Sentences to ponder

 

photo credit: sarcasmo

This article on Norway rejecting heroin maintenance frames Portuguese drug policy in a way I never here:

Labour (Ap) Justice Minister Knut Storberget wanted to introduce a system based on a Portuguese model. This would have focused on arresting drug dealers and traffickers instead of drug addicts.

Why is that?

3 thoughts on “Sentences to ponder

  1. I’m not sure I understand this article. Are they dismissing the recommendations because the head of the commission had a drug addicted daughter? And I thought recent studies show Portugal’s model to be a success there. I don’t think it would work in the US, but it seems to be working in Portugal where it has cut crime, lowered overdose deaths and HIV infections, and funneled at least some chronic addicts into treatment.
    article here

  2. Every article I’ve read about Portugal emphasizes the decriminalization of possession and often gives the impression that drugs have simply been legalized.

    They often refer to the commission that reviews cases but I’ve never heard what happens to people who people who refuse treatment and want to keep using.

    I was struck by this sentence because it’s the first that emphasizes the continued arrests of dealers and traffickers. If it’s accurate, it’s been omitted or downplayed in everything I’ve read. That’s strange and misleading.

  3. The shoddy and misleading reporting in support of legalization is truly amazing. For example, although changing the legal status of marijuana might be a good strategy (depending on how its done) an advocate on public radio actually made the case that medical marijuana could be used to treat anorexics. If you know anything about eating disorders you know this is a *terrible* idea. But any ridiculous piece of non-evidence is acceptable ammo, now, to get at the actual, (often unspoken), goal of legalization. Not articulating what the agenda really is means that the nuts and bolts of how these folks would handle legalization never gets talked about. Crack bars in every city except within 100 feet of schools? If the tax revenue all goes straight to increased social services it’s not going to magically balance the budget like legalizers like to say it will. And of course the argument, “it works in ________ (fill in the blank).” Oh, wait, you mean ______ actually still prosecutes dealers and traffickers? That’s not really legalization, then, is it? Hmmm, why didn’t the person making that argument mention that? Etc. etc.

Comments are closed.