t i s t h e s i t u a t io n i n P or t u g al 1 4 y e a r s a f t e r t h e r e f or m o f t h e dru g polic y R i t a ID: 473046
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "W h a" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
What is the situation in Portugal 14 years after the reform of the drug policy
R
i
t
a
F
a
r
i
a
J
o
r
g
e
Q
u
i
n
t
as
Sc
hool
of
C
r
i
m
i
no
l
ogy
–
F
ac
u
l
ty
of
L
a
w
of
the
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
ty
of
P
o
r
t
o
Cop
e
nh
a
g
e
n,
D
ece
m
b
e
r
2nd
201
5Slide2
Portuguese drug use decriminalisation lawLaw 30/2000 (November, 29)Main
goa
l
:
“
hea
l
th and
s
o
ci
al
p
r
ote
c
t
i
on
”
of
the d
r
ug
u
s
e
r
s
Dr
ug u
s
e
i
s
i
nte
r
d
ic
ted
Dr
ug u
s
e
i
s
an adm
i
n
is
t
r
at
iv
e
o
f
fen
c
e:
-
+
a
l
l
d
r
ug
s
;
-
+
li
m
i
ted
quant
i
t
i
e
s
;
-
+
no
c
r
i
m
i
nal
r
e
c
o
r
d
CD
T
:
C
omm
issi
ons
for
the d
iss
ua
si
on
of d
r
ug add
ic
t
i
on
(
hea
l
th o
r
i
ented
)
i
n
s
tead
of
c
ou
r
ts
(
C
o
m
i
ss
õe
s
para
a
D
i
ss
ua
s
ã
o
d
a
T
o
x
i
c
odependên
c
i
a)Slide3
Portuguese drug use decriminalisation lawLaw 30/2000 (November, 29)Adm
i
n
is
t
r
at
iv
e
San
c
t
i
ons
:
F
i
ne
(
e
x
c
ept for
add
ic
t
s
)
N
on
-
pe
c
un
i
a
r
y
pena
l
t
i
es
(
e.g.
c
ommun
i
ty
s
e
r
vic
e;
i
nte
r
d
ic
t
i
on
s
)
W
a
r
n
i
ng
Adm
i
n
is
t
r
at
iv
e
s
an
c
t
i
ons
s
hou
l
d
be
s
u
s
pended
on beha
l
f
of t
r
eatment
(
add
ic
t
s
)
or
i
nd
ic
ated
p
r
e
v
ent
i
on a
c
t
i
ons
(
non- add
ic
t
d
r
ug u
s
e
r
s
)Slide4
Law enforcement: Presumed offenders (police data)Slide5
Law enforcement: Sanctions and suspended sanctionsSlide6
Law enforcement: TrendsPresumed offenders, CDT decisions and convictions (drug use onl
y)
8
0
8
2
8
4
8
6
8
8
9
0
9
2
9
4
9
6
9
8
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
7
8
100
0
0
80
0
0
60
0
0
40
0
0
20
0
0
0
p
r
e
s
u
m
e
d
o
ff
e
n
d
e
r
s C
D
T
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
c
o
n
v
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
(
C
ou
r
t
s
)Slide7
Law enforcement: Decriminalisation law effectPolice actionA moderate increa
se
i
n
de
t
e
c
t
io
n
o
f
p
r
e
s
u
m
ed
off
enders (u
se and
traf
ficker)
-+M
ore ri
sk o
f arre
st (det
erren
ce va
riable)
Legal
actio
n
At least
thr
eefold
more
extens
ive e
ffec
tive
drug
users
pro
secu
tion
-+ A
net-
widening e
ffe
ctFin
e as
a
typic
al c
ourt
actio
n for
dru
g use repla
ced f
or CDT
suspende
d san
ctions
An unpa
ralleled
increase
in t
reatmen
t or indi
cat
ed p
rev
ention
actions
for
drug u
sers –
Much mor
e th
erap
euti
c and,
spec
iall
y,
pre
ven
tive
effo
rts d
ire
cte
d to
det
ect
ed drug
user
sS
tability
of t
raffi
cker
convi
ctions
and le
ss sev
erity
in s
entenc
esSlide8
Drug use data: trendsDrug use prevalence rate (General population Surveys)
0
8
6
4
2
1
0
1
4
1
2
2
00
1
2
00
7
C
a
nn
a
b
i
s
use
i
n
E
u
r
op
e:
P
ortu
g
a
l
Ra
nk
22/28
So
u
r
ces:
B
a
l
sa
e
t
a
l
.
