Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal's decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

"There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal," said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered "problematic" -- those who repeatedly use "hard" drugs and intravenous users -- had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.
Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

"This development can not only be attributed to decriminalisation but to a confluence of treatment and risk reduction policies."

Portugal's holistic approach had also led to a "spectacular" reduction in the number of infections among intravenous users and a significant drop in drug-related crimes, he added.

A law that became active on July 1, 2001 did not legalise drug use, but forced users caught with banned substances to appear in front of special addiction panels rather than in a criminal court.

The panels composed of psychologists, judges and social workers recommended action based on the specifics of each case.

Since then, government panels have recommended a response based largely on whether the individual is an occasional drug user or an addict.

Of the nearly 40,000 people currently being treated, "the vast majority of problematic users are today supported by a system that does not treat them as delinquents but as sick people," Goulao said.

In a report published last week, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) said Portugal had dealt with this issue "in a pragmatic and innovative way."

Drug use statistics in Portugal are generally "below the European average and much lower than its only European neighbour, Spain," the report also said.

"The changes that were made in Portugal provide an interesting before-and-after study on the possible effects of decriminalisation," EMCDDA said.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Drug abuse down 50%

Health experts in Portugal said Friday that Portugal's decision 10 years ago to decriminalise drug use and treat addicts rather than punishing them is an experiment that has worked.

"There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal," said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered "problematic" -- those who repeatedly use "hard" drugs and intravenous users -- had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.
Other factors had also played their part however, Goulao, a medical doctor added.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... -portugal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Drug abuse down 50%



http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/20 ... -portugal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know a real easy way to get that number to ZERO.

JohnStOnge wrote:That's all well and good but I think it's a shame that people even think it necessary to "prove" that "decriminalization" will reduce additction. The proper outlook is that government shouldn't even care about the "addiction" rate. The proper outlook is it's none of government's %$*"("*^ business if someone wants to do recreational drugs or not. Also none of its business whether they're "addicted" or not.

If they actually directly and definitely harm somebody else then hold them responsible. Otherwise, butt the ^#LL out.

AZGrizFan wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:That's all well and good but I think it's a shame that people even think it necessary to "prove" that "decriminalization" will reduce additction. The proper outlook is that government shouldn't even care about the "addiction" rate. The proper outlook is it's none of government's %$*"("*^ business if someone wants to do recreational drugs or not. Also none of its business whether they're "addicted" or not.

If they actually directly and definitely harm somebody else then hold them responsible. Otherwise, butt the ^#LL out.

Here's JSO to the rescue, solving the symptom instead of the problem.

JohnStOnge wrote:That's all well and good but I think it's a shame that people even think it necessary to "prove" that "decriminalization" will reduce additction. The proper outlook is that government shouldn't even care about the "addiction" rate. The proper outlook is it's none of government's %$*"("*^ business if someone wants to do recreational drugs or not. Also none of its business whether they're "addicted" or not.

If they actually directly and definitely harm somebody else then hold them responsible. Otherwise, butt the ^#LL out.

Gil Dobie wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:That's all well and good but I think it's a shame that people even think it necessary to "prove" that "decriminalization" will reduce additction. The proper outlook is that government shouldn't even care about the "addiction" rate. The proper outlook is it's none of government's %$*"("*^ business if someone wants to do recreational drugs or not. Also none of its business whether they're "addicted" or not.

If they actually directly and definitely harm somebody else then hold them responsible. Otherwise, butt the ^#LL out.

It didn't say it reduced attiction, it reduced abuse.

Gil Dobie wrote: It didn't say it reduced attiction, it reduced abuse.

"There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
It didn't say it reduced attiction, it reduced abuse.

Abuse leads to addiction.

Gil Dobie wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
Abuse leads to addiction.

Addiction is like being pregnant, you either are or you aren't.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
Addiction is like being pregnant, you either are or you aren't.

Yeah, you became addicted because you abused the substance.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Here's JSO to the rescue, solving the symptom instead of the problem.

Well......

This is one of the few things on which JSW and I agree. Any subsequent "problems" from legalization will come about only through Conk-created hysteria. And, I just wanna smoke pot legally. Like you, Z.

CID1990 wrote:I have always been in favor of complete and total legalization.

I could care less what it does to the abuse or addiction rate. If the abuse/addiction rate goes down, no problem. If the abuse rate goes up and loads of crackheads die, that's fine too.

However, I don't want to be paying for Joe Douchebag's heart transplant because he couldn't stay off the pipe.

Personally, I like the idea of legalized narcotics, because the idea of Cappy and D bitching and moaning about the taxes making a pack of ganja cigarettes cost $40 a pack is just too delicious to contemplate.

D1B wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I have always been in favor of complete and total legalization.

I could care less what it does to the abuse or addiction rate. If the abuse/addiction rate goes down, no problem. If the abuse rate goes up and loads of crackheads die, that's fine too.

However, I don't want to be paying for Joe Douchebag's heart transplant because he couldn't stay off the pipe.

Personally, I like the idea of legalized narcotics, because the idea of Cappy and D bitching and moaning about the taxes making a pack of ganja cigarettes cost $40 a pack is just too delicious to contemplate.

I'd grow my own, **** Face.

CID1990 wrote:I have always been in favor of complete and total legalization.

I could care less what it does to the abuse or addiction rate. If the abuse/addiction rate goes down, no problem. If the abuse rate goes up and loads of crackheads die, that's fine too.

However, I don't want to be paying for Joe Douchebag's heart transplant because he couldn't stay off the pipe.

Personally, I like the idea of legalized narcotics, because the idea of Cappy and D bitching and moaning about the taxes making a pack of ganja cigarettes cost $40 a pack is just too delicious to contemplate.

I wonder if JSO (and you) would feel differently if you'd been T-boned by a drunk driver

Seahawks08 wrote:

I wonder if JSO (and you) would feel differently if you'd been T-boned by a drunk driver

FIFY

Legalizing marijuana. just like gay marriage, is only a matter of time.

SDHornet wrote:

Seahawks08 wrote:
FIFY

Legalizing marijuana. just like gay marriage, is only a matter of time.

I'm sure more people under the influence of alcohol would cause drunk accidents than high people looking for a bag of cheetos would.

CID1990 wrote:

D1B wrote:
I'd grow my own, **** Face.

No, you won't, because RJR will come up with a chemically enhanced version with elevated levels of THC that will make your wimpy hydroponic weed look like oregano.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Well......

This is one of the few things on which JSW and I agree. Any subsequent "problems" from legalization will come about only through Conk-created hysteria. And, I just wanna smoke pot legally. Like you, Z.

I wonder if JSO (and you) would feel differently if you'd been T-boned by a driver higher than a kite.