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, …)