Oregon county decriminalizes heroin, meth, cocaine and shoplifting, among others

reply to post by shagreen heart


Wiki - Portugal Drug Policy

History

In 2001, Portugal became the first European country to abolish all criminal penalties for personal drug possession. In addition, drug users were to be targeted with therapy rather than prison sentences.[6]

[edit] Regulation

Individuals found in possession of small quantities of drugs are issued summons. The drugs are confiscated, and the suspect is interviewed by a dissuasion commission including a civil servant, a psychiatrist, and an attorney.[7][8]

Drug trafficking remains illegal and is prosecuted.[7]

[edit] Results

A study by Glenn Greenwald (commissioned by the libertarian Cato Institute) found that in the five years after the start of decriminalization, illegal drug use by teenagers had declined, the rate of HIV infections among drug users had dropped, deaths related to heroin and similar drugs had been cut by more than half, and the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction had doubled, while usage in the EU continued to increase, including in states with "hard-line drug policies."[3]

Since Portugal's policy reform in 2001, the rates of overdoses and HIV cases have been reduced significantly.[9][10][11]

Reduced but not stopped. It has not be completely decriminalized, since you still get a citation along with having your drugs confiscated. What Portugal is doing is what we are discussing in this thread. Targeting drug users with treatment instead of criminal prosecution.

Drug trafficking remains illegal, and it doesn't touch on possession of large quantities.


and at the same time The Netherlands is re-evaluating its drug control policies. They have had mixed results, and have seen the introduction of drugs with higher concentrations which challenge the current law.

Drug control Policy - Neatherlands


As a side note, treatment will only work if the person undergoing it accepts it and actually wants to change their lifestyle. Treatment will not do any good towards people who do not want to change their habits.

reply to post by Xcathdra



I don't see then by how your current thinking you don't think Nicotine should be banned also.


Wether you Smoke or not, It's not fair to allow one breed of user to walk into their local supermarket, gas station and buy their drug wrapped and sealed in a package for them, and then allow them to walk around the general population using their drug willy nilly.

While the other user has to be involved in criminal activity (sourcing, and carrying the drug) deal with dodgy people, get his (not knowing what is in this lot, how strong it is, wether or not the makers have cut it with something different to last time)

It's not about benefiting the person medically or anything for that matter. If a nicotine addict wants a Nicotine fix he should be allowed his fix, just as a meth addict should be allowed his.



Does it gave the same high you ask? I am no chemist but from my understanding of how meth effects the brain, the chemicals used, and from my use of both street meth and "lab" meth I would say yes.

Not only does it work the same, but it is a much cleaner feel, and the side effects are no where near as bad.

reply to post by Xcathdra


right, decriminalized, not legalized....

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


If the government decided to allow for the production of Meth in a sterile environment, do you really think people who take meth now will buy it?

Do you really think if the government legalizes meth, that it wont fall under the same narcotic definitions as other drugs (controlled status). This stuff will not be for sale over the counter, forcing people to see a doctor to get a prescription for it, which means they will need a reason for the prescription, which means they will have to have some type of condition to qualify for it.

Its a circular argument. The meth is there because of government prohibition. If the government allowed it, the same prohibition that would go into controlling the manufacturing and sales of it, would be the new argument as to why there is a black market for it.

reply to post by Sacri


Lol already answered this. I don't smoke, and don't care for it, and I think its a health issue for the people doing it, as well as the people around them who have to inhale the 2nd hand stuff. I think it should be outlawed as well, but that is my tiny opinion vs whats acceptable to society as a whole right now.

Originally posted by shagreen heart
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

right, decriminalized, not legalized....

You still get a citation for it, still have a lawyer assigned to you, and still have a penalty. The difference being is treatment instead of imprisonment.

The only way it will work is if the person accept the treatment and wants to make a change in their life. What happens in Portugal when they don't want the help? We return to punishment.

For debate sake I think we need to change our approach here in the states, from the current 75/25 to 75/25, give or take (75% enforcement / 25% treatment to 25% enforcement / 75% treatment).

I don't think legalizing all drugs will work out with the expectations we think. I also don't think the treatment side will work unless the person being treated wants the help to change their habits.

Alcohol, which was illegal at one point, still has issues in the ways of Kickapoo joy juice, white lightning etc. So we can use the alcohol industry as a possible example that even government oversight and regulation does not completely work here either.

There will always be a portion of society who want to play by their own rules, no matter what the government says, so there is no getting around this.

