. Ibid., p. 31.

57. Van het Loo, van Beusekom, and Kahan, “De-

criminalization of Drug Use in Portugal,” p. 53;

IDT, “The National Situation,” (2006) p. 71.

58. Van het Loo, van Beusekom, and James P.

Kahan, “Decriminalization of Drug Use in Portu-

gal,” p. 52.

59. IDT, “The National Situation,” (2006) pp. 59–60.

60. Hughes and Stevens, “The Effects of Decrim-

inalization of Drug Use in Portugal,” p. 6.

61. EMCDDA, “The State of the Drug Problem in

Europe,” (2007) p. 5.

62. Ibid., p. 14.

63. Ibid., p. 25. The figures refer to cited offenses—

the number of people ticketed or arrested for

drug law violations, not convictions.

64. Ibid., p. 13.

65. Ibid., p. 14.

66. Ibid.

67. IDT, “The National Situation,” (2006) p. 2.

68. IDT, Draft 2007 Annual Report, slide 9; IDT,

“Os Adolescentes e a Droga” (“Adolescents and

Drugs”), (2003) p. 6.

69. IDT, Draft 2007 Annual Report, slide 10.

70. IDT, “The National Situation,” 2007, p. 63.

The last study to determine lifetime drug preva-

lence rates for the general population of Portugal

was undertaken in 2001. The 2006 study refer-

enced here examined the prevalence rates for stu-

dents 18 years old or younger. Typically, the

prevalence rate for the general population is slight-

ly lower than the prevalence rate for the student

population.

71. EMCDDA, “The State of the Drug Problem in

Europe,” p. 12.

72. Ibid.

73. Ibid., p. 51.

74. Ibid., p. 53.

75. IDT, “The National Situation,” (2007) p. 69.

76. EMCDDA, “The State of the Drug Problem in

Europe,” (2007) p. 65.

77. Ibid., p. 13.

78. Ibid., p. 57.

79. Ibid.

80. Ibid., p. 14.

81. Ibid., p. 59.

82. IDT, Draft 2007 Annual Report, slide 11.

83. Degenhardt and others, “Toward a Global

View of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine

Use,” p. 1053.

84. Science Daily, July 1, 2008, http://www.science

daily.com/releases/2008/06/080630201007.htm.

85. Degenhardt and others, “Toward a Global View

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Cannabis, and Cocaine Use,”

p. 1056.

86. Ibid.

87. Science Daily, July 1, 2008, http://www.sci

encedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080630201007

.htm.

Cato Institute

Founded in 1977, the Cato Institute is a public policy research foundation dedicated to broad-

ening the parameters of policy debate to allow consideration of more options that are consistent

with the traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, and peace. To

that end, the Institute strives to achieve greater involvement of the intelligent, concerned lay pub-

lic in questions of policy and the proper role of government.

The Institute is named for Cato’s Letters, libertarian pamphlets that were widely read in the

American Colonies in the early 18th century and played a major role in laying the philosophical

foundation for the American Revolution.

Despite the achievement of the nation’s Founders, today virtually no aspect of life is free from

government encroachment. A pervasive intolerance for individual rights is shown by govern-

ment’s arbitrary intrusions into private economic transactions and its disregard for civil liberties.

To counter that trend, the Cato Institute undertakes an extensive publications program that

addresses the complete spectrum of policy issues. Books, monographs, and shorter studies are

commissioned to examine the federal budget, Social Security, regulation, military spending, inter-

national trade, and myriad other issues. Major policy conferences are held throughout the year,

from which papers are published thrice yearly in the Cato Journal. The Institute also publishes

the quarterly magazine Regulation.

In order to maintain its independence, the Cato Institute accepts no government funding.

Contributions are received from foundations, corporations, and individuals, and other revenue is

generated from the sale of publications. The Institute is a nonprofit, tax-exempt, educational foun-

dation under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

AT O INSTITUTE

1000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

www.cato.org

1000 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE, N.W. ● WASHINGTON, DC 20001 ● WWW.CATO.ORG

$10.00

Additional details and ordering information for Cato’s books and Policy Studies are available online at www.cato.org.

ato’s publications, including the

Policy Analysis series, offer detailed

and authoritative studies of a wide

range of pressing public policy issues. Each

study presents a sharply focused look behind

and inside the topic covered. Available online

at Cato.org, these incisive studies form the

heart of Cato’s important work.

PREVIOUS TITLES INCLUDE

●

“Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police

Raids in America”

●

“Treating Doctors as Drug Dealers: The

DEA’s War on Prescription Pain Killers”

●

“Troubled Neighbor: Mexico’s Drug

Violence Poses a Threat to the United States”

●

“Misguided Guidelines: A Critique of

Federal Sentencing”

Studies from the

$19.95 HARDBACK

$14.95 HARDBACK

$5.00 PAPERBACK

“

— FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Leading judges and scholars respond to Harvard

law professor Henry M. Hart Jr.’s classic article

The Aims of the Criminal Law, offering perspectives

on what should be considered when proposing

new criminal laws; should prisons focus on pun-

ishment or rehabilitation; the current system’s

weakest points; needed reforms, and more.

A refreshingly candid,

controversial, and hard-hitting

assessment of Washington’s ...

campaign against illegal drugs.

A concise overview of how, in the aftermath

of the Enron scandal, laws like Sarbanes-Oxley,

and recent changes to the federal sentencing

guidelines, have substantially increased the

penalties on companies and individuals for

white-collar offenses and have jeopardized

our adversary system of justice.

”