CATO REPORT

1. Drug
DECRIMINALIZATION
IN PORTUGAL
Lessons for Creating Fair
and Successful Drug Policies
G L E N N G R E E N WA L D

2. G L E N N G R E E N WA L D
Drug
DECRIMINALIZATION
IN PORTUGAL
Lessons for Creating Fair
and Successful Drug Policies

3. Copyright © 2009 by the Cato Institute.
All rights reserved.
Cover design by Jon Meyers.
Printed in the United States of America.
CATO INSTITUTE
1000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
www.cato.org

4. Executive Summary
On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories,
took effect that decriminalized all drugs, includ- are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly
ing cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal when compared with states with stringent crimi-
framework, all drugs were “decriminalized,” not nalization regimes. Although postdecriminaliza-
“legalized.” Thus, drug possession for personal tion usage rates have remained roughly the same or
use and drug usage itself are still legally prohib- even decreased slightly when compared with other
ited, but violations of those prohibitions are EU states, drug-related pathologies—such as sexu-
deemed to be exclusively administrative viola- ally transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug
tions and are removed completely from the crim- usage—have decreased dramatically. Drug policy
inal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be experts attribute those positive trends to the
prosecuted as a criminal offense. enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to
While other states in the European Union offer treatment programs to its citizens—enhance-
have developed various forms of de facto decrim- ments made possible, for numerous reasons, by
inalization—whereby substances perceived to be decriminalization.
less serious (such as cannabis) rarely lead to crim- This report will begin with an examination of
inal prosecution—Portugal remains the only EU the Portuguese decriminalization framework as
member state with a law explicitly declaring set forth in law and in terms of how it functions
drugs to be “decriminalized.” Because more than in practice. Also examined is the political climate
seven years have now elapsed since enactment of in Portugal both pre- and postdecriminalization
Portugal’s decriminalization system, there are with regard to drug policy, and the impetus that
ample data enabling its effects to be assessed. led that nation to adopt decriminalization.
Notably, decriminalization has become increas- The report then assesses Portuguese drug poli-
ingly popular in Portugal since 2001. Except for cy in the context of the EU’s approach to drugs.
some far-right politicians, very few domestic politi- The varying legal frameworks, as well as the overall
cal factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law. trend toward liberalization, are examined to enable
And while there is a widespread perception that a meaningful comparative assessment between
bureaucratic changes need to be made to Portugal’s Portuguese data and data from other EU states.
decriminalization framework to make it more effi- The report also sets forth the data concerning
cient and effective, there is no real debate about drug-related trends in Portugal both pre- and
whether drugs should once again be criminalized. postdecriminalization. The effects of decriminal-
More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios ization in Portugal are examined both in
touted by preenactment decriminalization oppo- absolute terms and in comparisons with other
nents—from rampant increases in drug usage states that continue to criminalize drugs, partic-
among the young to the transformation of Lisbon ularly within the EU.
into a haven for “drug tourists”—has occurred. The data show that, judged by virtually every
The political consensus in favor of decriminal- metric, the Portuguese decriminalization frame-
ization is unsurprising in light of the relevant work has been a resounding success. Within this
empirical data. Those data indicate that decrimi- success lie self-evident lessons that should guide
nalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage drug policy debates around the world.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Glenn Greenwald is a constitutional lawyer and a contributing writer at Salon. He has authored several books,
including A Tragic Legacy (2007) and How Would a Patriot Act? (2006).

5. Portugal is the from the framework of the criminal law and
only European Introduction criminal justice system. Instead, they are
treated as purely administrative violations, to
Union state Around the globe, countries approach drug be processed in a noncriminal proceeding.
explicitly to policy in radically different ways. In Commu- It is important to distinguish between “de-
nist China and various Muslim nations, drug criminalization,” the de jure scheme enacted
“decriminalize” traffickers and, in some instances, even those by Portugal, and mere “depenalization,” the
drug usage. found guilty of possession of narcotics, receive prevailing framework in several EU states that
draconian prison sentences and are even exe- have not decriminalized drug usage. The cen-
cuted. At the other end of the policy spectrum, tral agency of the European Union for coordi-
most people think of the Netherlands, which nating drug policy data is the European
has long been perceived as leading the way in Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug
drug liberalization and, at least in Amsterdam, Addiction and in 2005, that agency promul-
has long maintained a drug-tolerant culture, gated the following definitional distinction
though it has never legalized drugs. Most between “decriminalization” and “depenaliza-
countries, of course, fall somewhere in be- tion”:
tween. In the 1980s, the global policy trend was
toward harsher criminalization approaches, “Decriminalisation” comprises removal
even at the user level. In recent years, however, of a conduct or activity from the sphere
as drug policymakers have attempted to for- of criminal law. Prohibition remains the
mulate policy recommendations for how best rule, but sanctions for use (and its
to manage drug-related problems exclusively preparatory acts) no longer fall within
on empirical grounds, there are signs that the framework of the criminal law.
countries in every region of the world are [By contrast],“depenalization” means
reversing course.1 This study will focus on one relation of the penal sanction provided
such reversal in Europe—Portugal’s dramatic for by law. In the case of drugs, and
2001 decriminalization policy. cannabis in particular, depenalization
generally signifies the elimination of cus-
Decriminalization, Depenalization, and todial penalties.2
Legalization
On July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in In sum, “decriminalization” means either that
Portugal took effect that decriminalized all only noncriminal sanctions (such as fines or
drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Since the treatment requirements) are imposed or that
enactment of that law, Portugal is and remains no penal sanctions can be. In a “depenalized”
the only European Union state explicitly to framework, drug usage remains a criminal
“decriminalize” drug usage. The statute, in offense, but imprisonment is no longer
Article 29, uses the Portuguese word descrimi- imposed for possession or usage even as other
nalização—decriminalization—to describe the criminal sanctions (e.g., fines, police record,
new legal framework it implements. “Decrim- probation) remain available. “Legalization”—
inalization” applies to the purchase, posses- which no EU state has yet adopted—means
sion, and consumption of all drugs for per- that there are no prohibitions of any kind
sonal use (defined as the average individual under the law on drug manufacturing, sales,
quantity sufficient for 10 days’ usage for one possession, or usage.
person). As set forth below, several EU states have
Even in the decriminalization framework, developed either formal or de facto forms of
drug usage and possession remain prohibit- depenalization, particularly for personal
ed (i.e., illegal) and subject to police interven- cannabis usage. But no EU state other than
tion. But “decriminalization” means that Portugal has explicitly declared drugs to be
infractions have been removed completely “decriminalized.”
2

