Decriminalization of Drug Possession Doesn't Increase Drug Use, New Report Finds

Ernest Drucker - HuffPo
Posted: 07/07/2012


Drug "legalization" is no mystery. A new report shows that there are many alternatives to drug prohibition -- and all of them improve things.

Alcohol prohibition in the United States -- in place from 1920 to 1933-- was a national ban on the sale, manufacture and transportation of alcohol. Ending alcohol prohibition in 1933 required a new constitutional amendment, repealing the one that made alcohol illegal in the first place. Yet many people act as though creating alternatives to drug prohibition (drug legalization) would be like changing one of the 10 Commandments.

Just like ending alcohol prohibition, making the current crop of drugs legal simply means changing the laws.

But changing the laws has been turned into a bloody legal and political battle that is about everything except drugs. Instead of endless rhetoric and empty speculation about how and why it can't be done, we need to be talking about actual solutions.

Mexico, which just elected a new president, appears ready to do whatever it takes to put an end to the horrific violence of failed drug prohibition policy that has already caused over 60,000 murders.

In the United States, the rise of overdose deaths is increasingly from "legal" pharmaceuticals -- showing that the need to change how we regulate and control dangerous drugs is an urgent matter for us too.

What most Americans don't realize is that drug laws are now changing around the world -- step by step and country by country. And a new report concludes that decriminalization of drug possession has not led to increase in drug use.

The report, published by Release, the U.K.'s "national centre of expertise on drugs and drug laws," reviews the evidence in 21 countries that have adopted some form of decriminalization and finds that the model of enforcement adopted has little impact on the rates of drug use in these countries -- but has a profound impact on the use of arrest and prisons for drug users. (In fact, the huge social and economic costs that accompany drug prohibition are a form of violence in themselves.)

The report, "A Quiet Revolution: Drug Decriminalization Policies in Practice across the Globe", finds that "countries and States as disparate as Belgium, Estonia, Australia, Mexico, Uruguay, the Netherlands and Portugal have adopted different models of decriminalization." Some countries (Spain and the Netherlands) have been moving towards decriminalization since the 1970s -- with the result that their drug use rates are lower than in the United States.

It's time for the United States to shake its obsession with drug prohibition and join the successful global movement that is reducing the problems that come not from the drugs per se, which are amenable to smart and well tested medical and social policies, but to bad drug policies.

The War on Drugs is Lost

Sunday, January 23, 2011 by The Toronto Star
by Fernando Henrique Cardoso

SAO PAULO—The war on drugs is a lost war, and 2011 is the time to move away from a punitive approach in order to pursue a new set of policies based on public health, human rights and common sense. These are the core findings of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy that I convened, together with former presidents Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico and César Gaviria of Colombia.

We became involved with this issue for a compelling reason: the violence and corruption associated with drug trafficking represents a major threat to democracy in our region. This sense of urgency led us to evaluate current policies and look for viable alternatives. The evidence is overwhelming that the prohibitionist approach, based on repression of production and criminalization of consumption, has clearly failed.

After 30 years of massive effort, all prohibitionism has achieved is to shift areas of cultivation and drug cartels from one country to another (the so-called balloon effect). Latin America remains the world’s largest exporter of cocaine and marijuana. Thousands of young people continue to lose their lives in gang wars. Drug lords rule by fear over entire communities.

We ended our report with a call for a paradigm shift. The illicit drug trade will continue as long as there is demand for drugs. Instead of sticking to failed policies, that do not reduce the profitability of the drug trade — and thus its power — we must redirect our efforts to the harm caused by drugs to people and societies, and to reducing consumption.

Some kind of drug consumption has existed throughout history in the most diverse cultures. Today, drug use occurs throughout society. All kinds of people use drugs for all kinds of reasons: to relieve pain or experience pleasure, to escape reality or enhance their perception of it.

But the approach recommended in the commission’s statement does not imply complacency. Drugs are harmful to health. They undermine users’ decision-making capacity. Needle-sharing spreads HIV/AIDS and other diseases. Addiction can lead to financial ruin and domestic abuse, especially of children.

Cutting consumption as much as possible must, therefore, be the main goal. But this requires treating drug users not as criminals to be incarcerated, but as patients to be cared for. Several countries are pursuing policies that emphasize prevention and treatment rather than repression — and refocusing their repressive measures on fighting the real enemy: organized crime.

The crack in the global consensus around the prohibitionist approach is widening. A growing number of countries in Europe and Latin America are moving away from a purely repressive model.

Portugal and Switzerland are compelling examples of the positive impact of policies centred on prevention, treatment and harm reduction. Both countries have decriminalized drug possession for personal use. Instead of leading to an explosion of drug consumption, as many feared, the number of people seeking treatment increased and overall drug use fell.

When the policy approach shifts from criminal repression to public health, drug users are more open to seeking treatment. Decriminalization of consumption also reduces the power of dealers to influence and control consumers’ behaviour.

In our report, we recommend evaluating from a public-health standpoint — and on the basis of the most advanced medical science — the merits of decriminalizing possession of cannabis for personal use.

Marijuana is by far the most widely used drug. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the harm it causes is at worst similar to the harm caused by alcohol or tobacco. Moreover, most of the damage associated with marijuana use — from the indiscriminate incarceration of consumers to the violence and corruption associated with the drug trade — is the result of current prohibitionist policies.

Decriminalization of cannabis would thus be an important step forward in approaching drug use as a health problem and not as a matter for the criminal justice system.

To be credible and effective, decriminalization must be combined with robust prevention campaigns. The steep and sustained drop in tobacco consumption in recent decades shows that public information and prevention campaigns can work when based on messages that are consistent with the experience of those whom they target. Tobacco was deglamourized, taxed and regulated; it has not been banned.

No country has devised a comprehensive solution to the drug problem. But a solution need not require a stark choice between prohibition and legalization. The worst prohibition is the prohibition to think. Now, at last, the taboo that prevented debate has been broken. Alternative approaches are being tested and must be carefully reviewed.

At the end of the day, the capacity of people to evaluate risks and make informed choices will be as important to regulating the use of drugs as more humane and efficient laws and policies. Yes, drugs erode people’s freedom. But it is time to recognize that repressive policies toward drug users, rooted as they are in prejudice, fear and ideology, may be no less a threat to liberty.