(
2008
,
2013
)
;
E
M
CD
D
A
d
a
t
a
b
a
ses
2
01
2
L
i
fet
i
m
e
L
a
s
t
ye
a
rSlide9
Drug use data: trends
D
ru
g
us
e
li
f
e
ti
me
p
r
e
v
a
l
en
ce
r
a
t
e
(
E
S
P
A
D
S
u
r
v
e
y
s
;
a
m
on
g
15
–
1
6
y
ea
r
o
l
d
s
t
ude
n
t
s
)
2
5
0
1
0
po
r
t
u
g
a
l 5
1
5
2
0
1
9
9
5
1
9
9
9
2
0
0
3
2
0
07
20
11
1
9
eur
opean
count
rys
S
ources:
Hibell
et
al. (2012)Slide10
Drug addiction and drug related harmsSlide11
AIDS
0
2
5
0
5
0
0
7
5
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
5
0
8
4
8
5
8
6
8
7
8
8
8
9
9
0
9
1
9
2
9
3
9
4
9
5
9
6
9
7
9
8
9
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
A
I
DS
A
I
DS
- Drug
a
dd
ic
ts
A
I
DS
-
O
th
e
rs
Drug
a
dd
i
c
t
s
a
r
e
44%
of
a
l
l
n
o
t
ifi
ed
A
I
DS
c
a
ses
a
n
d
51%
of
d
e
a
t
hs
a
s a
r
esu
l
t
of A
IDSSlide12
14 years later…drug use stabilitydrug addiction decreasedrug related harms decrease
Po
rt
ugu
es
e
d
ecr
i
m
in
a
li
sat
ion
of
a
ll
d
r
ugs
c
on
firm
s ex
pecte
d scie
nti
fic
result
s (cf
. Qu
intas,
2006,
2011; Agra,
2009; Q
uintas
& Agra
, 20
10; Kur
y & Q
uint
as, 2010;
and also
ot
her s
chol
ars
e.g.
Hugh
es &
Steve
ns,
2010)Dru
g u
se is
not
decis
ively
aff
ecte
d by t
he rem
oval
of crimi
nal san
ctions
S
ee ex
tensi
ve lit
erature
about c
annabis
/mariju
ana
decrimi
nalisati
on ex
perience
s in U
SA an
d Aus
tralia
Additiona
lly, dru
g addi
ction
or drug
rela
ted har
ms indi
cator
s had
a positi
ve e
voluti
onSlide13
Aggregate comparative analysisSlide14
Aggregate comparative analysis: trendsRisk of arrest is not correl
ate
d
w
i
t
h
p
reva
l
e
n
c
e
of d
r
ug
u
s
e (Rs=-
.08
; p>.
05)
Decr
i
m
ina
lizat
ion is not
corre
lated
wit
h ca
nnabis
u
se (Rs=.
18;
p>.
05) or r
isk of
arrest
(Rs=-.14
; p
>.05
)
S
pain -
high
level
of
use a
nd
high
risk
of a
rre
st
Czech
Republic
- hi
gh le
vel o
f use
and v
ery
low ri
sk of a
rrest
I
taly -
median
lev
el o
f us
e a
nd lo
w risk
of arr
est
Portu
gal – l
ow lev
el of
use
and
median r
isk o
f arre
stSlide15
Knowledge and Attitudes towards drug use lawDrugs and law surveysN
o
r
mat
iv
e
s
amp
l
e
–
l
a
w
,
c
r
i
m
inology
and psyc
hology
students (N=247)
Dete
cted d
rug u
sers
– conta
cted at
CDT (
N = 101)Slide16
Knowledge and Attitudes towards drug use law
χ
2
=37
.
12:
p
<
.
001Slide17
Attitudes toward prohibition of …DisagreeAgree
D
E
T
E
C
T
E
D
D
RUG
US
E
R
S
S
T
U
D
E
N
T
S
A
l
l
p
<
.
05
,
e
x
ce
p
t
e
f
fic
a
cySlide18
Attitudes toward drug use law
D
E
T
E
C
T
E
D
D
RUG
US
E
R
S
S
T
U
D
E
N
T
S
A
l
l
p
<
.