6. Portugal’s Decriminalization Regime: es “Commissions for Dissuasions of Drug
How It Works Addiction,” the body solely responsible for
The 2001 Portuguese decriminalization adjudicating administrative drug offenses and
statute was enacted to revise the legal frame- imposing sanctions, if any. The first section of
work applicable to the consumption of all nar- the law’s penalty section, Article 15, provides,
cotics and psychotropic substances, together “Non-addicted consumers may be sentenced to
with what the European Monitoring Center payment of a fine or, alternatively, to a non-
for Drugs and Drug Addiction describes as pecuniary penalty.” Article 17, entitled “Other
“the medical and social welfare of the con- Penalties,” provides in Section (1) that “instead
sumers of such substances without medical of a fine, the commission may issue a warning.”
prescription.” The statute’s operative decrimi- In theory, offenders can be fined an amount
nalization clause is set forth in Article 2(1), between 25 euros and the minimum national
which provides: wage. But such fines are expressly declared to be
a last resort. Indeed, in the absence of evidence
The consumption, acquisition and of addiction or repeated violations, the imposi-
possession for one’s own consumption tion of a fine is to be suspended.
of plants, substances or preparations While the Dissuasion Commissions are not
listed in the tables referred to in the authorized to mandate treatment, they can
Personal
preceding article constitute an administra- make suspension of sanctions conditioned on possession and
tive offence. (emphasis added) the offender’s seeking treatment. This is typi- consumption of
cally what is done, though in practice, there are
The referenced preceding article encompass- very few ways to enforce the condition, since all narcotics,
es “narcotics and psychotropic substances” violations of a commission’s rulings are not, no matter where
and includes a table of all “plants, substances themselves, infractions of any law.4 In fact,
or preparations” that were previously crimi- Dissuasion Commissions are directed by Ar-
they occur or for
nalized. ticle 11(2) to “provisionally suspend proceed- what purpose,
The key phrase—“for one’s own consump- ings”—meaning to impose no sanction—where are now
tion”—is defined in Article 2(2), as a quantity an alleged offender with no prior offenses is
“not exceeding the quantity required for an found to be an addict but “agrees to undergo decriminalized
average individual consumption during a peri- treatment.” in Portugal.
od of 10 days.” Decriminalization does not ap- Where the offender is deemed to be a non-
ply to “drug trafficking,” which remains crimi- addicted consumer of drugs and has no prior
nalized and is defined as “possession of more offenses, the commissions are mandated by
than the average dose for ten days of use.”3 Article 11(1) of the decriminalization law to
No distinction is made between the types “provisionally suspend proceedings,” whereby
of drug (so-called hard drugs or soft drugs), no sanction is imposed. Article 11(3) vests the
nor does it matter whether consumption is commissions with discretion to “provisionally
public or private. Personal possession and suspend proceedings” even for an addict who
consumption of all narcotics, no matter where has a prior record, provided he or she agrees to
they occur or for what purpose, are now undergo treatment. Alternatively, under Article
decriminalized in Portugal. As noted, “decrim- 14, a commission, in the case of an addict with
inalization” is not synonymous with “legaliza- a prior record, can impose sanctions but then
tion.” Drug usage is still prohibited under the immediately suspend them contingent on
law of Portugal, but it is treated strictly as an ongoing treatment. In the event that treatment
administrative, not a criminal, offense. is completed and there is no subsequent
Thus, Article 15 of the law, entitled “Penal- offense, the proceeding will be deemed closed
ties,” sets forth the authorized administrative after a specified time period.
sanctions for violations. In lieu of criminaliza- In theory, the Dissuasion Commissions are
tion, the Portuguese law, in Article 5, establish- able to impose on offenders found to be
3

7. addicts a wider range of sanctions under have a legal background, while at least one of
Article 17, including suspension of the right to the other two members (usually both) will
practice a licensed profession (doctor, lawyer, have a medical or social services background
taxi driver); a ban on visiting high-risk locales (physician, psychologist, social worker).
(nightclubs); a ban on associating with speci- Even in the decriminalization framework,
fied individuals; requiring periodic reports to police officers who observe drug use or pos-
the commission to show there is no ongoing session are required to issue citations to the
addiction or abuse; prohibitions on travel offender, but they are not permitted to make
abroad; termination of public benefits for sub- an arrest. The citation is sent to the commis-
sidies or allowances; or a mere oral warning. sion, and the administrative process will then
Article 15(4) sets forth a variety of factors commence. The cited offender appears before
the commissions should consider in determin- the commission within 72 hours of the cita-
ing what sanction, if any, should be imposed. tion’s issuance. If the commission finds com-
Such factors include the seriousness of the act; pelling evidence of drug trafficking, it will
the type of drug consumed; whether consump- refer the case to criminal court.
tion was public or private; and whether usage is The effect that the decriminalization regime
occasional or habitual. The commissions are has had on police conduct with regard to drug
vested with the sole discretion to determine the users is unclear and is the source of some debate
extent to which these factors should be consid- among Portuguese drug policy experts. There
ered and how they should determine the are, to be sure, some police officers who largely
appropriate disposition of cases. refrain from issuing citations to drug users on
Minors who are cited for drug possession the grounds of perceived futility, as they often
or usage enter the same process and, pur- observe the cited user on the street once again
suant to Article 3, are aided by a legal repre- using drugs, leading such officers to conclude
sentative, who is authorized to make deci- that the issuance of citations, without arrests or
sions for the minor. But furnishing drugs to the threat of criminal prosecution, is worthless.
a minor (or people with mental illness) con- Other police officers, however, are more
tinues to be forbidden by the general law that inclined to act when they see drug usage now
regulates drug issues and is considered an than they were before decriminalization, as
aggravating circumstance to the ongoing they believe that the treatment options offered
prohibition on “trafficking and other illicit to such users are far more effective than turn-
activities,” which is punishable by imprison- ing users into criminals (who, even under the
ment of between 4 to 12 years. criminalization scheme, were typically back on
the street the next day, but without real treat-
Decriminalization in Practice ment options). One 2007 paper contended:
Pursuant to the 2001 law, each of the 18
administrative districts in Portugal estab- The law enforcement sector was seen as
lished at least one Dissuasion Commission to supportive of the reform, particularly
oversee the administrative process for those because they perceived decriminaliza-
cited for drug usage or possession (large dis- tion and referral to education and treat-
Furnishing tricts, such as the one encompassing Lisbon, ment as offering a better response to
drugs to a minor have more than one). As provided for by drug users than under the previous leg-
(or people with Article 7 of the decriminalization law, each islative approach. Key informants assert-
commission consists of three members—one ed law enforcement have embraced the
mental illness) who is appointed by the Ministry of Justice more preventative role for drug users.5
continues to be and the other two members appointed jointly
by the Minister of Health and the govern- Some Portuguese drug officials believe
forbidden by the ment’s coordinator of drug policy. The mem- this dichotomized reaction among police
general law. ber appointed by the Ministry of Justice will officers to be split largely along generational
4

