A Glass of Port and a Shot of Heroin

There are so many sides to the “war on drugs.” Even the big pharmaceutical companies have dirty hands. If you manufacture opioids, have spent millions and millions of dollars convincing consumers, hospitals and doctors – rather successfully – that you have an easy path to dull pain from all kinds of ailments, facilitate surgery, why would you really support government efforts to contain their use? Fentanyl? Oxycodon? The most obvious gateway drugs today.

Add to that the rather obvious vectors – notwithstanding Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ finger wagging to the contrary – sweeping the nation to legalize marijuana. The September 14^th post on Governing.com tells us: “Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia currently have laws broadly legalizing marijuana in some form.

“Seven states and the District of Columbia have adopted the most expansive laws legalizing marijuana for recreational use. Most recently, California, Massachusetts, Maine and Nevada all passed measures in November legalizing recreational marijuana. California’s Prop. 64 measure allows adults 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants in their homes. Other tax and licensing provisions of the law will not take effect until January 2018.

“Several legislatures in states recently passing legalization measures are debating regulatory proposals around the use and sale of marijuana. Massachusetts lawmakers were weighing bills earlier this year that would lower the amount residents can legally possess and place restrictions on retail stores.” What happened to Nancy Reagan’s “Just say no” campaign? Or the 1936 Reefer Madness film that warned that marijuana use would lead to demonic behavior? Folks have known forever that not all drugs have the same impact… even as the government has been trying to convince us otherwise… destroying their own credibility.

As anybody remotely familiar with the subject knows – and that includes just about every police department in the United States – the “War on Drugs” was lost a long time ago, even though we continue to fight that battle as the number of drug users soars. “The War on Drugs is an American term usually applied to the United States government's campaign of prohibition of drugs, military aid, and military intervention, with the stated aim being to reduce theillegal drug trade. This initiative includes a set of drug policies that are intended to discourage the production, distribution, and consumption of psychoactive drugs that the participating governments and the UN have made illegal. The term was popularized by the media shortly after a press conference given on June 18, 1971, by United States President Richard Nixon—the day after publication of a special message from President Nixon to the Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control—during which he declared drug abuse ‘public enemy number one.’ That message to the Congress included text about devoting more federal resources to the ‘prevention of new addicts, and the rehabilitation of those who are addicted,’ but that part did not receive the same public attention as the term ‘war on drugs.’ However, two years prior to this, Nixon had formally declared a ‘war on drugs’ that would be directed toward eradication, interdiction, and incarceration. Today, the Drug Policy Alliance, which advocates for an end to the War on Drugs, estimates that the United States spends $51 billion annually on these initiatives.” Wikipedia.

Former Mexican President, Harvard University-educated Vicente Fox, looking at the cartel carnage that has devastated his own country, reluctantly came to the conclusion that the time to legalize (and control) recreational narcotics has come. “‘Prohibition didn't work in the Garden of Eden. Adam ate the apple,’ says Fox, 68 [in 2011], looking relaxed in a polo shirt — in contrast to his stressful last days in office. ‘We have to take all the production chain out of the hands of criminals and into the hands of producers — so there are farmers that produce marijuana and manufacturers that process it and distributors that distribute it and shops that sell it ... I don't want to say that legalizing means that drugs are good. They are not good but bad for your health, and you shouldn't take them. But ultimately, this responsibility is with citizens.’” Time Magazine, 1/19/2011.

So what happens when a nation actually legalizes (or at least decriminalizes) drugs… not just marijuana but heroin, cocaine, etc.? Does the country turn into a nation of drug-crazed zombies attacking ordinary citizens trying to go about their business? No, that’s the inner city of too many American large cities. That’s not modern Portugal, a country that decriminalized the use of such narcotics back in 2001. With more than a decade and a half of experience with this program, it becomes useful to look at the results.

New York Times editorial contributor, Nicholas Kristof, looked at the program in his September 22^nd piece with a title that says it all: How to Win a War on Drugs - Portugal treats addiction as a disease, not a crime. Kristof’s conclusions: “Decades ago, the United States and Portugal both struggled with illicit drugs and took decisive action — in diametrically opposite directions. The U.S. cracked down vigorously, spending billions of dollars incarcerating drug users. In contrast, Portugal undertook a monumental experiment: It decriminalized the use of all drugs in 2001, even heroin and cocaine, and unleashed a major public health campaign to tackle addiction. Ever since in Portugal, drug addiction has been treated more as a medical challenge than as a criminal justice issue.

“After more than 15 years, it’s clear which approach worked better. The United States drug policy failed spectacularly, with about as many Americans dying last year of overdoses — around 64,000 — as were killed in the Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq Wars combined… In contrast, Portugal may be winning the war on drugs — by ending it. Today, the Health Ministry estimates that only about 25,000 Portuguese use heroin, down from 100,000 when the policy began.

“The number of Portuguese dying from overdoses plunged more than 85 percent before rising a bit in the aftermath of the European economic crisis of recent years. Even so, Portugal’s drug mortality rate is the lowest in Western Europe — one-tenth the rate of Britain or Denmark — and about one-fiftieth the latest number for the U.S…

“It’s not a miracle or perfect solution. But if the U.S. could achieve Portugal’s death rate from drugs, we would save one life every 10 minutes. We would save almost as many lives as are now lost to guns and car accidents combined.”

It’s not an open Portuguese door with free access to drugs, drug use is certainly not encouraged, and it’s not as if drug dealing is an acceptable profession in the streets of Lisbon. While the use of illegal narcotics did seem to increase when the program began – perhaps more because admitting drug use did not result in immediate incarceration, so the problem came to the surface – that statistic soon subsided.

 “Portugal switched to its health focus under the leadership of a socialist prime minister named António Guterres — and if the name sounds familiar, it’s because he’s now the United Nations secretary general. The new approach was a gamble. ‘We were facing a devastating situation, so we had nothing to lose,’ recalled João Castel-Branco Goulão, a public health expert and the architect of the policy (‘our national hero,’ as one Portuguese cabinet minister told me).

“So let’s be clear on what Portugal did and didn’t do. First, it didn’t change laws on drug trafficking: Dealers still go to prison. And it didn’t quite legalize drug use, but rather made the purchase or possession of small quantities (up to a 10-day supply) not a crime but an administrative offense, like a traffic ticket.

“Offenders are summoned to a ‘Dissuasion Commission’ hearing — an informal meeting at a conference table with social workers who try to prevent a casual user from becoming addicted… The public health approach arises from an increasingly common view worldwide that addiction is a chronic disease, perhaps comparable to diabetes, and thus requires medical care rather than punishment. After all, we don’t just tell diabetics, Get over it.

“My sense from observing the hearings and talking to users is that the Dissuasion Commission isn’t terribly effective at dissuading. How successful could a 15-minute session be? Then again, criminal sanctions also seem ineffective at discouraging drug use: When scholars look at the impact of crackdowns, they find there’s typically little impact.” NY Times. The program has even had a positive impact on reducing the number of HIV infections from shared needless. Anyone who has ever parented a teenager probably has some familiarity of the response to a “just say no” admonition. Americans clearly have trouble dealing with reality, more these days that I have ever witnessed. But reality just goes on anyway.

I’m Peter Dekom, and I remember someone saying that repeating the same behavior (like the war on drugs that has never worked) and expecting a different result is a definition of insanity.