Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: WAIT!!!!!!!! [View all]azurnoir
(45,850 posts)22. wow Glen Greenwald worked for CATO? he write a paper on drug policy for them as part of a debate
here it is part of that entitled
Drug Decriminalization in Portugal:Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies
n July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were decriminalized, not legalized. Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense.
While other states in the European Union have developed various forms of de facto decriminalization whereby substances perceived to be less serious (such as cannabis) rarely lead to criminal prosecution Portugal remains the only EU member state with a law explicitly declaring drugs to be decriminalized. Because more than seven years have now elapsed since enactment of Portugals decriminalization system, there are ample data enabling its effects to be assessed.
Notably, decriminalization has become increasingly popular in Portugal since 2001. Except for some far-right politicians, very few domestic political factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law. And while there is a widespread perception that bureaucratic changes need to be made to Portugals decriminalization framework to make it more efficient and effective, there is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for drug tourists has occurred.
The political consensus in favor of decriminalization is unsurprising in light of the relevant empirical data. Those data indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. Although postdecriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization.
n July 1, 2001, a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Under the new legal framework, all drugs were decriminalized, not legalized. Thus, drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. Drug trafficking continues to be prosecuted as a criminal offense.
While other states in the European Union have developed various forms of de facto decriminalization whereby substances perceived to be less serious (such as cannabis) rarely lead to criminal prosecution Portugal remains the only EU member state with a law explicitly declaring drugs to be decriminalized. Because more than seven years have now elapsed since enactment of Portugals decriminalization system, there are ample data enabling its effects to be assessed.
Notably, decriminalization has become increasingly popular in Portugal since 2001. Except for some far-right politicians, very few domestic political factions are agitating for a repeal of the 2001 law. And while there is a widespread perception that bureaucratic changes need to be made to Portugals decriminalization framework to make it more efficient and effective, there is no real debate about whether drugs should once again be criminalized. More significantly, none of the nightmare scenarios touted by preenactment decriminalization opponents from rampant increases in drug usage among the young to the transformation of Lisbon into a haven for drug tourists has occurred.
The political consensus in favor of decriminalization is unsurprising in light of the relevant empirical data. Those data indicate that decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal, which, in numerous categories, are now among the lowest in the EU, particularly when compared with states with stringent criminalization regimes. Although postdecriminalization usage rates have remained roughly the same or even decreased slightly when compared with other EU states, drug-related pathologies such as sexually transmitted diseases and deaths due to drug usage have decreased dramatically. Drug policy experts attribute those positive trends to the enhanced ability of the Portuguese government to offer treatment programs to its citizens enhancements made possible, for numerous reasons, by decriminalization.
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies
were you aware of that? or did simply mentioning CATO make a really good smear, well unless someone familiar with Greenwald's work for Salon actually looked it up?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
214 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
+1 Money talks, even if I donate 5 dollars on the straight up it's still a sign of support
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#3
Pretty soon, both the far right and far left will be talking about the FEMA camps.
JoePhilly
Jun 2013
#17
Ahh, essentially doing the equivalent of an O'Reilly "Cut his mic off" act.
Fantastic Anarchist
Jun 2013
#30
Bush committed "warrantless wiretapping". Do you know what "warrantless" means? False equivalence
Tarheel_Dem
Jun 2013
#133
+1, whistle blowing is outing someone doing something illegal. Leaking is for the sake of a good sto
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#153
More sophistry, what does Obama have to "defend"?!?! He doesn't even need a warrant!!!!
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#15
Excellent post. And I am dismayed how many eat up his lying smears about Greenwald.