My personal and professional opinion is we should not pigeon hole ourselves into one argument or the other. I think this problem needs as much support from as many sides as it can get in order to help people out.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by shagreen heart
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

right, decriminalized, not legalized....

You still get a citation for it, still have a lawyer assigned to you, and still have a penalty. The difference being is treatment instead of imprisonment.

The only way it will work is if the person accept the treatment and wants to make a change in their life. What happens in Portugal when they don't want the help? We return to punishment.

yeah, uh... i posted the link because it's topical to this thread. i realize the distinction between decriminalization and legalization. those people who refuse treatment are punished because they were caught with illegal substances on them... but rather than the cruel and unusual punishment of years in federal prison, they can get cleaned up or pay a fine and remain a citizen without costing outrageous amounts of money for their family, and country.

reply to post by Xcathdra




The Swiss government made a lot of headways in the prescription of Heroin to "junkies" They got the prescription not based on any other means except that they where users.


have a read Switzerlands Heroin Trial

reply to post by Xcathdra

If the government decided to allow for the production of Meth in a sterile environment, do you really think people who take meth now will buy it?

Again, I am going to be a stickler for your choice of words. The government doesn't "allow" free market meth today, and yet people still use it without a prescription. That pretty much pokes all sorts of holes in your "allow" argument. All markets respond to supply and demand. Do you understand? Meth on the free market will have a better chance of being produced in a sterile environment with stricter controls, but in terms of "highs", whatever the demand, suppliers will do their best to respond to that demand.

Do you really think if the government legalizes meth, that it wont fall under the same narcotic definitions as other drugs (controlled status). This stuff will not be for sale over the counter, forcing people to see a doctor to get a prescription for it, which means they will need a reason for the prescription, which means they will have to have some type of condition to qualify for it.

This is why I am being a stickler for the use of your language. I am not advocating "legalization", I am advocating the repeal of prohibitive legislation. There is a profound difference.

Its a circular argument. The meth is there because of government prohibition. If the government allowed it, the same prohibition that would go into controlling the manufacturing and sales of it, would be the new argument as to why there is a black market for it.

You are making a circular argument, I am not. I am asserting that the meth is there to supply a demand. I am further arguing that in the United States the government is expressly limited by Constitutions in what they can legislate. I understand that under current case law that the legislation of prohibition has been upheld as Constitutional, but the courts have been known to reverse themselves on decisions, and regarding this issue, the people can continue to use the courts and other means as a way to have this trend reversed.

As long as drugs are on the free and open market, free from oppressive government regulation and taxation, there will be a limited demand for a black market. All sorts of items can be found on the black market, and someone can buy a stolen television set on the black market, so I am not arguing that complete free market principles will eliminate the black market, but they will certainly limit the demand for a black market.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You are making a huge assumption that if the government didn't "prohibit" the market, that it would be safer. I don't buy it, as there will always be someone who wants to use lesser quality ingredients in order to make a buck.

Explain how, if the government didn't prohibit, how it would work out? What you are advocating, if I am understanding you correctly, is to completely remove government period from the drug equation right?

As for the legal argument you are bringing up, sure the courts can make changes through case law, or the Government can make new laws that would either be upheld, or shot down as being unconstitutional.

Your argument would be ok if we had a government full of strict constitutionalists that believed that whats written is it. Until that mindset changes, we have to live in the reality we are in, where certain drugs are illegal. I enforce the laws, I don't make them. I don't judge nor sentence people, that is the courts responsibility.

Any attempt to legalize will result in Government oversight and regulation - period.
Any attempt to removed the government "prohibition" will result in a market that will continue to be unchecked, and imo would do more harm than good.

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by highlyoriginal
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about because I definitely would not say 'most' people with drug charges have criminal charges as well... and you're putting 'Domestic violence, assault, car prowls and burgs' into that mix? Give me a break. I've done many, many drugs I admit that, but I never once stole or hurt someone over them.

He is simply confusing drug users with drug addicts.

The truth is that a drug addict's problems have nothing to do with any particular drug.

The symptom might be addiction to drugs but the problem is the underlying emotional or psychological issue that causes self destructive behavior.

The problem can not be solved by attempting to outlaw drugs because anything can be abused.

But logically we can't morally hold all drug users responsible for the problems of drug addicts.

Drug use itself is not immoral.
Drug addiction is a symptom of a problem but also is not immoral.