8. Figure 1
Administrative Infraction Proceedings and Decisions, by Year*
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),
“The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2006 Annual Report (2007), p. 35.
*Year in which the deed punishable as a misdemeanor occurred. Information gathered as of March 31 of the year after
the occurrence of the deed punishable as a misdemeanor.
lines: older officers are inclined to believe Dissuasion Commissions if they have reason
that the decriminalization scheme makes to suspect drug use in their patients. In reali-
issuing citations a waste of their time, where- ty, however, such reporting is extremely rare
as younger officers view the administrative for several reasons, including the widespread
process as the best hope for containing belief among physicians that such reporting
addiction. The inability to quantify negative violates doctor-patient confidentiality.
events—that is, officers who refrain from As noted, the decriminalization law sets
issuing citations on the grounds of perceived forth numerous criteria that Dissuasion
futility—renders anecdotal evidence the most Commissions are to consider in determining
reliable for assessing police behavioral reac- the proper disposition of each case. Article 10
tion to decriminalization. of the decriminalization law directs the com- Many physicians
What is clear is that the number of cases mission to hear from the alleged offender believe that
referred to the administrative process has in- and to “gather the information needed in
creased slowly and more or less steadily since order to reach a judgment as to whether he or reporting
the enactment of decriminalization in 2001, she is an addict or not, what substances were suspected drug
suggesting (without proving) that officers consumed, the circumstances in which he use to the
are issuing citations at least at the same rates, was consuming drugs when summoned, the
if not more enthusiastically, than when the place of consumption and his economic situ- authorities
law was first enacted (see Figure 1).6 ation.” Which of these are to be weighed, and would violate
In theory, under Article 3 of the decrimi- the weight they are to receive, are left to the
nalization law, both private and government sole discretion of the commission members.
doctor-patient
physicians are permitted to notify the The alleged offender has the right to request confidentiality.
5

9. Fears of that a therapist of his choice take part in the posed change in law would make Portugal a
“drug tourism” proceedings and/or that a medical examina- center of so-called drug tourism. Paulo Portas,
tion be conducted to aid in determining the leader of the conservative Popular Party, said:
have turned out various factors the commission might con- “There will be planeloads of students heading
to be completely sider. for [Portugal] to smoke marijuana and take a
Portuguese and European officials familiar lot worse, knowing we won’t put them in jail.
unfounded. with the Dissuasion Commission process We promise sun, beaches and any drug you
emphasize that the overriding goal of that like.”12 Such fears have turned out to be com-
process is to avoid the stigma that arises from pletely unfounded.13 Roughly 95 percent of
criminal proceedings. Each step of the process those cited for drug offenses every year since
is structured so as to de-emphasize or even decriminalization have been Portuguese.14
eliminate any notion of “guilt” from drug Close to zero have been citizens of other EU
usage and instead to emphasize the health and states (see Table 1).15
treatment aspects of the process.
The alleged offender, for instance, can Political Climate in Portugal Pre- and
request that notice of the proceedings not be Postdecriminalization
sent to his home in order to preserve privacy. The political impetus for decriminalization
Commission members deliberately avoid all was the perception that drug abuse—both in
trappings of judges, and the hearing is inten- itself and its accompanying pathologies—was
tionally structured so as to avoid the appear- becoming an uncontrollable social problem,
ance of a court. Members dress informally. and the principal obstacles to effective govern-
The alleged offender sits on the same level as ment policies to manage the problems were the
the commission members, rather than having treatment barriers and resource drain imposed
the members sit on an elevated platform. by the criminalization regime. Put another
Commission members are legally bound to way, decriminalization was driven not by the
maintain the complete confidentiality of all perception that drug abuse was an insignifi-
proceedings. At all times, respect for the cant problem, but rather by the consensus view
alleged offender is emphasized. that it was a highly significant problem, that
In determining what, if any sanction, criminalization was exacerbating the problem,
should be imposed, the commission often and that only decriminalization could enable
takes account of the seriousness of the drug an effective government response.
that was used. The EMCDDA identifies the In fact, Portuguese decriminalization oc-
probable sanction for possession of cannabis curred only after extensive study by an elite com-
as “suspension of sanction with probation.”7 mission, Comissão para a Estratégia Nacional de
In 2005, there were 3,192 commission rul- Combate à Droga (Commission for a National
ings. Of those, 83 percent suspended the pro- Anti-Drug Strategy). That commission was cre-
ceeding; 15 percent imposed actual sanctions; ated “in response to a rapidly rising drug prob-
and 2.5 percent resulted in absolution.8 That lem in the 1990s, principally, but not exclusively,
distribution has remained constant since the involving heroin use.”16 Notably, the 2001
law’s enactment.9 Of the cases where sanctions change to the Portuguese legal framework was
were imposed, the overwhelming majority intended to implement “a strong harm-reduc-
merely required the offenders to report peri- tionistic orientation,” and “the flagship of these
odically to designated locales.10 laws is the decriminalization of the use and pos-
Cannabis continues to be the substance for session for use of drugs.”17
which the greatest percentage of drug offenders In its 1998 report, the Portuguese commis-
are cited. The percentages for the other sub- sion ultimately recommended decriminaliza-
stances remain roughly the same (see Figure 2).11 tion as the optimal strategy for combating
Before the enactment of the decriminaliza- Portugal’s growing abuse and addiction prob-
tion law, opponents insisted that the pro- lems. The commission emphasized that the
6