Luminous Animal
Jun 2013
#53
This is not what I said, you're misrepresenting what I said AGAIN.. not surprised. Regards
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#68
So you're in favor of "the President's domestic surveillance of citizens"
LondonReign2
Jun 2013
#146
I'm in favor of you knowing the difference between spying and surveying too
LondonReign2
Jun 2013
#154
wow Glen Greenwald worked for CATO? he write a paper on drug policy for them as part of a debate
azurnoir
Jun 2013
#22
I do not look at these latest revelations to be an attack on the President
snappyturtle
Jun 2013
#25
The accusation of war monger was the OP's, not mine. I was meerly pointing out
snappyturtle
Jun 2013
#43
No, he didn't kill the Tienanmen Square guy. He just killed his credibility. nt
SunSeeker
Jun 2013
#44
I'd find him more credible if he didn't lavish praise on Chinese "free speech" while bashing the US.
SunSeeker
Jun 2013
#67
You keep avoiding the point that he praised China, which has terrible abuses.
SunSeeker
Jun 2013
#75
...If she were a winger? YES!! She's NOT a winger like Greenwald and Snowden.
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#89
OFFS, Hong Kong is no haven of free speech. I can't believe you are singing its praises.
SunSeeker
Jun 2013
#119
Oh, but he did support Iraq! Not only did he support it, he was Bush fanboy who got duped!
Tarheel_Dem
Jun 2013
#138
If he doesn't want to live in a country where there has ever been an atrocity, he's got slim picking
SunSeeker
Jun 2013
#52
It's stupid to go to a country with even worse abuses & lavish praise on it while bashing the US.
SunSeeker
Jun 2013
#61
Yeah, lets take the Carlyle Groups, Cato, Rand Paul supports and Bush appoligist at face value...
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#70
Don't have to be a conspiracy to look at the background of those who are telling this story and
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#81
IF they supported Bush to a shill level like Glen or Ron Paul like Snow they're NOT to be trusted...
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#157
How did the preface of Greenwald's book attacking Bush make him a "shill" for Bush?
DirkGently
Jun 2013
#159
And the "hero" volunteered to fight in the Iraq war after believing everything Bush/Cheney said.
bushisanidiot
Jun 2013
#65
DING DING DING!! Needs to be a Top Post too. When I see a progressive that isn't bashing Obama
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#78
thx I need them, gotta look at things plainly sometimes ... don't know why ANYONE is listening to
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#87
...if the messenger was a war mongering, cato institute winger who supported Rand Paul then we shoul
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#93
I know he is not a liberal, he is a libertarian, but i did not know he supported the Iraq war
still_one
Jun 2013
#94
Support Iraq war AND wirte for CATO and is an asshole, and Snow didn't contribute 15 dollars he gave
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#125
Irrelevant to the question, the question was did he support Bush's war the answer = YES
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#151
REALLY?!?! He even says he gave them the benefit of the doubt!!! I NEVER gave that bastard the
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#158
Me neither. But most of America did, for a moment. Doesn't make him a "shill."
DirkGently
Jun 2013
#160
I agree, if that was the ONLY thing I would agree but it wasn't. Glen is an ass, CATO I contributor
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#161
Yup, it be froggy. But consider that the media is all we got. Besides memory and brains.
freshwest
Jun 2013
#131
Anyone who calls Greenwald "war mongering" clearly has not read Greenwald
Bjorn Against
Jun 2013
#136
And then he became one of the most vocal critics of the Bush Administration
Bjorn Against
Jun 2013
#141
Yeah after it was seen that Bush was losing!! The SECOND there were no WMDs found guys like Glen
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#150
I agree, only after the shit hit the fan though...like most kkkons they dropped the Bush admin like
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#166
And then they all started blogging extensively and expertly on how Bush's actions
Hissyspit
Jun 2013
#177
"I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this ...
uponit7771
Jun 2013
#165
All these recs for an OP that starts out with two lies in the first sentence
Hissyspit
Jun 2013
#174
Washington Post has not only backed away from its initial reporting, it now says that Obama won't
Number23
Jun 2013
#176
Boo. Common lies used by right-wingers and Obamabots to smear Greenwald because of the stuff he says
limpyhobbler
Jun 2013
#210