Its great to get such informative responses to my blog... it allows me to expand my mental horizon and qualify my stance further... By the way, you guys really have a hard-on for Cenk man... lol... 

I apologize for the lopsidedness of the Right wingish link i quoted in the original blog. Its just that, that was one of many that was in line with my view on this topic and i didn't want to spend too much time in getting you the perfect source (no such thing). Since then, i have found many more lopsided links (some right wing and some left wing). I guess it depends on what your personal preference is and you can find backing for it one way or another.

So, instead of going to the Right wing sources i went into the left wing sources and did some research.  Instead of using Holland as an example I decided instead to use a better case study.  I came about a very decent and un biased (more leftist than anything) piece on the Portuguese case study (http://www.idpc.info/php-b in/document/BFDPP_BP_14_Eff ectsOfDecriminalisation_EN. pdf.pdf)

It examines the before and after of Portuguese  "decriminalization&quo t; of all drugs in 2001. The study is pretty good and can be used by right wingers and left wingers alike to prove their respective cases. Pro legalization folks will read this and say that this study shows that decriminalization is showing signs that it works. However, I argue that many of the successes achieved under the banner of "decriminalization&quo t; can be achieved with out decriminalization as well. 

It is important to note that drugs are not LEGALIZED in Portugal but rather DECRIMINALIZED. In short, it takes "consumption" of drugs out of the criminal realm and puts it into the "civil" realm if you will.  Drug trafficking and distribution is still a criminal offense. The main aim is still to discourage and stop the user of all drugs. However, it makes you wonder how you can justify decriminalizing one and not the other? I mean, if one of the core aims of the war on drugs is to cut the roots which is the supply then how can that be achieved by this? If on one hand you make drugs more socially acceptable by passing legislation on behalf of the consumer, but on the other hand make the seller/supplier a criminal, wouldn't this guarantee an endless demand and supply cycle? Wouldn't this ensure that the drug manufacturing base becomes even more innovative in making sure they keep producing drugs because they know that there is a continuous demand? 

One thing this report shows is that it is very difficult to get a large sampling of factual data which can prove correlation between drug related tenancies.  For example, the tendencies of drug use to criminal activities. Also, the increase or decrease in drug consumption trends as a result of decriminalization is not clear. For example, the report shows a decrease in Heroin use but an increase in other drugs (Cocaine, ecstasy,Marijuana). There are a number of factors that are listed to support the case from both directions but it is not reliable enough to make a definitive case. The report also lists the view that since 2001 (when decriminalization went into effect) it has become difficult for law enforecement agencies to distinguish "traffickers" and "consumers" because there is an additional category of "trafficking consumers" added in the legislation.Obviously, every trafficker will try to use this as a fall back defense if arrested.

Also, there is no information on the cost aspect of decriminalization. What is the difference between pre 2001 and post 2001 periods. The effect on the penal system is logical and apparent to see. There are less people in prisons for drug related charges. Well of course! However, what is the cost of enabling and establishing this massive decriminalized bureaucracy as apposed to the costs that were incurred by the system prior to 2001? The most important figure that I could not find was weather decriminalization has REDUCED the number of NEW users picking up the habit. After all, the end goal is to reduce THAT number isn't it? Sure, we can find supporting figures that we are able to treat existing users better and keep the rate of users to pretty much the same level as pre-decriminalization. But are we able to prove that we are actually significantly DECREASING the number of users (casual or addicts)? No...

So, i will leave it to you to read the study for yourself and decide.

I deduce that although some major improvements can be seen in cases concerning  decriminalization. For instance, better identification and treatment of addicts and renewed focus on going after the traffickers. Also, the increase in drug trafficking seizures and other policing successes. These improvements are not ONLY possible through decriminalization or legalization alone. Same results CAN be achieved through existing legislative systems as well if organized and actioned appropriately.  I also believe that the history of decriminalization is not mature enough to make a case for its success or failure based on data.

Some things are clear though. Decriminalization does make drug use more acceptable, it does provide freer access to drugs, it does ensure an endless manufacturing and supply network. So, in es sense what we are achieving by decriminalization is a better understanding and medical care for the current addict/user, a less stigmatized environment for the the addict/user, less crowded and financially over burdened penal and judiciary system.  In my opinion, by doing this we are merely feeding the drug world by accepting it and giving into it. It is not rational to think that this course of action will stop the long term use or supply.Sure, it will help more addicts in treatment and care but it will never stop the cycle.

P.S. I also wanted to say something to those who couldn't fathom my comparisons of a drug user to that of a child molester and the similarities the two may have. In many medical opinions, child molestation can also be an addiction of sorts (psychological abnormality caused by childhood experiences etc etc). Those who indulge in it can't seem to control themselves knowing fully well that it is the WRONG thing to do. They are obviously psychologically disturbed and that is why they are sent to psychologists for assessment and treatment. They are harmful to others obviously. Now, what is so far fetched about comparing them to drug users?? Drug users are also addicted to using drugs (we can argue an "addict" and a "casual user" some other time). They also know fully well that drugs are causing them harm. They fully know it is the WRONG thing to do. They are not only harmful to themselves but also to OTHERS. For example a mother on crack puts her life in danger and that of her children, a father on crack commits criminal acts against others while in a state or being high. If alcohol causes drunk driving accidents and deaths, so does driving under the influence of drugs. So, its not apples to oranges by friends.The two have stark similarities.