Time to rethink our policy on drugs experiences from Europe and Americas Consequences of Portuguese drug use decriminalisation law Jorge Quintas U. Porto – Faculty of law - School of Criminology Transatlantic Conference Brussels, November 12, 2013
Feb 25, 2016
Time to rethink our policy on drugs experiences from Europe and Americas
Consequences of Portuguese drug use decriminalisation law
Jorge Quintas
U. Porto – Faculty of law - School of CriminologyTransatlantic Conference
Brussels, November 12, 2013
Portuguese drug use decriminalisation law
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 (Commissões para a Dissuasão da Toxicodependência – 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 »
Decriminalisation – we should expect more drug use?
• Deterrence effect– SeverityDecreases, namely by the removal of criminal threat?– CertaintyDecreases, namely by police administrative offenses depreciation?– CelerityIncreases?
• Declaratory effectDecreases, namely by the removal of « symbolic » value of criminalisation?
The message to society (social norm against drugs) is less effective?
• Therapeutic effectCDT are more efficient (compared to courts) in promoting drug use offender
treatment?
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)
Drug use data
7
Drug use trend
0
5
10
15
20
25
1995 1999 2003 2007 2011
19 europeancountrys
portugal
Drug use lifetime prevalence rate (ESPAD Surveys)
8
Drug addiction trend
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 0 2 4 6 8 10
first treatment
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
Law 1970 Law 1983 Law 1993 Law 2000F df p
First treatment 547 3065 ↑ 8208 ↑ 6503 ↓ 33,62 (3,30) ,000
since 2008 also includesAlcoholics (e.g. 2011 - 28%)
9
Drug harms trend (AIDS)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
AIDS AIDS - Drug addicts AIDS - Others
Law 1970 Law 1983 Law 1993 Law 2000 F df p
AIDS - Drug addicts - 39 522 ↑ 331 ↓ 30,92 (2,23) ,000
Sources: Relatório anual 2011 do IDT
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
Law enforcement
Presumed infractors (Police data)
Use Traffic and traffic-use
Before law 30/2000
(1993-2000)
M=4955 (year)(For a 3% last year prevalence drug use rate in adult population - <2% of all active drug users)
M=4033 (year)
After law 30/2000
(2001-2011)
M=6335 (year)(For a 3% last year prevalence drug use rate in adult population - <2% of all active drug users)
M=5573 (year)
Sanctions (Court and CDT data)
Use Traffic and traffic-use(1993 Law)
Before law 30/2000
(1993-2000)
M=1451 (year)75% fine8% effective prison sentences
M=1718 (year)Effective prison sentences (84% law1983) 70% (until 2000)
After law 30/2000
(2001-2011)
M=3972 (year)86% suspended sanctions(non addict drug user=2646; addict =796)13% punitive sanctionsAnd also some criminal convictions for quantities exceeding law 30/2000 previsions
M=1896 (year)Effective prison sentences 45% (after 2000)
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
Drug use law atittudes and knowledge
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)
Attitudes toward prohibition of …
prohibition efficacy
prohibition efficacy
heroine
heroine
hashish
hashish
alcohol
alcohol
drug use
drug use
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2003
2011-2
Disagree Agree
Attitudes toward drug use law’s
decriminalisation
decriminalisation
crime
crime
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2003
2011-2
Disagree Agree
Attitudes toward sanctions
treatment
treatment
fine
fine
prison
prison
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
2003
2011-2
Disagree Agree
Knowledge of drug use law (%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
administrative offence (correct)
crime not prohibited dont know
2003
2011-2
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
Deterrence and normative predictors of drug use
23
scale 1 to 7, unless otherwise indicatedN=247, psychology, criminology and law students
Drug use (next year)(M=2,0)
M Rs pHISTORY
Drug use in last year (yes) 19% (Prevalence rate) ,54** <,001DETERRENCE
Risk of arrest (personal certainty) 1,2 ,50** <,001Vicarious risk of arrest (general certainty) 3,7 -,12 nsSeverity 349 Euros -,10 nsCelerity 3,5 ,10 nsExperience with punishment (yes) 0 - -Vicarious experience with punishment (yes)
19% ,12 ns
NORMSPersonal (internalized) norms 2,7 ,40* <,05Relatives social norms 1,7 ,58** <,001Distant social norms 3,1 ,15 nsDescriptive norms 4,8 ,26* <,05Informal sanctions 3,6 -,20* <,05Legitimacy of punishment 4,6 -,35* <,001Behaviour (drug use) risks 6,2 -,35* <,001
PERSONALAge 21 -,02 nsGender (Male) 23% ,19* <,05
Drug use predictors
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
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, …)