While many criminals may also be drug addicts it is important to understand the difference between correlation and causation.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by Jezus

 

Can you provide scientific proof that when people don't "abuse" the drugs listed there is no damage from its use? This is one of the more bizarre statements I have seen about drugs (no offense intended by this comment, just saying).

I didn't say that there was "no damage" I am speaking relatively.

Compared to alcohol and meth, coc aine and heroin are by far physically benign; as long as you allow your body to go back to equilibrium after use.

This is easily understand if you understand the way these drug effect our brain.

The best analogy I can give is as follows.

Cocaine and heroin = poking specific parts of your brain with a needle for a desired effect.

Alcohol and meth = mashing your skull with a hammer for the side effects.

reply to post by Xcathdra

You are making a huge assumption that if the government didn't "prohibit" the market, that it would be safer. I don't buy it, as there will always be someone who wants to use lesser quality ingredients in order to make a buck.

The market place today is enormously regulated yet there are countless examples of unscrupulous businesses user lesser quality ingredients in order to make a buck. Regardless of how much government intervention in the market there is, the adage caveat emptor remains prudent advice.

Explain how, if the government didn't prohibit, how it would work out? What you are advocating, if I am understanding you correctly, is to completely remove government period from the drug equation right?

I advocate free market principles. This means not just with drugs, but with all goods and services. A free and unregulated market is what I am advocating, without any government restrictions to competition, which means licensing schemes shouldn't be imposed either. Further, I am not at all a fan of the corporate charter and its grant of limited liability. I argue that in a free market system, massive competition must be fostered, and corporatism is the direct antithesis to this. Let anyone who cares to enter the market as a proprietor, and let them assume full responsibility for their actions, not grant them legal protection from liability, but let them accept responsibility completely. One of the purposes of government under such conditions would be to facilitate civil and criminal disputes regarding business practices. To some degree that is the case today, but when governments are issuing corporate charters, granting immunity from liability, the ability to hold those acting criminally becomes more difficult.

There is nothing criminal about using drugs. The argument that they lead to criminal behavior is a fallacious argument known as the slippery slope argument. Advocating prohibition legislation because of slippery slope arguments, arguing that this or that should be criminalized because it leads to crime, is Orwellian in its nature. Criminalizing potential criminals is not that different than thought crimes.

Your argument would be ok if we had a government full of strict constitutionalists that believed that whats written is it. Until that mindset changes, we have to live in the reality we are in, where certain drugs are illegal. I enforce the laws, I don't make them. I don't judge nor sentence people, that is the courts responsibility.

You are not just simply enforcing the current legislation prohibiting drugs, you are advocating the conservation of that legislation. In that regard, you most assuredly are judging drug users. The reality is that under the current legal environment those courts have granted you as a LEO a certain amount of discretionary leeway. Which means you do not have to press charges against every drug user you encounter. You have the discretion to chose other options in this matter. Perhaps you actually do use this discretion, I don't know. I'm just saying, that's all.

In terms of the courts responsibility, those charged with "crimes" of drug use have the right to a jury of their peers, and that jury has the right to judge not just the facts, but the law as well. Just as you have the discretion to not charge a drug user with a crime, juries have the discretion to not convict them of a crime as well. The people do not necessarily have to wait for the Supreme Court to reverse themselves, and can one case at a time begin sending a strong message to Congress and state legislatures that they do not approve of criminalizing drug users simply for using drugs.

Any attempt to legalize will result in Government oversight and regulation - period. Any attempt to removed the government "prohibition" will result in a market that will continue to be unchecked, and imo would do more harm than good.

Your argument that lack of government oversight on the market will result in more harm than good blatantly ignores the current reality of government oversight filled with corruption and unchecked business practices that has demonstrably done more harm than good.

reply to post by Jezus



Lol mashing.. poking.. 2 terms I wouldn't want to use to describe anything relating to my brain functions. I understand what you are saying, but its not exactly that specific for each person. People react differently to the drugs, some with no effects, others who go off the deep end.

Take heroin for an example. It affects the opiate receptors in your brain (you have 4 different types of opiate receptors, give or take 40mg is the max it can handle). Depending on which one is stimulated to what degree will get you different reactions.

To me it goes back to the question of why we would legalize / un-prohibit something, and not put a mechanism in place to regulate ingredients etc.

Removing any type of government overview in the illicit drug arena seems counter productive. If we want to assist people through treatment, shouldn't the government know what ingredients are being used, in what dosages, etc, to better help the person?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Caveat emptor - Completely agree with you here.