05
A
gr
ee
Disa
gr
eeSlide19
Attitudes toward sanctions
D
E
T
E
C
T
E
D
D
RUG
US
E
R
S
S
T
U
D
E
N
T
S
A
l
l
p
<
.
05
A
gr
ee
Disa
gr
eeSlide20
Detected drug users experience with police and CDT(%)CDTPolice
N=
95
;
S
c
a
l
e
-
1
(
t
o
t
a
lly
disa
gree)
to
7 (to
tally
agree)
M
S
D
M
S
D
p
S
at
isfac
tion
6
.37
1,
04
3
,2
32
,29
<.
001
R
espe
ct
6.5
7
,97
4
,12
2
,24
<
.001
Proc
edura
l i
nform
atio
n6
.65
.80
4
,2
22
,11
<.00
1
Inve
sti
gate
th
e off
ence
6.5
2.
93
4
,01
2,27
<.
001
Inf
ormat
ion
about
risk
s of
drug
use
6.
67
.73
-
-
-
Provid
e acces
s to
healt
h or
social
ser
vices
6
.
2
7
1
.
26
-
-
-
F
air d
ecis
ion
6
.38
1.
33
-
-
-
C
ont
act
with
the
CDT ha
s a
n impor
tant
effe
ct on
the
possibilit
y of
…
n
o
t
retur
ning
to u
se d
rugs
5.
06
1.8
3
u
s
ing d
rugs m
ore ca
refully
(for
my
heal
th)
5.
3
5
1
.
8
9
u
s
in
g
d
r
ug
s
m
or
e
c
a
re
f
ull
y
(
t
o
a
vo
i
d
b
e
in
g
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
)
4
.
6
3
2
.
2
3Slide21
Presumed effect of CDT action for detected drug users (%)
M
a
i
n mo
t
iv
es
t
o
i
nt
e
n
t
i
on
of
drug use
reducti
on:
infor
mati
on; ex
plan
ation
about
risk
s of
drug use; s
upportive
atti
tude
Main mo
tives
to i
ntent
ion of
drug use m
ainte
nance:
plea
sure i
n drug use;
per
sonal o
pti
onSlide22
Attitudes and knowledgeKnowledgeWeak knowledgeEroded the deterrence analysis of lawsAttitudesM
odera
te
preferen
c
e
fo
r
prohibitio
n
of
dru
g
u
s
e in nor
mative
sample
and m
oderate oppos
ition in
detected
drug us
ers
Mistrus
t in prohibitio
n ef
ficacy
Doubt
about bette
r legal s
tatus in
normativ
e sam
ple and
preference
for dec
riminalis
ation in
detected
drug u
sers
Preferenc
e for
treatm
ent
Dete
cted
drug
users
experi
ence
CD
T ac
tion pos
itive
ly evaluate
d
Worse
and
divergent e
valuation of poli
ce a
ction
A pres
umed
intention
of drug u
se reductio
n or a
more
careful u
se of drug
sSlide23
ConclusionsDecriminalisation benefitsRemove the criticism to the adequacy of penal
la
w
t
o
d
r
u
g
u
se
o
f
f
en
c
es
Net
-widening la
w enf
orcem
ent, m
ore e
ffica
cy in
the
bridge lega
l sy
stem
– health s
ystem
or i
n pre
ventive
indica
ted a
ction di
rect
ed to
detec
ted
drug
users
A
generall
y pos
itive
evalua
tion o
f CDT
from
det
ect
ed drug
us
ers
W
ell-mat
ched
with publi
c mode
rate
prefe
rence
for p
rohibition
of
drug
use and c
lear pr
eferen
ce fo
r t
reatm
ent
as an
alterna
tive to
punish
ment
A sm
all or
null
effect
on d
rug u
se
Decr
iminali
satio
n li
mit
sA
weak
public knowledg
eDe
terrence v
ariables
are wea
k dru
g use
predict
ors and
personal
risk
of
arrest
are e
ven pos
itiv
ely
relate
d with
drug u
se
Legitima
cy argu
ment
s (f
reed
om of
us
e; just d
esert
argum
ents; the
use
of
any
sancti
ons
or eve
n sus
pended
sanctio
ns fo
r nothing
mor
e than drug u
se,
… )
maybe
onl
y can be
attend
ed with a
legali
satio
n