Does Decriminalization of Drugs Work?

Does Decriminalization of Drugs Work? Well according to a new paper published in April by the Cato Institute, the answer is yes, decriminalization does work. In Portugal, where the study was conducted over a five year period, the rates of decline among drug use are impressive. In fact, Five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens has declined, and those who might of hid underground to curb their addition are now seeking treatment for drug addiction, which has more than doubled since it was decriminalized.

The Cato paper reports that drug use among all users is now among the lowest in the EU, in people over age 15. Further, drug use when compared proportionally to Portuguese, have a lower drug use than Americans. Not only has decriminalization lowered drug use, but it has also lowered the new transmission of HIV drug users, which fell 17% since the law took effect.

Prior to the change in law, critics argued that Portugal would become a haven for tourist looking to do drugs, but the reality was quite the opposite. Not only had rates of drug use declined, but Portugal saved a lot of money by offering health services vs the more expensive option of incarceration. This has also freed up law enforcement to go after those who deal drugs in large quantities.

In the U.S. the drug policy debate revolves around "speculation and fear mongering," rather than empirical evidence on the effects of more lenient drug policies. While complete decriminalization is unlikely within the States, many States have not reconsidering their overly punitive drug laws. Recently, Senators Jim Webb and Arlen Specter proposed that Congress create a national commission, not unlike Portugal's, to deal with prison reform and overhaul drug-sentencing policy. Though some argue that Portugal is not a good model for the U.S., due to our size and culture, the reality is that the data shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since that is what concerns the public and policymakers most, that point will be at the heart of the coming debate.

Photo Courtesy of Time Inc. (Romano Cagnoni / Getty)

Bush-era torture, a violation of law?

In 2002, former president George W. Bush, authorized the use of especially brutal interrogation tactics against suspected Al-Qaeda operatives, over objections from interrogators. Former intelligence officials and a footnote in a newly released legal memorandum, said the harsh interrogation techniques had been ordered, regardless of if the the interrogators believed that a prisoner had already told them all that they knew. Providing much less valuable information under less severe treatment, than the harsher tactics, which produced no breakthroughs.

The War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment.

Although the U.S. did opt out of the Geneva Convention for the Afghanistan war, which is questionable. What took place in Iraq is fully covered by International Law. In fact, the Secretary General of Amnesty International wrote an urgent letter concerning detainees in U.S. custody in 2002, warning against the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment," could result in violations of the Convention Against Torture. Despite this, former president George W. Bush Central Intelligence Agency officials, for the first time, to use waterboarding and other harsh treatments.

What legal analysis could possibly allow such a thing?? Well according to a memo released in 2003, the Bush administration argued that, during wartime, the president's Commander-in-Chief power overrides the due process guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. If you believe this memo, there is no limit at all to the kinds of interrogation methods the President can authorize, or who he can use these methods against, including U.S. citizens.

Critics of the memo view the legal thinking behind it as flawed. Then Navy general counsel Alberto Mora identified it as a "dangerous document" that "spots some of the legal trees, but misses the constitutional forest. Because it identifies no boundaries to action — more, it alleges there are none — it is virtually useless as guidance.

What is certain is that this memo will be seen as one of the most extreme deviations from the rule of law and from the President's obligation to take care that the law is faithfully executed

Forgiving Student Debt

The banks, Wall Street, the auto industry, and many who purchased homes who shouldn't of are being bailed out, so why not students? Robert Applebaum, "a New York lawyer, started a Facebook group on Jan. 29, more than 156,000 people have joined and 40,000 have signed a petition intended to be sent to Congress. Applebaum, who owes about $96,000 on law school loans, has become a full-time spokesman for the cause" (Baltimore Sun).

Applebaum estimates that over $600 billion is held in private and public debt of student loans in this country. Which is far less than the trillions used to bail out the banks.

Some argue if your going to forgive student loans, why not car loans, credit cards, etc. However, comparing some person who reckless spends money at the mall to a student trying to better themselves, hardly seems a fair comparison. Nor are people who purchase cars or other items with their credit cards burdened by loans that last over 20 years, and which may prevent them from buying a house or starting a business.

While those within the Department of Education and the Federal Government have said that any plan to bailout students is unlikely, Edie Irons for the Project on Student Debt, a nonprofit group dedicated to making college more affordable, said that "The more people who join this group, the more people who are paying attention to this issue - borrowers and policymakers" and that means those within the Dept. of Education and the Federal Government will pay closer attention to this issue as it develops.

Photo Courtesy of (Baltimore Sun photo by Elizabeth Malby / March 19, 2009)