What happened when Portugal decriminalised drugs? - The Economist
Quote:
Economist Films: For 20 years The Economist has led calls for a rethink on drug prohibition. This film looks at new approaches to drugs policy, from Portugal to Colorado. “Drugs: War or Store?” kicks off our new “Global Compass” series, examining novel approaches to policy problems.
The opposite, of course, to our current federal government policy:
Quote:
MONTREAL -- The federal justice minister says his government will uphold the country's drug laws in response to Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre's commitment to proceeding with safe injection sites with or without Ottawa's blessing.
The Conservative government is focused on treating drug addicts as opposed to making "more available access to often illegal drugs," Peter MacKay told reporters Thursday.
Earlier in the day, Coderre said the city will open supervised injection facilities -- where people can inject drugs without fear of arrest -- regardless of what Ottawa says about it.
Coderre said the project has been approved by city council and the provincial government. Montreal police have also been consulted.
The federal government must grant an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in order for a safe injection site to operate.
Quebec officially asked for the exemption at the beginning of May, but Ottawa has been publicly and strongly opposed to granting licences for facilities where people can inject drugs legally.
The only supervised injection facility in Canada is in Vancouver.
In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that denying citizens access to safe injection sites was unconstitutional because it deprived people of potentially life-saving medical care.
“This is a big step forward,” Pivot lawyer Scott Bernstein said Friday, referring to a decision to approve access to heroin for at least 15 participants exiting a Vancouver study.
Pivot, which represents 22 study participants and the B.C. Association of People on Methadone, said the landmark decision will allow some of the most marginalized and addicted patients — who have not responded to other treatments such as methadone — to continue to receive proven treatment in a medical environment.
“The evidence out there demonstrates this is the appropriate treatment for people in this condition,” added Bernstein. “For our clients this is access to a life-saving treatment that helps them stabilize their lives, become healthy, and not have to engage in criminal activity to get the drug they’re dependent upon. It’s definitely a good thing.”
Bernstein said the decision was based on evidence rather than ideology and was made after doctors convinced Health Canada that heroin was the appropriate treatment.
The Study to Assess Long-term Opioid Maintenance Effectiveness (SALOME) began at the end of 2011 and is enrolling participants on a rolling basis for one year of research. Participants and advocates have been calling on the medical community to provide an “exit strategy” for the 322 participants in the three-year study.
But Health Minister Rona Ambrose said her department’s decision to provide heroin to certain addicts under the special access program — designed to allow patients in exceptional cases to get medications normally not allowed in Canada — is wrong and won’t happen again.
“This decision is in direct opposition to the government’s anti-drug policy and violates the spirit and intent of the special access program,” she said in a statement.
“I am taking immediate action to protect the integrity of the special access program and ensure this does not happen again.”
There are already safe treatments for heroin addiction, such as methadone, Ambrose argued.
“The special access program was designed to treat unusual cases and medical emergencies; it was not intended as a way to give illicit drugs to drug addicts.”
It was not clear from the statement whether Ambrose intends to override the decision or to simply take steps to prevent similar decisions in future.
The Harper government has taken a hard line on drugs. It strongly opposed the Insite supervised injection site — which marks its 10-year anniversary Saturday — and lost a long legal fight to close it.
Health Minister Rona Ambrose says she is "outraged" by the Supreme Court of Canada decision that expands the definition of medical marijuana beyond dried leaves, to include cannabis oils, teas, brownies and other forms of the drug.
In a unanimous decision Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that users should not be restricted to only using the dried form of the drug. They said the current rules prevent people with a legitimate need for medical marijuana from choosing a method of ingestion that avoids the potential harms of smoking it.
But Ambrose says, despite recent court rulings in favour of the use of marijuana, her government maintains that cannabis has never been proven safe and effective as a medicine.
I really have to ask Conservative voters, at what point do the various other elements of society outweigh the (incorrectly) perceived economic benefits of a Conservative government?
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
I don't care whether people do them or not whatsoever (I personally don't do them), so to legalize drugs would just be a great way to save costs instead of fighting a completely unwinnable battle.
Honestly at this point I have no idea why anyone would be against full legalization of marijuana. There is WAY to much evidence out there saying it is a good thing.
I really have to ask Conservative voters, at what point do the various other elements of society outweigh the (incorrectly) perceived economic benefits of a Conservative government?
I'll be the first to admit that I find elements of the Conservative government way off base but the options scare me even more.