10. Figure 2
Administrative Infraction Proceedings, by Year,* by Type of Drug
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
Proceedings
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),
“The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2005 Annual Report (2006), p. 37.
*Year in which the deed punishable as a misdemeanor occurred. Information gathered as of March 31 of the year after
the occurrence of the deed punishable as a misdemeanor.
objective of its decriminalization strategy was but simply no longer classified violations as a
to reduce drug abuse and usage. Thus, as its report criminal offense.
stated, its recommendations were intended to Following issuance of the commission’s
report, the federal government’s Council of
• redirect the focus to primary prevention; Ministers, in 1999, approved the commis-
• extend and improve the quality and re- sion’s report almost in its entirety. In 2000,
sponse capacity of the health care net- the council produced its own policy recom-
works for drug addicts so as to ensure mendations, which were consistent with the
access to treatment for all drug addicts commission’s, including recommending full-
who seek treatment; scale decriminalization.
• guarantee the necessary mechanisms to With both the expert commission and the In its 1998 report,
allow the enforcement by competent government’s council agreeing on the need for
bodies of measures such as voluntary a harm-reduction approach generally, and the Portuguese
treatment of drug addicts as an alterna- decriminalization specifically, the proposal commission
tive to prison sentences.18 encountered relatively little political resistance.
Thereafter, in October 2000, the Portuguese
recommended
The commission concluded that legaliza- Parliament, supported by the national presi- decriminalization
tion, as opposed to mere decriminalization, dent, enacted legislation implementing the as the optimal
was not a viable option due, in large part, to the council’s recommendations in full, and
fact that numerous international treaties decriminalization took effect on July 1, 2001. strategy for
impose the “obligation to establish in domes- Interviews with Portuguese drug officials combating
tic law a prohibition” on drug use. Decriminal- confirmed that before decriminalization, the addiction
ization was consistent with that obligation as most substantial barrier to offering treatment
Portuguese law continued to prohibit usage, to the addict population was the addicts’ fear problems.
7

11. Table 1
Individuals* in Misdemeanor Case, according to Year,** Country of Nationality
Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal), “The
National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2005 Annual Report (2006), p. 99.
*Individuals acquitted and repeat offenders (repeat offenders are only entered one time for the year in question) are not
included for analysis purposes.
**Year in which the deed punishable as a misdemeanor occurred.
aInformation gathered as of March 31 of the year after the occurrence of the deed punishable as a misdemeanor.
Between March 31, 2002, and March 31, 2003, commissions entered 282 more cases from the courts, with a date of
The most sub- occurrence of the deed punishable as misdemeanor referring to the year 2001; between March 31, 2003, and March 31,
2004; 496 more cases from the courts referring to the year 2002; between March 31, 2004, and March 31, 2005, 725
stantial barrier more cases from the courts referring to 2003, and between 3/31/2005 and 3/31/2006, 770 more cases from the courts
to offering referring to 2004.
treatment to the
of government officials as a result of criminal- (Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência—
addict population ization. João Castel-Branco Goulão, the chair- or IDT), emphasized that before the 2001
was the addicts’ man of Portugal’s principal drug policy agency, decriminalization law, his principal challenge
fear of arrest. the Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction was drug addicts’ fear of seeking treatment—
8

12. particularly from the state agencies offering times, the use of the criminal process against The citizenry’s
it—because they were afraid of being arrested those accused solely of usage approached the fear of the stigma
and prosecuted. One prime rationale for levels of those accused of trafficking (see
decriminalization was that it would break Figure 3).20 The citizenry’s fear of being iden- attached to such
down that barrier, enabling effective treatment tified as a user was thus immense, and the accusations was
options to be offered to addicts once they no stigma attached to such accusations was sub-
longer feared prosecution. Moreover, decrimi- stantial, even in the absence of a prison sen-
substantial, even
nalization freed up resources that could be tence. in the absence of
channeled into treatment and other harm- Indeed, interviews with Portuguese politi- a prison sentence.
reduction programs. cal officials and drug policy experts confirm
A related rationale for decriminalization that they did not embrace decriminalization
was that removal of the stigma attached to despite their belief that it would lead to in-
criminal prosecution for drug usage would creased usage. Rather, they embraced decrim-
eliminate a key barrier for those wishing to inalization as the best option for minimizing
seek treatment. Even in those nations where all drug-related problems, including addic-
drug users are not typically punished with tion:
prison—such as Spain—the stigma and burden
of being convicted of a criminal offense Decriminalization is not expected to
remain. “It is this stigmatization that the increase the amount of drugs available
Portuguese policy explicitly aims to prevent.”19 or the use of new types of drugs.
Even before decriminalization, prosecution However, there is a general belief that
—and certainly imprisonment—for mere pos- decriminalization increases the need
session or use were rare, but not unheard of. At for prevention, for example, to com-
Figure 3
Individuals Charged, By the Year and Drug-Related Status
Dealer User Dealer/User
3,500
3,000
Individuals Charged
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),
“The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2005 Annual Report (2006), p. 150.
9

13. municate to the public that decrimi- certain clear trends that have emerged in the
nalization does not condone drug use. EU generally, particularly with regard to how
. . . There is a consensus that decrimi- the law ought to deal with personal drug con-
nalization, by destigmatizing drug use, sumption. Although many EU states contin-
will bring a higher proportion of users ue to emphasize criminal aspects in dealing
into treatment, thereby increasing the with drug users, many states are increasingly
need for treatment.21 moving toward a health-based approach,
viewing personal drug usage as a health prob-
Put another way, Portuguese decriminaliza- lem rather than a criminal one.
tion was never seen as a concession to the Danilo Balotta, the institutional coordina-
inevitability of drug abuse. To the contrary, it tor for the EMCDDA, uses the French term
was, and is, seen as the most effective govern- “healthification” to describe the clear trend in
ment policy for reducing addiction and its the EU’s consensus approach to drug policy.
accompanying harms. For that reason, the Specifically with regard to cannabis, a de facto
National Plan against Drugs and Drug Addictions move away from criminalization is virtually
for 2005–2012 (prepared in 2004) centers on unanimous. The EMCDDA’s 2007 annual
ongoing strategies for prevention, demand report put it this way: “A general trend in
Portuguese reduction, and harm-reduction, as well as Europe has been to move away from criminal
decriminalization maximizing treatment resources and avail- justice responses to the possession and use of
was never seen as ability for those who seek it. small amounts of cannabis and towards
The Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction approaches oriented towards prevention or
a concession to remains the leading agency in Portugal for over- treatment.”24 An excerpt from the EMCDDA’s
the inevitability seeing drug policy. It continues to define its 2005 paper, Illicit Drug Use in the EU: Legislative
core mission, and the core purpose of the Approaches, observes:
of drug abuse. decriminalization law, as follows:
In the EU Member States, notwith-
This law reinforces the resources in the standing different positions and atti-
context of demand reduction by send- tudes, we can see a trend to conceive the
ing to treatment drug addicts and illicit use of drugs (including its prepara-
[includes] those that are not addicts tory acts) as a relatively “minor” offence,
but need a specialized intervention. to which it is not adequate to apply
With this Law, we expect to contribute “sanctions involving deprivation of lib-
to the resolution of the problem in an erty.”25
integrated and constructive way, look-
ing at the drug addict as a sick person, Despite this, the agency warns that “it would
who nevertheless must be responsible be a mistake to define [these changes] as a
for a behavior that is still considered an trend in a ‘relaxation’ or a ‘softening’ of the
offense in Portugal.22 drug laws in Europe.”26 Even where there is a
strong de-emphasis on incarceration and
As the institute puts it, “Demand reduction other criminal sanctions for drug use, the
is clearly IDT’s central task.”23 aim in most EU countries is merely to for-
mulate more efficient and proportionate
sanctions—not legalize drug use.
Portugal Viewed in The ongoing generalized belief in crimi-
the Context of the nalization notwithstanding, all EU states
have agreed within the last several years to
European Union broad principles for formulating drug policy.
Although there is still wide variance in The EMCDDA refers to this consensus as
drug policy among the EU states, there are GBE: a global, balanced, evidence-based ap-
10