Unregulated free market.. Eh, not a fan of this for a few reasons. If the government does not set standards for whats acceptable and whats not, then the argument of civil and criminal action you made are unnecessary, since the person would have no legal standing in court, since there are no standards that were violated, IE no crime was committed.

I believe Government can do good, but only when the people it represents take an active part in the process as an additional checks and balance. Absent participation by the people, then I can see how people would see Government as a hindrance instead of a help.

I think removing government from the market system would lead to a total breakdown of the system, from quality control, to price gouging, to using potentially dangerous ingredients in order to make a larger profit, with the end result being dead, damaged, etc population.

We can look at this first hand with what occurred in China and their milk processing. Coca Cola and what occurred in India, etc etc.

Is there a middle area? I don't know. Based on my training and experience dealing with people who medicate themselves, whether it be by legal or illegal drugs, I can say I personally want some type of regulation and government oversight in the drug arena.

I think we should try to offer treatment in addition to criminal penalties for those who don't want help and want to place others in danger through their actions while on a substance, whether it be drugs, nicotine or alcohol.

I have been in one fight involving a subject on PCP. He felt no pain because of the drugs. It took 10 + of us to bring the guy under control. Had we had fewer officers, we would have been forced to shoot the guy dead because we could not control him.

These are my reasons for my views on drugs and treatment, and why I think oversight is required if we want to make them legal. Decriminalization based on the Portugal system might work, and It think it would be studied to see if we can set up programs here in the states to see if it works for our system.

I think as a society, we owe it to ourselves to help each other out. At the same time, I don't think we should assist others in a habit that causes issues in most people (not all).

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You are not just simply enforcing the current legislation prohibiting drugs, you are advocating the conservation of that legislation. In that regard, you most assuredly are judging drug users. The reality is that under the current legal environment those courts have granted you as a LEO a certain amount of discretionary leeway. Which means you do not have to press charges against every drug user you encounter. You have the discretion to chose other options in this matter. Perhaps you actually do use this discretion, I don't know. I'm just saying, that's all.

You are misunderstanding judging. I don't judge people, the courts do. As far as a personal judgment goes, sure.. We all do it, and anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

I have used common sense when it comes to the performance of my duties. This includes overlooking weed, submitting charges with a separate letter of recommendation to the PA. I have stopped drunk drivers for offense other than me thinking they are drunk (speeding) and instead of assisting in the destruction of their life from a DWI conviction at an early age, I have "arrested" the person and transported them to their house and released them into the custody of their parents. I remind these people that I have a year to file charges, and any more contact with law enforcement would result in the charges being filed.

Does this work all the time? Nope. Sometimes though in my job scaring the hell out of someone does a lot more good than forcing a confrontation with the criminal justice system who in fact does view people more as stats than what law enforcement does. Not everyplace acts like this, but you get the idea.

I take into account the entire situation, including letting the person tell me their story as to how we ended up with contact with law enforcement.

Actions will be dependent upon the situation at hand. The DWI pursuit I was in with a 19 year old with no criminal history did not result in the guy being released to his parents. In addition to the DWI charge, several others were added to it.

The thing that gets me is if I have contact with someone who is under the influence of drugs, and they are not driving a car, I have no valid recourse to charge the person. They have not broken a law.

If they are under 21 and "visibly intoxicated" then I can charge them with minor in possession by consumption.

Law Enforcement doesn't make these laws up though, the people do.

In terms of the courts responsibility, those charged with "crimes" of drug use have the right to a jury of their peers, and that jury has the right to judge not just the facts, but the law as well. Just as you have the discretion to not charge a drug user with a crime, juries have the discretion to not convict them of a crime as well. The people do not necessarily have to wait for the Supreme Court to reverse themselves, and can one case at a time begin sending a strong message to Congress and state legislatures that they do not approve of criminalizing drug users simply for using drugs.

You are over simplifying the jury system. Juries are generally given instructions by the judge in terms of what they can consider depending on the charges present (1st degree murder or a lesser charge of 2nd murder etc). It is possible to have the verdict of the jury set aside through whats called jury nullification.

This is where the jury comes to a conclusion that ignores the weight of the evidence presented to them. If I respond to a domestic, and don't take anyone to jail, I am still required by law to submit a report to the PA for review, and charges if they see fit. The argument that Law Enforcement has leeway is correct to an extent. Just because we don't submit charges will not prevent the PA from submitting their own as they are allowed to do.

