1. What is the situation in Portugal 14 years after the reformof the drug policy Rita Faria Jorge Quintas School of Criminology – Faculty of Law of the University of Porto Copenhagen, December 2nd 2015

2. Portuguese drug use decriminalisation law Law 30/2000 (November, 29) Main goal: “health and social protection” of the drug users Drug use is interdicted Drug use is an administrative offence: -+all drugs; -+limited quantities; -+no criminal record CDT: Commissions for the dissuasion of drug addiction (health oriented) instead of courts (Comissões para a Dissuasão da Toxicodependência)

3. Portuguese drug use decriminalisation law Law 30/2000 (November, 29) Administrative Sanctions : (a)Fine (except for addicts) (b)Non-pecuniary penalties (e.g. community service; interdictions) (c)Warning Administrative sanctions should be suspended on behalf of treatment (addicts) or indicated prevention actions (non- addict drug users)

4. Law enforcement: Presumed offenders (police data)

5. Law enforcement: Sanctions and suspended sanctions

6. Law enforcement: Trends Presumed offenders, CDT decisions and convictions (drug use only) 8080828284848686890909292949496969898 0 2468 10101212 7878 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 pr e s um e d offe nde r sCDT de cis ionsconvictions (Cour ts )

7. Law enforcement: Decriminalisation law effect Police action A moderate increase in detection of presumed offenders (use and trafficker) -+ More risk of arrest (deterrence variable) Legal action At least threefold more extensive effective drug users prosecution -+ A net- widening effect Fine as a typical court action for drug use replaced for CDT suspended sanctions An unparalleled increase in treatment or indicated prevention actions for drug users – Much more therapeutic and, specially, preventive efforts directed to detected drug users Stability of trafficker convictions and less severity in sentences

8. Drug use data: trends Drug use prevalence rate (General population Surveys) 0 86428642 1010 14121412 20012007 Cannabis use in Europe: Portugal Rank 22/28 Sources: Balsa et al. (2008, 2013); EMCDDA databases 2012 Lifetime Last year

9. Drug use data: trends Drug use lifetime prevalence rate (ESPAD Surveys; among 15–16 year old students) 25 0 10 portugal 5 1515 2020 1995199519991999200320032007200720112011 19 european countrys Sources: Hibell et al. (2012)

10. Drug addiction and drug related harms

11. AIDSAIDS 0 250250 500500 750750 10001000 12501250 8484858586868787889899090919192929393949495959696979798989012345678910101 AIDSAIDS - Drug addictsAIDS - Others Drug addicts are 44% of all notified AIDS cases and 51% of deaths as a result of AIDS

12. 14 years later… drug use stability drug addiction decrease drug related harms decrease Portuguese decriminalisation of all drugs confirms expected scientific results (cf. Quintas, 2006, 2011; Agra, 2009; Quintas & Agra, 2010; Kury & Quintas, 2010; and also other scholars -e.g. Hughes & Stevens, 2010) Drug use is not decisively affected by the removal of criminal sanctions See extensive literature about cannabis/marijuana decriminalisation experiences in USA and Australia Additionally, drug addiction or drug related harms indicators had a positive evolution

13. Aggregate comparative analysis

14. Aggregate comparative analysis: trends Risk of arrest is not correlated with prevalence of drug use (Rs=-.08; p>.05) Decriminalization is not correlated with cannabis use (Rs=.18; p>.05) or risk of arrest (Rs=-.14; p>.05) Spain - high level of use and high risk of arrest Czech Republic - high level of use and very low risk of arrest Italy - median level of use and low risk of arrest Portugal – low level of use and median risk of arrest

15. Knowledge and Attitudes towards drug use law Drugs and law surveys Normative sample –law, criminology and psychology students (N=247) Detected drug users – contacted at CDT (N = 101)

16. Knowledge and Attitudes towards drug use law χ 2 =37.12: p<.001

17. Attitudes toward prohibition of … DisagreeAgree DETECTED DRUG USERS STUDENTSSTUDENTS All p<.05, except efficacy

18. Attitudes toward drug use law DETECTED DRUG USERS STUDENTSSTUDENTS All p<.05 Agree Disagree

19. Attitudes toward sanctions DETECTED DRUG USERS STUDENTSSTUDENTS All p<.05 Agree Disagree

20. Detected drug users experience with police and CDT (%) CDTCDTPolice N= 95; Scale - 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree) MSDSDMSDSDp Satisfaction6.376.371,041,043,233,232,292,29<.001 RespectRespect6.576.57,97,974,124,122,242,24 Procedural information6.656.65.80.804,224,222,112,11<.001 Investigate the offence6.526.52.93.934,014,012,272,27<.001 Information about risks of drug use6.676.67.73.73 --- Provide access to health or social services 6.276.271.261.26 --- Fair decision6.386.381.331.33 --- Contact with the CDT has an important effect on the possibility of … not returning to use drugs5.065.061.831.83 using drugs more carefully (for my health)5.355.351.891.89 using drugs more carefully (to avoid being detected) 4.634.632.232.23

21. Presumed effect of CDT action for detected drug users (%) Main motives to intention of drug use reduction: information; explanation about risks of drug use; supportive attitude Main motives to intention of drug use maintenance: pleasure in drug use; personal option

22. Attitudes and knowledge Knowledge Weak knowledge Eroded the deterrence analysis of laws Attitudes Moderate preference for prohibition of drug use in normative sample and moderate opposition in detected drug users Mistrust in prohibition efficacy Doubt about better legal status in normative sample and preference for decriminalisation in detected drug users Preference for treatment Detected drug users experience CDT action positively evaluated Worse and divergent evaluation of police action A presumed intention of drug use reduction or a more careful use of drugs

23. Conclusions Decriminalisation benefits Remove the criticism to the adequacy of penal law to drug use offences Net-widening law enforcement, more efficacy in the bridge legal system – health system or in preventive indicated action directed to detected drug users A generally positive evaluation of CDT from detected drug users Well-matched with public moderate preference for prohibition of drug use and clear preference for treatment as an alternative to punishment A small or null effect on drug use Decriminalisation limits A weak public knowledge Deterrence variables are weak drug use predictors and personal risk of arrest are even positively related with drug use Legitimacy arguments ( freedom of use; just desert arguments; the use of any sanctions or even suspended sanctions for nothing more than drug use, … ) maybe only can be attended with a legalisation