14. proach to drug policy. In this formulation, and in Luxembourg, which only permits pun-
“global” designates an acknowledgment that ishment by a fine for cannabis usage. None-
all aspects of drug policy—prevention and theless, Portugal remains the only EU state to
anti-trafficking efforts—require international decriminalize explicitly, and the criminaliza-
efforts. “Balanced” requires a sense of both tion framework continues to predominate in
proportion and a roughly equal emphasis on the EU for most drug offenses.
supply reduction and demand reduction.
“Evidence-based” requires that all policy judg-
ments be grounded in data and exclude moral Effects of Portuguese
and ideological considerations. Decriminalization
This trend is evident not only in the slow
de facto movement away from criminaliza- Since Portugal enacted its decriminaliza-
tion of small amounts of cannabis, but also tion scheme in 2001, drug usage in many cat-
in the increasing acceptance across the EU of egories has actually decreased when measured
even more controversial “harm reduction” in absolute terms, whereas usage in other cat-
policies. As EMCDDA’s 2007 annual report egories has increased only slightly or mildly.
documented: None of the parade of horrors that decrimi-
nalization opponents in Portugal predicted,
Historically, the topic of harm reduc- and that decriminalization opponents around
tion has been more controversial. This the world typically invoke, has come to pass. In
is changing, and harm reduction as a many cases, precisely the opposite has hap-
part of a comprehensive package of pened, as usage has declined in many key cate-
demand reduction measures now ap- gories and drug-related social ills have been far
pears to have become a more explicit more contained in a decriminalized regime.
part of the European approach. This is The true effects of Portuguese decriminal-
evident in the fact that both opioid ization can be understood only by comparing
substitution treatment and needle and postdecriminalization usage and trends in
syringe exchange programmes are now Portugal with other EU states, as well as with
found in virtually all EU Member non-EU states (such as the United States,
States. . . .27 Canada, and Australia) that continue to crimi-
nalize drugs even for personal usage. And in
In 10 years, the availability of harm-reduction virtually every category of any significance,
measures, such as opioid substitution treat- Portugal, since decriminalization, has outper-
ment, has increased tenfold across the EU.28 formed the vast majority of other states that
As noted above, other EU nations have continue to adhere to a criminalization regime.
adopted what amounts to de facto decriminal-
ization, but have not explicitly declared drug Effects Viewed in Absolute Terms
usage “decriminalized.” In Spain, for instance, Usage Rates. Since decriminalization, life-
“a drug consumer will still be judged by a crim- time prevalence rates (which measure how
inal court, although he or she will never be sent many people have consumed a particular drug
Prevalence
to prison for drug consumption alone.”29 or drugs over the course of their lifetime) in rates for the
Moreover, a gap in Spain’s drug laws exists Portugal have decreased for various age groups. 15–19 age group
whereby public drug consumption is prohibit- For students in the 7th–9th grades (13–15
ed, but private drug usage is not, and Spanish years old), the rate decreased from 14.1 per- have actually
legislatures have left this gap standing. cent in 2001 to 10.6 percent in 2006.30 For decreased
Other forms of de facto decriminalization those in the 10th–12th grades (16–18 years in absolute
have occurred in Germany, where a court ruled old), the lifetime prevalence rate, which
that imprisonment for petty drug possession increased from 14.1 percent in 1995 to 27.6 terms since
offenses implicates constitutional concerns, percent in 2001, the year of decriminalization, decriminalization.
11

15. has decreased subsequent to decriminaliza- ly.35 For other age groups of older citizens, in-
tion, to 21.6 percent in 2006.31 For the same creases in lifetime prevalence rates for drugs
groups, prevalence rates for psychoactive sub- generally have ranged from slight to mild.
stances have also decreased subsequent to Such an increase in lifetime prevalence rates for
decriminalization.32 the general population is virtually inevitable in
In fact, for those two critical groups of every nation, regardless of drug policy and regardless
youth (13–15 years and 16–18 years), preva- of whether there is even an actual increase in drug
lence rates have declined for virtually every usage. The IDT’s Goulão explained why:
substance since decriminalization (see Figures
4 and 5).33 This is an expected result, even when
For some older age groups (beginning with there is not an increase in drug use,
19- to 24-year-olds), there has been a slight to because of the cohort effect (in the
mild increase in drug usage, generally from sample, from one study to the other,
2001 to 2006, including a small rise in the use older people that never try drugs are
of psychoactive substances for the 15–24 age replaced for a new generation among
group,34 and a more substantial increase in the whom a significant percentage already
same age group for illicit substances general- had that experience).36
Figure 4
National Investigation in School Environment, 2001 and 2006, 3rd Cycle (7th, 8th, and 9th years), Portugal,
Prevalence Over Entire Life
30
2001 2006
25
20
Percent
15
10
5
0
Cannabis Cocaine Ecstasy Amphetamines Heroin Hallucinatory LSD
Mushrooms GHB Ketamine Methadone
Illicit Substances
Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal, Draft 2007 Annual Report, slide 13.
12

