Time to rethink our policy on drugs experiences from Europe and Americas

1. Time to rethinkourpolicyondrugsexperiencesfromEuropeandAmericas Consequences of Portuguese drug use decriminalisation law Jorge Quintas U. Porto – Faculty of law - School of Criminology Transatlantic Conference Brussels, November 12, 2013

2. Portuguese drug use decriminalisation law

3. Drug use decriminalization law Law 30/2000 (November, 29) • Drug users «health and social protection» • Drug use is an administrative offence • Deterrence committees for drug addiction (health oriented) replaced the courts (Commissõespara a DissuasãodaToxicodependência – CDT) • Administrative Sanctions : • Non-addicted drug user - fine, others non-pecuniary penalties (e.g. community service; interdictions), warning • Addicted drug user - others non-pecuniary penalties (e.g. community service; interdictions), warning • Sanctions should be, however, suspended on behalf of « treatment »

4. Decriminalisation – we should expect more drug use? • Deterrence effect • Severity Decreases, namely by the removal of criminal threat? • Certainty Decreases, namely by police administrative offenses depreciation? • Celerity Increases? • Declaratory effect Decreases, namely by the removal of « symbolic » value of criminalisation?The message to society (social norm against drugs) is less effective? • Therapeutic effect CDT are more efficient (compared to courts) in promoting drug use offender treatment?

5. Decriminalisation - we should expect similar drug use? Deterrence scientific research • Aggregate research • null or small relation between policies, law or law enforcement and drug use (Boekhout Van Solinge, 1999; Cesoni, 2000; Cohen & Kaal, 2001; Kilmer, 2002; Korf, 2001; OEDT, 2001; OFS, 2002; Reuband, 1995; Sénat Canada, 2002, 2003) • Policy impact research (namely decriminalisation law’s studies) • little or no change in drug use (Ali, Christie, Lenton, Hawks, Sutton, Hall & Allsop, 1999; Atkinson & McDonald, 1995; Chaloupka, Grossman & Taurus, 1998; Chaloupka, Pacula, Farrely, Johnston & Bray, 1998; Christie, 1991; Donnelly & Hall, 1994; Donnelly, Hall & Christie, 1995, 1998; Hadorn, 1997; Johnston, Bachman & O’Malley, 1981; MacCoun, Model, Philips-Schockly & Reuter, 1995; MacCoun & Reuter, 1997, 1999, 2001; MacCoun; 2003; McGeorge & Aitken, 1997; Model, 1993; OFS, 2002; Pacula, Chriqui & King, 2003; Reuter & MacCoun, 1995; Saffer & Chaloupka, 1995; Single, 1989; Single & Christie, 2001; Single, Christie & Ali, 2000; Solivetti, 2001; Thies & Register, 1993; Thomas, 1998) • perceptual deterrence research • perceived risk or severity of sanctions have a null or small effect on drug use (Foglia, 1997; MacCoun, 1993; Paternoster, 1987, 1989; Paternoster & Piquero, 1995)

6. Drug use data

7. Drug use trend Drug use lifetime prevalence rate (ESPAD Surveys) 7

8. Drug addiction trend since 2008 alsoincludes Alcoholics (e.g. 2011 - 28%) 8 Sources: Relatório anual 2011, 2010. 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 e 2002 do IDT; Relatório anual 2001 do SPTT, Sumários de Informação Estatística 1994 do GPCCD

9. Drug harms trend(AIDS) 9 Sources: Relatório anual 2011 do IDT

10. Impact of drug use decriminalisation law • Drug use and drug harms • a null effect on drug use • matches with a decrease on drug addiction • matches with a decrease on drug harms • Portugal confirms the more expected scientific result of drug decriminalisation laws • a small or null effect on drug use and drug addiction

11. Law enforcement

12. Presumed infractors (Police data)

13. Sanctions (Court andCDT data)

14. Decriminalisation law effect • Law enforcement • Police action • A little more use and traffic charges • Decrease in action to heroine and cocaine markets and an increase in hashish market • In a tiny scenario of arrest probabilities for drug use • Justice action • A net-widenning effect (more extensive effective drug users prosecution) • More « treatment » for drug users • Stability of traffic convictions • Less severity in traffic sentences

15. Drug use law atittudes and knowledge

16. Drugs and law surveys 2003 - law and psychology students, adults, police officers, drug addicts (N = 232) 2011 and 2012–law, criminology and psychology students (N=247) We only use similar samples (law and psychology students) in comparative analysis (N=255)

17. Attitudes toward prohibition of … Disagree Agree

18. Attitudes toward drug use law’s Disagree Agree

19. Attitudes toward sanctions Disagree Agree

20. Knowledge of drug use law (%)

21. Attitudes and knowledge Attitudes Moderate preference for prohibition of drug use Mistrust in their efficacy Doubt about crime vs. decriminalisation Preference for treatment Knowledge Weak knowledge Uncertainty in deterrence analysis

22. Deterrence and normative predictors of drug use

23. Drug use predictors

24. Drug use predictors In normative samples (university students) Past behaviour (History) Norms (descriptive and relatives social norms) Personal risk of arrest (deterrence), but the estimation of drug use is positively correlated

25. Conclusions • Decriminalisation merits • Remove the criticism to the adequacy of penal law to drug use offences • More efficacy in the bridge legal system – health system (data not presented) • Well-matched with public moderate preference for prohibition of drug use and clear preference for treatment • A small or null effect on drug use and drug addiction • Decriminalisation limits • A small or null effect on drug use and drug addiction • History of use and norms are much more strong drug use predictors • Weak public knowledge • The ”net-widening effect” is insufficient • Legitimacy arguments (freedom, drug use sanctions, …)