Nice. For a while now I've considered Branson one of the better billionaires out there. I wasn't aware he was interested in this scene. Hopefully he'll make some generous contributions to the Drug Policy Alliance or NORML. I'm also happy to see Portugal's experiment getting more notice. Speaking of which, the CATO institute (whom I don't often agree with) has a good paper on Portugal's decriminalization.

It's great to see someone so high profile who is willing to speak out like that. Embarrassingly for me I was completely unaware that this was being done in portugal. I think it is almost universally understood, by anyone who objectively studies the subject, that treatment is more cost effective, and FAR more effective at harm reduction, than the penal system. Incarceration should, in my opinion, be used only when a person is showing themselves to be a danger which society need protection from (I would include high scale white collar criminals in this definition).

In light of what has gone on in portugal I cant see how our various governments can possibly argue that the current drug policies are designed to be in the interests of the people.

Decriminalize everything... work from there. This is the only path that is conducive to not only helping those with serious drug problems, but also to helping society as a whole and of course giving a level of liberty to people who enjoy drugs responsibly.

...Well said phOG, my sentiments exactly!


-What's maddenning is that despite scientific evidence proving that alcohol and cigarrettes cause more harm to society and the individual than cannabis and ecstacy does, they are still kept on sale , whilst the others remain illegal. It doesn't make sense.One would have thought by now that logic and common sense would be widespread, but no, not at all. In fact the way modern day government treats it's own people, and dictates their choice of 'freedoms' is a crime against humanity. And we are NOT free, but lied to. We find it hard to breathe in fear of creating an "offense", life has become stifled and a breeding ground for stress. The war on drugs is making countries criminilize it's own peoples who simply want some mental space from the overstrict, unnatural concrete society.Rather than a joyful experience, life is becoming a burdon. Freedom is at a premium, our modern day society is fast becoming a high security nanny state type prison. We are being fed fear and lies, and one day something's gotta give, because people are getting wise to this!

-Branson is right. It's interesting to see that the more liberal countries such as Holland and Portugal have less drug problems than the overstrict USA does. Perhaps the drug problem is generated by the need for humans to drug themselves as a means of finding some escape in an overstrict society??...Perhaps when the countries learn to relax the people control stance, then their peoples can relax too, and don't need to take drugs so much, even if they are easily available??

-Why should we let our government mistreat us as the underdog, by over-dictating and over-controlling our hard earnt freedoms. We should all make a stand for this. We fought for our freedom, and have been shortchanged. Instead we find ourselves trapped once again and enslaved into a system as "working entities", where there is little escape (or freedom!)

" it's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom, that's what it is...."

-maybe 2012, maybe??!!

Statistic of Sweden and Portugal (World drug report 2011)

Portugal Sweden

Opioids 0,46 0,1
Cocaine 0,60 0,50
Cannabis 3,60 1,20
Amphetamines 0,20 0,80
Ecstasy 0,30 0,10

Right on Richard

the link to the paper will not work, is there an alternative source of the paper?

Besides a couple inaccuracies, I don't know if I'm getting right the point of your post. Are you trying to suggest that the results in the Portugal experiment are "not that good", by comparing them to the data from Sweden? Or are you trying to applaud portuguese numbers by comparing them to the classic epitome of social progress in Europe?

In any case, I would like to post the numbers from the UN PDF document comparing Portugal with countries that are closer, both geographically and socially speaking, than Sweden.

a) Annual prevalence of use, as percentage of the population between 15 and 64 years of age.

Substance --------------- Sweden ------ France ------ Italy ------ Spain ------ Portugal

Opioids........................... 0,23 .............. 0,47..........0,55 .......0,13 ..........0,46
Cocaine........................... 0,5 ............... 0,6 ...........2,2 .........2,6 ...........0,6
Cannabis......................... 1,2 ............... 8,6 ..........14,6 .......10,6 ..........3,6
Amphetamines................ 0,8 ............... 0,2 ...........0,6 .........0,6 ...........0,2
Ecstasy............................ 0,1 ............... 0,5 ...........0,7 .........0,8 ...........0,4

But most specially,

b) Drug-related mortality. Deaths Per Million of Habitants.

Sweden: 69,2
France: 7,1
Italy: 12,3
Spain: 49,7
Portugal: 1,1

This last bit should dispel some doubts.

Vodsel, the point is that the argument of decriminalization and decreasing drug consumption is a double edged one because zero tolerance seems to lead to even lower consumption. I'm against the war on some drugs but I just don't think this argument (unless used in a specific before/after context) is a good one.

I don't know how I messed up the numbers, my bad.

gantz grof, paper attached.

It´s no news that treating addicts like sick people is healthier for them than treating them like criminals.


It´w weird that most crimes in sweden have joke punishments but drugs are not funny to get busted with.