16. Figure 5
National Investigation in School Environment, 2001 and 2006, Secondary (10th, 11th, and 12th years), Portugal,
Prevalence Over Entire Life
30
2001 2006
25
20
Percent
15
10
5
0
Cannabis Ecstasy Cocaine Amphetamines LSD Hallucinatory Heroin GHB Ketamine Methadone
Mushrooms
Illicit Substances
Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal, Draft 2007 Annual Report, slide 14.
When it comes to assessing the long-term The 8th-graders have been harbingers
effects of drug policy and treatment approach- of change observed later in the upper
es, Portuguese drug policy specialists, like pol- grades, so the fact that they are no
icy specialists in most countries, consider the longer showing declines in their use of
adolescent and postadolescent age groups a number of drugs could mean that the
(15–24) to be the most significant. The behav- declines now being observed in the
ior of those younger age groups is widely con- upper grades also will come to an end
sidered by drug policymakers around the soon.37
world to be the most malleable, and trends
that appear during those years are far and A 2008 study of drug usage trends in 17
away the most potent harbingers for long- nations on five different continents similarly
term behavioral changes. The University of found that the late adolescent years are key in
Michigan’s Lloyd Johnston, the principal determining future, lifelong drug usage:
researcher behind a 2003 study revealing some
increasing trends in the drug usage rates In most countries, the period of risk
among American youth, put it this way: for initiation of use was heavily concen-
13

17. Figure 6
Portugal, 2001 and 2007, General Population (15–24 years old), Lifetime Prevalence
(any illicit drug)
25
2001 2007
20
15
Percent
10
5
0
20–24
15–24 15–19
15–19 15–24
20–24
Age Ranges
Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal, Draft 2007 Annual Report, slide 8.
trated in the period from the mid to late that Portuguese drug officials believed was far
teenage years; there was a slightly older and away the most socially destructive:
and more extended period of risk for
illegal drugs compared to legal drugs.38 At the time of introducing decriminal-
ization the Portuguese drug problem
As one would expect, then, Portuguese offi- was notable due to a high level of prob-
In almost every cials emphasize the dramatic trends seen in lematic drug use and drug-related prob-
category of drug, these younger groups since the decriminaliza- lems. This was associated primarily with
and for drug tion law was enacted. Prevalence rates for the use of heroin, with a particular problem
15–24 age group have increased only very of injecting drug use and the related
usage overall, slightly, whereas the rates for the critical risks of HIV/AIDS and viral hepatitis.41
the lifetime 15–19 age group—critical because such a sub-
stantial number of young citizens begin drug These postdecriminalization decreases were
prevalence rates usage during these years—have actually de- preceded by significant increases in drug-relat-
in the predecrimi- creased in absolute terms since decriminalization ed problems in Portugal in the 1990s.
nalization era (see Figure 6).39 Throughout the 1990s, the number of arrests
Perhaps most strikingly, while prevalence for drug offenses generally, and heroin use
of the 1990s rates for the period from 1999 to 2005, for the specifically, rose steadily.42 By 1998, more than
were higher 16–18 age group, increased somewhat for 60 percent of drug-related arrests were for use
than the post- cannabis (9.4 to 15.1 percent) and for drugs or possession, rather than for sale or posses-
generally (12.3 to 17.7 percent), the prevalence sion to sell. The amount of drugs seized during
decriminalization rate decreased during that same period for that decade rose significantly as well.43
rates. heroin (2.5 to 1.8 percent),40 the substance In almost every category of drug, and for
14

18. drug usage overall, the lifetime prevalence rates creases in the scale of treatment and pre- The number of
in the predecriminalization era of the 1990s vention activities in Portugal.47 newly reported
were higher than the postdecriminalization
rates.44 Moreover, the level of drug trafficking, While proponents of criminalization some- cases of HIV and
as measured by the numbers of those convict- times depict an increase in the number of indi- AIDS among
ed of that offense, has steadily declined since viduals seeking treatment as indicative of wors-
2001 as well (see Figure 7).45 ening drug problems, empirical evidence
drug addicts
Drug-Related Phenomena. As predicted, and suggests that the opposite is almost certainly has declined
desired, when Portugal enacted decriminaliza- true. Between (a) addicts who are afraid to seek substantially
tion, treatment programs—both in terms of treatment due to fear of criminal penalties and
funding levels and the willingness of the popu- (b) addicts who freely seek treatment in a every year since
lation to seek them—have improved substantial- decriminalized framework, the latter option is 2001.
ly.46 That, in turn, has enhanced the ability of clearly preferable, as such increased treatment
local and state government officials to provide decreases the amount of addiction and, as
disease-avoiding services to the population: important, enables the management and
diminution of drug-related harms. For precisely
The number of people in substitution that reason, as treatment enrollment has in-
treatment leapt from 6,040 in 1999 to creased in the postdecriminalized setting, drug-
14,877 in 2003, an increase of 147% . . . . related harms have decreased substantially.
The number of places in detoxification, According to the 2006 report of the
therapeutic communities and half-way Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of the
houses has also increased. . . . The Portuguese Health Ministry, “Available indica-
national strategy has led directly to in- tors continue to suggest effective responses at
Figure 7
Individuals Sentenced by Year, and by Drug-Related Status
Dealer User Dealer/User
2,400
2,000
Individuals Sentenced
1,600
1,200
800
400
2000 2001 a 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),
“The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2006 Annual Report (2007), p. 53.
aWith the entry into effect, starting July 1, 2001, of Law no. 30/2000 of November 29, the use of illegal drugs was
decriminalized and became a misdemeanor. However, growing drugs—as provided under Article 40 of Legislative
Decree no. 15/93 of January 22—continues to be considered a felony.
15

19. Drug-related treatment level . . . and [at] the harm reduction since 2001 (see Figure 8).51
mortality rates level.”48 Moreover, the percentage of drug The percentage of newly diagnosed HIV
users among newly infected HIV-positive indi- and AIDS patients who are drug addicts has
have decreased viduals continues to decline.49 Since 2004, steadily decreased over the same time (see
as well. general infection rates for HIV have remained Figure 9).52
stable—a positive trend, which, according to Likely for the same reasons, there has
the 2006 report, been, since 2000, a mild decrease in the rates
of new hepatitis B and C infections nation-
may be related . . . to the implementa- wide,53 all of which are attributed by analysts
tion of harm reduction measures, to the enhanced treatment programs enabled
which may be leading to a decrease in by decriminalization:
intravenous drug use . . . or to intra-
venous drug use in better sanitary con- With its relatively high rates of heroin
ditions, as indicated by the number of use by injection, Portugal has had a seri-
exchanged syringes in the National ous problem with the transmission of
Programme “Say no to a second hand HIV and other blood-borne viruses. For
syringe.”50 example, in 1999 Portugal had the high-
est rate of HIV amongst injecting drug
Most significant, the number of newly users in the European Union . . . . This is
reported cases of HIV and AIDS among drug a major target of a public health ap-
addicts has declined substantially every year proach to drug use, with opiate substi-
Figure 8
HIV/AIDS Notifications: Drug Users and Nondrug Users, by Year of Diagnosis
HIV Drug Users AIDS Drug Users
HIV Nondrug Users AIDS Nondrug Users
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
Individuals
800
600
400
200
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005* 2006
Year
Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),
“The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2006 Annual Report (2007), p. 26.
*Infection by HIV was integrated into the list of diseases of mandatory declaration.
16