I'm still very much in the lesser of the 3 evils camp.
The anti-science, anti-evidence based practices, anti-data gathering approach of the conservative government is terrible and the reason I can't vote for them.
If you don't want to cut greenhouse gas emissions make an economic argument and live with it. Don't cut research into and deny it exists.
If you don't want to fund the poor just come out and blame them for being poor, it plays well to your base. Don't cancel the long form census so no one has the data.
Safe injection sites work, just listen to research or at least throw up some poorly done counter research to justify your stance.
But the conservatives refusal to trust basic research and science is shocking and so despite the economic benefits I think the risk of undermining the systems by which the government makes decisions and replacing it with truthyness is certainly more dangerous than treadeau and maybe even more dangerous than Muclair.
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I have never smoked before or otherwise consumed marijuana, nor would I likely if it became legal. However, from just a pure economic standpoint the whole argument against keeping it illegal does not make sense. It costs way too much money to enforce the laws. It targets one group of people more than the rest. It harms public health due to getting illegal stuff instead of having it regulated properly. It is not possible to actually eliminate the use of it, much like how prohibition failed.
If you legalize it and tax it properly, that would raise a large amount of funds that can be used for the benefit of society like how Colorado is using all the tax revenues for schools.
__________________ Fireside Chat - The #1 Flames Fan Podcast - FiresideChat.ca
It's completely bizarre that pot is illegal. You wouldn't know it around the west kootenays that's for sure. Stupid law and a complete waste of resources.
Big difference between decriminalization and making drugs legal. It's still illegal to sell and traffic in Portugal. It's just not a criminal act to use and possess for personal use. Instead you face penalties in the administrative system.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to blankall For This Useful Post:
Which is why decriminalization is not good enough, I would only be happy to have it IF its predicated on moving towards legalization.
I agree. I remember when the Liberals were big on decriminalization personal use while increasing the penalties on the suppliers. That is the dumbest approach as it just leads to more crime. You need both ends of the equation to be legal to reduce crime.
I really have to ask Conservative voters, at what point do the various other elements of society outweigh the (incorrectly) perceived economic benefits of a Conservative government?
I am all for de-criminalizing drugs and prostitution and think that the current Conservative policies are misguided. However, the issues are of such little importance to me that there is no chance I would risk either of the two idiots (Mulcair and Trudeau) to see change happen...
I am all for de-criminalizing drugs and prostitution and think that the current Conservative policies are misguided. However, the issues are of such little importance to me that there is no chance I would risk either of the two idiots (Mulcair and Trudeau) to see change happen...
But it's not just these issues. They're stance on virtually every issue is backwards, outdated, or anti-science.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to rubecube For This Useful Post:
I remember Harper saying anyone who smokes marijuana is involved in gang behavior and are dangerous thugs. When a leader makes a generalization like that it's impossible to take them seriously. It's likely members of parliament smoke marijuana but according to Harper they are gangster thugs.
With such blatant ignorance it's like he's begging to lose his job. Harpers house is a few blocks away from mine and nobody I know likes him, will be shocked if he's re elected. People that live in the same community as the prime minister don't even like the guy.
I'm generally libertarian on these issues. However, without controls on substances like heroin and meth, you end up in trouble quickly.
Naturally.
With either alternative, regulation takes the place of criminalisation. How to regulate becomes the crux of the issue. Countries are experimenting with either or both supply side and demand side regulation, with varying degrees of success. In the case presented with Portugal, clearly it is a demand side regulation.
I cannot wrap my head around how archaic the thinking is that sustains the criminality of many currently illicit substances. History is abound with lessons that are unfavourable to prohibition from virtually every academic point of view. Ideology overcomes rationale again and again in the War on Drugs.
I don't do any drugs whatsoever, but I say legalize it. If someone overdoses on cocaine or meth they must pay 100% of the medical costs to save their lives. Tired of supporting people who make bad decisions. Free will and a free society. People know the risks, so if they want to go ahead and use drugs be my guest. Don't take my hard earned money to save your life after you OD'ed though. I have no sympathy for drug addicts. No one forced them to start, but they cry when they can't stop.
__________________
Stanley Cup - 1989
Clarence Campbell Trophy - 1986, 1989, 2004
Presidents Trophy - 1988, 1989
William Jennings Trophy - 2006
The Following User Says Thank You to The Familia For This Useful Post:
What happened when Portugal decriminalised drugs? - The Economist