The thing is, the criminal/public health debate is a false dichotomy...

When people engage in criminal activity (apart from the use of substances themselves) related to drugs (be it to obtain $ for substances or acts committed while under the influence) then drugs become a criminal issue.

When people endanger their health through drug use, be it as a result of the acute effects or the results of addiction, then drugs become a health issue.

Simply put, the vast majority of drug use falls into neither category and is merely within the domain of cognitive liberty, which should be a basic tenet of any so-called "free society."

Legalise drugs. Buyers can take out credit if they need money and don't have it. Same sort of thing like buying a house, car or anything actually. But if they commit crimes and steal for money- then sure, they need to be punished for they do not actually need to steal money, when they can get credit, etc, etc. (sort of thing)

Thanks for the paper, will browse it for sure.

I don't necessarily agree with all the claims that decriminalization or legalization lead necessarily to a lower consumption. As you suggest, the numbers about drug consumption depend on a lot of factors, and every case can be a world.

What I think is unarguable, though, is that decriminalization leads to a dramatic decrease of harmful side effects in drug use. The goal of drug policies, ideally and considering the circumstances, should be harm reduction at every level. Well, if I was to set the grounds for drug use policy, I would probably take into account the positive effects and convenience of allowing citizens to expand awareness and worldviews, but since that seems to be incompatible with the rules of engagement in our western society, let's consider only the harm reduction factor.

Even in the cases where a decriminalization would lead to equal, or even higher (temporarily or not) drug consumption, we have to add to the equation the quality of that consumption, the absence of liability due to the fact of consumption, the blow to drugs black market mechanisms (which also affect indirectly a lot of other spheres in society) and others.

I don't think that the drug consumption rate is the key factor in order to evaluate policies. What matters is the global impact of drug use in society. So I would say that the fact decriminalization might not necessarily decrease drug use, in some cases, should not be a factor against decriminalization policies.

I'm not sure why the link isn't working, I double checked to make sure the URL is correct. Here it is without the fancy link code: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

You can also just Google "Cato Portugal Decriminalization" and it's the first or second link.

I think educating people about drugs and addiction as separate issues is the single most effective way to reduce harmful effects and consumption. And I'm talking real education, not that DARE bullshit.

I smoke marijuana sometimes, and I use psychedelics sometimes. I even use cocaine sometimes. When I use them I make sure I dont become addicted to them because I understand the process of addiction and therefore how to avoid falling victim to it.

I dont however, use heroin ot oxycodone or methamphetamine or research chemicals because I am aware of the high risk involved and I personally dont trust myself to use them. Also, their effects are not what I desire.

The point is, my knowledge of different drugs and the process of addiction allow me to use them safely and responsibly. Whether or not they are legal has absolutely nothing to do with what drugs I choose to use.

This argument is and will be timeless well into the foreseeable future. As an advocate of simplicity wherever there is complexity, I say to hell with it--let's end the war on drugs. Why? Because it's a massive failure, and I don't need to bring up any misrepresented statistics to boot. It doesn't seem to work on any level, so what is there to lose? If this "experiment" too fails miserably, then we've not stepped either forward or backward. But politically speaking, it's a complicated issue, so that effectively rules out a simple solution. Sigh.

I think the tactic of research on psychiatric utility (such as recent work with psilocybin regarding depression, and with terminal cancer patients) will be the thing that ends prohibition.

Alcohol prohibition ended because virtually EVERYONE wanted the right to drink openly--unfortunately, that's not the case with entheogens. But the prohibitions against them starting in the 60's were a HYSTERICALLY overdone reaction to them coming onto the world stage at that time. I think that over-reaction is about ready to die out, and I think it will be helped by demonstrations of medical (and even "spiritual"--the cancer patients found the spiritual effects of psilocybin compelling and meaningful to them) uses.

I say we need to pick and choose our battles. We can't expect synthetics like heroine, coke, etc to be freed for legal public use. I say we focus on freeing the Plant Hallucinagenics. It will be these items that free the minds of the people. If we could manage to legalize psilocibyn mushroom and such the world would truly begin to transform. Synthetic items that degrade the body temple should remain illegal.

Cocaine is not synthetic.
Who gets to draw the lines of what "degrades the body temple"? Probably not psychonauts, sad though it is.
We can't expect any drugs to be freed for legal public use if those drugs do not make the people who are making the rules or their friends more wealthy. It is much easier to perform a soul and mind crushing job if you get to shut down your brain each night with ethanol. If everyone took psychedelics I would be surprised if the industrial system remained intact after ten years. Not that "What If..." is ever really a useful game to play.

How can we bring about the freedom of choice that we desire? By clawing for meaningful inches. Turn drug law legislation and enforcement from a criminal to a healthcare paradigm for example...