20. Figure 9
HIV/AIDS Notifications, Percent Drug Users and Nondrug Users, by Year of Diagnosis
HIV Drug Users AIDS Drug Users
HIV Non drug Users AIDS Non drug Users
80
70
60
50
Percent
40
30
20
10
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005* 2006
Year
Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),
“The National Situation relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2006 Annual Report (2007), p. 26.
*Infection by HIV was integrated into the list of diseases of mandatory declaration.
tution treatment and needle exchange from 2002 to 2006 for every prohibited sub-
being an important element of the stance have either declined significantly or
Portuguese response. Between 1999 and remained constant compared with 2001. In
2003, there was a 17% reduction in the notifi- 2000, for instance, the number of deaths from
cations of new, drug-related cases of HIV . . . . opiates (including heroin) was 281. That num-
There were also reductions in the numbers of ber has decreased steadily since decriminaliza-
tracked cases of Hepatitis C and B in treat- tion, to 133 in 2006 (see Figure 11).56
ment centres, despite the increasing num- As is true for drug usage rates, these post-
bers of people in treatment.54 decriminalization decreases were preceded by The total number
significant increases in drug-related problems
Beyond disease, drug-related mortality rates in Portugal throughout the 1990s. Through-
of drug-related
have decreased as well. Although the number out the predecriminalization 1990s, the num- deaths has
of toxicological exams undertaken as part of ber of acute drug-related deaths increased actually decreased
postmortem investigations has increased sub- every year, increasing more than tenfold from
stantially every year since 2002, the number of 1989 to 1999, reaching a total of almost 400 from the prede-
positive results is far lower than the levels dur- by 1999 (see Figures 12 and 13).57 criminalization
ing 2000 and 2001 (see Figure 10).55 The total number of drug-related deaths year of 1999
In 2001, for instance, 280 toxicological has actually decreased from the predecriminal-
tests found a positive result (out of 1,259 tests ization year of 1999 (when it totaled close to (when it totaled
undertaken). In 2006, the number of positive 400) to 2006 (when the total was 290). close to 400)
results was only 216 (out of a much higher Like drug-related deaths, predecriminal-
2,308 tests undertaken). ization drug-related AIDS cases skyrocketed
to 2006 (when the
In absolute numbers, drug-related deaths throughout the 1990s,58 while the prevalence total was 290).
17

21. Figure 10
Toxicological Examinations and Positive Results, by Year
Positive Results Toxicological Examinations
350 2,308 2,500
2,173
Toxicological Examinations
300 318
280 2,000
250 1,656
Positive Results
200 1,356 219 216 1,500
1,255 1,259 1,166
150 156 156
152 1,000
100
500
50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),
“The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2006 Annual Report (2007), p. 30.
Figure 11
Deaths,* by Year, by Substance
Opiatesa Cocaine Cannabis Methadone Amphetaminesb
300
250
200
Deaths
150
100
50
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),
“The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2006 Annual Report (2007), p. 31.
*Cases of death with positive results in toxicological exams of drugs or narcotics conducted in the National Institute of
Legal Medicine.
aIncludes heroine, morphine, and codeine.
bIncludes amphetamines, methamphetamines, MDA, and MDMA.
18

22. rates for HIV and hepatitis were far higher.59 both drug and drug-related problems. The effects
Thus, even in those drug-related categories Through providing problematic drug of Portuguese
that have worsened in absolute terms since users with a better system of detection
decriminalization, those categories compare and referral to treatment, the [Dissua- decriminalization
quite favorably with predecriminalization sion Commissions] increase the ability should be
trends in the 1990s. to address the causes of and harms from
Although education and awareness efforts problematic drug use.60
assessed in the
in the 1990s began to stem the tide of HIV context of trends
infection and those of other sexually transmit- in Europe
ted diseases even before decriminalization, Decriminalization Effects Viewed in
these trends, as demonstrated above, accelerat- Context of Trends in the European Union generally during
ed even more favorably postdecriminalization. Beyond comparing postdecriminalization the same period.
Researchers who interviewed numerous drug trends in Portugal with predecriminalization
policymakers in Europe generally and Portugal trends, the effects of Portuguese decriminal-
specifically found unanimity in support of the ization should be assessed in the context of
view that these positive trends were due to trends in Europe generally during the same
decriminalization, and specifically to Portugal’s period. There is, however, a serious difficulty
ability to provide more extensive and effective in undertaking such a comparison. Although
treatment and education programs: the EMCDDA is tasked with coordinating
the compilation of uniform drug statistics
All the interviewees agreed that decrim- among EU states, its lack of compulsory
inalization has been beneficial for exist- authority, as well as the lack of resources in
ing drug users, principally because many EU states, means that there is very little
decriminalization has resulted in earlier real reporting uniformity. Many EU states,
intervention and the provision of more particularly the poorer ones, often allow
therapeutic and targeted responses to many years to elapse before undertaking
Figure 12
Number of Acute Drug-Related Deaths, 1987–1999
500
400
Number of Deaths
300
200
100
0
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Year
Source: Mirjam van het Loo, Ineke van Beusekom, and James P. Kahan, “Decriminalization of Drug Use in Portugal:
The Development of a Policy,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 582, Cross-National
Drug Policy (July 2002): 53.
19

23. Figure 13
Deaths,* According to Year
500
400
Deaths 300
200
100
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),
“The National Situation Relating to Drugs and Dependency,” 2005 Annual Report (2006), p. 71.
*Cases of death with positive results in drug toxicological exams conducted in the National Institute of Legal Medicine.
Figure 14
Indexed Trends in Reports for Drug Law Offenses in EU Member States, 2000–2005
Cocaine All reports Cannabis Heroin
175
150
Index (15–175)
125
100
75
50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Source: European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction, “The State of the Drug Problem in Europe,”
Annual Report (2007), p. 25.
20