Your argument that lack of government oversight on the market will result in more harm than good blatantly ignores the current reality of government oversight filled with corruption and unchecked business practices that has demonstrably done more harm than good.

edit on 12-10-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

Label it how you, at least under this system I have legal recourse. If you remove the Government from this equation, where there are no standards in place to violate, you have no legal standing for recourse if you are done wrong. Caveat Emptor is fine, until you are dead from what you think is a quality product, when in actuality its rat poison labeled something else.

How is that not doing more harm than good by blatantly lying to the consumer? How does it do more good when there is no setup in place to go after the person who sold the rat poison as something else to the guy you bought it from?

No oversight doesnt work, to much oversight doesnt work.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Unregulated free market.. Eh, not a fan of this for a few reasons. If the government does not set standards for whats acceptable and whats not, then the argument of civil and criminal action you made are unnecessary, since the person would have no legal standing in court, since there are no standards that were violated, IE no crime was committed.

This is not true. If a business has done harm to a customer, that customer has legal standing. The legal standard places the burden of proof upon the customer, but they do have legal standing.

I believe Government can do good, but only when the people it represents take an active part in the process as an additional checks and balance. Absent participation by the people, then I can see how people would see Government as a hindrance instead of a help.

I am not arguing that government cannot do good. I am arguing that the government that governs best is the government that governs least. Under such a principle, your argument of active participation by the people becomes more likely, and by that I mean, where self government is held with high regard, people tend to be more actively engaged in that self government. When the nanny state is held in high regard, people tend to allow the government to handle their problems.

I think removing government from the market system would lead to a total breakdown of the system, from quality control, to price gouging, to using potentially dangerous ingredients in order to make a larger profit, with the end result being dead, damaged, etc population.

Everything you've just described exists today under a regulated market place. Because of the immense amount of regulation, too many people have become too lax in the principle of caveat emptor, and when confronted with a lack of quality control, price gouging, and demonstrable dangerous ingredients, they whine and cry and scream that their government isn't doing enough, all of this having the predictable end result of a dead, damaged, etc., population.

We can look at this first hand with what occurred in China and their milk processing. Coca Cola and what occurred in India, etc etc.

Both China and India have highly regulated market places by the governments.

Is there a middle area? I don't know. Based on my training and experience dealing with people who medicate themselves, whether it be by legal or illegal drugs, I can say I personally want some type of regulation and government oversight in the drug arena.

You have some type of regulation and government oversight in the drug arena, and I'm willing to bet that your personal experience that is guiding your bias is filled with examples of people who've committed crimes, (real crimes with demonstrable victims), who were using or high on drugs while committing these crimes. What did prohibition and government oversight accomplish?

I think we should try to offer treatment in addition to criminal penalties for those who don't want help and want to place others in danger through their actions while on a substance, whether it be drugs, nicotine or alcohol.

Placing others in danger due to ones actions is a crime, and there is no need to criminalize substances in order to effectively prosecute and convict people who commit these crimes of placing others in dangers. Governments responsibility is to protect the rights of people. If a person abrogates and derogates another person's, or other people's rights, this is a crime. Using drugs, in and of itself, is not abrogating and/or derogating anyone's rights.

I have been in one fight involving a subject on PCP. He felt no pain because of the drugs. It took 10 + of us to bring the guy under control. Had we had fewer officers, we would have been forced to shoot the guy dead because we could not control him.

The reality is that prohibitive legislation did nothing at all to change this circumstance.

I think as a society, we owe it to ourselves to help each other out. At the same time, I don't think we should assist others in a habit that causes issues in most people (not all).

Criminalizing drug use is not helping people, and repealing the legislation that criminalizes it is not assisting drug habits. The prohibition legislation has assisted expansion of government, and has assisted syndicated crime.

It was pointed out to me that I have made changes to my posts after others have responded to it. This is not done intentionally and I apologize if that's the way it looks. I get passionate in some of these debates / discussions and usually think of something else to post after I hit the post button.

I will try to limit this lol.

Sorry

reply to post by Xcathdra


Ahh...if you're finding small deal bags and lists of names, and plenty of cash, then yeah, i'd agree it's probably 'fair cop governor' time!

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I pretty much agree with everything you've said in this post.

Well said Jean Paul.

This is what i like about ATS..you can read members posts for months and yet find absolutely zero common intellectual ground. Then along comes a post containing a point of view on another subject and complete synchronicity of thinking occurs.

Amazing.