Comparing Portugal and Oregon's drug decriminalization policies
I am lucky to be spending time in Portugal right now. Not vacation time, but an extended “live like a local” amount of time. Lisbon, where I am based, is beautiful and I am really enjoying it. The entire country is fantastic, and as you have probably heard from others over the last few years, it is (was) a hidden gem in Europe that deserves your attention.
While Portugal is still reemerging onto the global stage (after all, through history, Portugal used to be one of the most powerful and wealthy countries), there is one thing that many people are aware of: the country’s decriminalization of recreational drug use. (Please make sure to read the disclosure statement at the end of this post, it provides important context about the following paragraphs.)
In 2001, Portugal made a bold shift in its approach to drug use by decriminalizing the possession of all drugs for personal use, a move that pivoted the nation's drug policy from a framework of criminal justice to one of public health. Drug use is not legal, rather under this groundbreaking policy, individuals found with drugs within a set amount for personal use are not criminally charged but are instead referred to Dissuasion Commissions, which assess the need for treatment, harm reduction, and social reintegration. This paradigm shift, aimed at treating drug addiction as a health issue rather than a criminal one, has led to significant public health, safety, and addiction improvements, setting a precedent for drug policy reform worldwide.
Nearly 20 years later, my home state of Oregon in the US passed a similar drug decriminalization law. The ballot measure that voters approved is called Measure 110, and it passed with 58% support, with nearly 400,000 more “yes” votes than “no.” This new law and the surrounding policies are said to have been inspired and modeled directly after Portugal’s.
Fast forward to 2023, and many Oregonians, including myself, believe Oregon’s Measure 110 to be a complete and total failure. Fentanyl use is rampant, as is addiction, mental health issues, and homelessness…all four being tightly related to each other.
Everything I have read over the years about Portugal’s policy and it’s impact, as well as my experience in the country as a traveler leads me to support and admire what Portugal has done. So then why don’t I support what is happening in Oregon?
I was sitting in my favorite craft beer bar in Lisbon the other day, when I overheard a group of Americans saying that they understood Portland to have decriminalized drugs, but they also understood the city to be a mess. So I chimed in. I told them that it was Oregon, not Portland, that decriminalized drug use, and as much as I love Portland, I have to admit that they are right, the city is a mess right now due to drug sales and use. They then asked my why I didn’t think decriminalization worked in Oregon.
Here is why: Oregon decriminalized, Portugal decriminalized and then invested heavily in policy, programs, and infrastructure to support their people and prevent addiction as much as they can.
As far as I can tell, Oregon simply decriminalized use, made some token changes to an existing, ineffective drug dissuasion and treatment policy, and called it a day. Sure, the law includes a plan to invest more into treatment and recovery, but the thousands of addicts on our streets don’t seem to be getting access to those resources. From what I can tell, the support Oregon offers is still a loosely connected, complex network of third parties, that have not been effective to date. There is even a phone number you can call to get help! I wonder how often that gets used? (sarcasm)
It would seem that Oregon’s approach is nothing like Portugal’s! Both Oregon and Portugal continue to target and persecute the criminal sale and trafficking of drugs, but that is about where the similarities end. Putting words in the text of a law is different than doing what is needed.
Portugal has effectively said “We won’t treat you like a criminal for using drugs, but we will help you to not ruin your life, not ruin the lives of those around you, and not ruin our country.” They do this with a multi-pronged approach that is aimed at non-users, casual users, frequent users, and addicts. Oregon seems to say “We won’t treat you like a criminal. You are on your own to find the limited resources that exist to get help, if you want it.”
Portugal starts with prevention programs in schools and to the general public that uses a comprehensive approach based on data and wellbeing. Unlike many programs in the United States, the program is not focused on zero-tolerance, because that is not the human reality (abstinence-based sex education, anyone?).
If you do use drugs and get caught, you are given what is essentially the equivalent of a traffic ticket. It isn’t just a ticket that you pay, instead you are called in front of a Dissuasion Commission. This commission, which sounds a bit like a jury or a parole board, will seek to understand your situation, and then impose fines, order community service, enroll you into education programs, send you to drug treatment, put you on probation, and.or even suspend professional licenses. In other words, there are still penalties, but there is also significant social and health support.
Effective and accessible drug treatment seems to be a problem in Oregon. In Portugal, they have ensured infrastructure to make sure treatment happens. Here is another critical factor: Portugal has a social healthcare system. There are no financial barriers to treatment in Portugal. If you need it, you can get it at no cost. No arguing about who pays. No questions about insurance coverage. No financial reason not to get treated. This couldn’t be more different than in America where health insurance is typically tied to work, mental and addiction care coverage is typically different than medical care coverage, navigating programs for low-income citizens is complicated, and the entire industry is profit seeking.
I will be the first to tell you that I am no expert in healthcare, public policy, or the drug trade. I can however share my observations from Portugal.
In what is a relatively poor country by European and American standards, I see significantly fewer homeless people here than I do in Oregon. I haven’t once seen open air drug use or sales, something that I see about once per week in Portland. I’m not scared to walk down the street in a “bad” part of Lisbon at night. Drug use does not appear to be ruining lives, or the city, in any noticable way. (That said, I am an outsider, I don’t live here, and I haven’t experienced all aspects of these policies or programs, so I could be wrong).
More notable than just my observations is what the data says. Since decriminalization and policies for education, support, and treatment went into effect, Portugal has improved across a number of key metrics. The rate of drug addiction went down, and is now one of the lowest in Europe. Drug related deaths went down dramatically on a per capita basis, and is also one of the lowest in Europe. Additionally, the transmission of HIV plummeted, and is again one of the lowest in Europe. Finally, teens and adults in Portugal are some of the least likely in Europe to ever use cocaine or cannabis. It should be noted that there is evidence of some age groups having increased rates of addition and death, during different periods since decriminalization.
So was Oregon wrong to decriminalize drug use? In my opinion, Oregon was wrong to decriminalize without also investing more, and more effectively, into education, prevention, and most importantly, treatment. It is also my opinion that if you believe that Oregon, any state, or the country is doing enough to counterbalance decriminalization, or if you don’t think it is the responsibility of the government to provide these things in order to have a functioning society, you need a wakeup call. Why only fund policing without funding programs to keep people out of police trouble?
A note about the author, sources, data, and contents of this blog post.
First and foremost, I am not an expert in the topics explored here. Much of this blog post is based on my opinion, personal understandings, observations, and readings. I believe my knowledge to be accurate and reasonably complete, but that is likely not the case from an objective, outside point of view.
Additionally, I have used two different chatbots (ChatGPT 4.0 and Bard) to help educate myself on these topics, including the use of them to cross-reference each other for accuracy. Chatbots can and often are wrong. The sources used by me and these chatbots include: The Cato Institute, The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), The Obama Whitehouse, the UK’s Transform Drug Policy Foundation, Portuguese Government reports, and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
It is also important to note that there is not yet comprehensive, comparable studies or reporting on effectiveness and outcomes in Oregon, as only three years has passed since decriminalization was approved by voters. Trustworthy data collection and research on a sweeping change like this often takes much longer than three years. Therefore, the parts in this blog post about Oregon are heavily based on my own opinion, observation, and limited education on the topic.