24. comprehensive drug-related surveys, and Across EU states, according to the Despite
even those states that report more regularly EMCDDA’s 2007 annual report (“The State of difficulties,
often measure metrics that are slightly differ- the Drug Problem in Europe”), “drug use in
ent—when compared with both prior metrics general remains at historically high levels, but some meaningful
they surveyed and the metrics surveyed by it has stabilised in most areas, and in some comparisons can
other EU states. areas there are even signs that merit cautious
Despite these difficulties, some meaning- optimism.”61 That EU trend of historically
still be made.
ful comparisons can still be made. Drug sta- high usage rates can be seen for cannabis and
tistics rarely change radically from one year cocaine, the two most widely used drugs in the
to the next. Thus, comparisons between EU EU, respectively (followed far behind by ecstasy
states of metrics such as prevalence rates and and amphetamines; usage of crack cocaine
drug-related social problems can still be use- remains negligible in the EU).62 Across the EU,
ful even if they are taken from different years the number of drug offenses in absolute terms
or measuring population clusters that are has risen steadily since 2000 (see Figure 14).63
defined slightly differently. Comparisons For cannabis usage, “current levels are by
with slightly different statistics lack mathe- historical standards very high” (“although
matical exactitude, but they still afford sub- only a relatively small proportion of cannabis
stantial analytical utility. users are using the drug on a regular and
Figure 15
European Union (2001–2005), General Population (15–64 Years), Cannabis, Prevalence
over Entire Life
40
35
30
25
Percent
20
15
10
5
0
m
s
ay
G ain
nd
en
g
Po d
iu ce
xe ce
k
et ny
l
r.)
nd
ga
ur
do
an
ar
w
ed
n
la
Lu ree
(F
a
Sp
rla
bo
m
rtu
nl
Be Fra
g
m
or
Ire
Sw
in
en
m
G
Fi
he
m
er
N
K
D
lg
d
N
te
ni
U
Member States
Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),
Draft 2007 Annual Report, slide 9.
21

25. The majority of intensive basis”).64 For cocaine, it is estimated country).74 One finds the same conclusions
EU states have that in 2007, 4.5 million Europeans used it, for the EU country-by-country prevalence rate
up from 3.5 million the year before.65 All met- for heroin and injection usage (compare the
rates that are rics point to an “upward trend” in cocaine 2006 prevalence rate for students for heroin
double and triple usage across the EU.66 use in Portugal of 2.6 percent75 with the sever-
In the context of these EU-wide trends, al EU countries with substantially higher
the rate for post- usage rates in postdecriminalization Portugal rates; see Figure 18).76
decriminalization are notably low. Indeed, as a 2006 report on For cocaine, the lifetime prevalence rate for
Portugal. Portuguese drug policy concluded, five years the student age group in Portugal is 1.6 per-
after decriminalization, “The prevalence of cent whereas for Europe generally, it is sub-
drugs in Portugal, both in general and the stantially higher—4 percent.77 As the EMCD-
school populations, is below EU average.”67 DA reported in its 2007 report, “Based on
For the period 2001–2005, Portugal—for recent national population surveys in the EU
the 15–64 age group—has the absolute lowest and Norway, it is estimated that cocaine has
lifetime prevalence rate for cannabis, the most been used at least once . . . by more than 12 mil-
used drug in the EU. Indeed, the majority of lion Europeans, representing almost 4 percent
EU states have rates that are double and triple of all adults.”78
the rate for postdecriminalization Portugal Again, postdecriminalization, Portugal—
(see Figures 15 and 16).68 with 1.6 percent—is near the bottom of preva-
Similarly, for usage rates of cocaine (the sec- lence rates, whereas across the EU, “national
ond-most commonly used drug in Europe) for figures on reported lifetime use range from 0.2
the same period and the same age group, only five percent to 7.3 percent, with three countries re-
countries had a lower prevalence rate than the porting values of more than 5 percent (Spain,
Portuguese rate. Most EU states have double, Italy, the United Kingdom).”79 For cocaine
triple, quadruple, or even higher rates than Portu- usage, Europe is generally experiencing an
gal’s, including some with the harshest criminal- “overall increase in use.”80 Increases (in the
ization schemes in the EU (see Figure 17).69 15–34 age group) can be seen in most EU
Indeed, subsequent to decriminalization in states (see Figure 19).81
Portugal, for almost every narcotic, the lifetime By and large, usage rates for each category
prevalence rates—the percentage of adults who of drugs continue to be lower in the EU than
will use a particular drug over the course of in non-EU states with a far more criminal-
their lifetime—is far lower in Portugal than in ized approach to drug usage:
Europe generally. For cannabis, compare the
2006 lifetime prevalence rate for Portugal (8.2 Estimated cannabis use is, on average,
percent)70 with the rate in Europe generally (25 considerably lower in the European
percent).71 Indeed, the 8.2 percent lifetime preva- Union than in the USA, Canada or
lence rate in Portugal (meaning 8.2 percent of Australia. As regards stimulant drugs,
Portuguese citizens in the studied age range levels of ecstasy use are broadly similar
consumed cannabis at least once in their life) is worldwide, although Australia reports
almost the equivalent of the prevalence rate for high prevalence levels, and, in the case
EU states just from the last year alone (7.1 percent) of amphetamine, prevalence is higher
(meaning that 7.1 percent of EU citizens have in Australia and the USA than in
consumed cannabis in the last year).72 Europe and Canada. The prevalence of
Country-by-country prevalence rates in the cocaine use is higher in the USA and
EU for amphetamine73 and ecstasy usage sim- Canada than in the European Union
ilarly show Portugal with among the lowest and Australia.82
usage rates in the EU (compare, for instance,
Portugal’s ecstasy prevalence rate [1.6 percent] Indeed, a 2008 survey of drug usage among
with the higher rates in virtually every EU Americans found that the United States has the
22

26. Figure 16
European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs
Sixteen-Year-Old Students
Prevalence over Entire Life, Cannabis (percent)
0 10 20 30 40 50
Czech Republic
Ireland
France
United Kingdom
Slovenia
Italy
Slovakia
Denmark
Estonia
Russia (Moscow)
Croatia
Ukraine
Bulgaria
Poland
Latvia
Hungary
Portugal
Iceland
Lithuania
Finland
Malta
Faroe Islands
Sweden
Cyprus
2003 1999 1995
Source: Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodependência de Portugal (Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction of Portugal),
“Os Adolescentes e a Droga” (“Adolescents and Drugs”), 2003, p. 6.
23