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.

Is Comcast intentionally ripping you off?

I am sure the first thought that goes through the mind of many when reading this headline is "of course Comcast is ripping me off!" Comcast is one of the most hated service providers in the U.S. They have some of the lowest customer satisfaction possible, their pricing tactics outrageous, service unreliable, and your relationship with them hard to cancel.

Now I believe I've figured out another way Comcast is ripping off their customers, and this one is blatant. I believe Comcast is selling you internet speeds that they know you won't achieve with the equipment they charge you to use.

See, twice now in the last two years, in two different Comcast markets, I've swapped out the standard Xfinity internet modem/router that Comcast rents to its customers, for my own equipment. Before each of these swaps, I was experiencing internet speeds much slower than Comcast advertised and that I paid for. After each of these swaps, I experienced the internet speeds that Comcast advertised and that I had paid for.

Internet speed using the Comcast Xfinity equipment rented to customers.

Last month, I decided to swap out the rented Comcast internet hardware for my own. Over the past 2 years at my girlfriend's apartment in San Francisco, I had been getting internet speeds of about 30mbps at best, with pretty poor coverage around the apartment. Instead of the Xfinity equipment that Comcast rents to us, I plugged in an old and inexpensive Motorola modem, and attached a Google Wifi router to that. Our internet speed went from 30Mbps at best, to just shy of 120Mbps, reliably. We pay for 120Mbps.

Internet speed after ditching the Comcast Xfinity equipment and using my own.

So why did it go from 30Mbps to 120Mbps? The only difference is that we stopped using the Comcast Xfinity equipment and used our own.

Same thing happened to me in Portland in early 2015. I paid for 120Mbps but experienced 40Mbps-60Mbps on the Xfinity equipment rented to me. Then I switched to a cheap Motorola modem, and a cheap Western Digital router, immediately increasing my internet speeds to a reliable 120Mbps.

The only conclusion I can come to is that the Xfinity modem/router doesn't support the Xfinity speeds we pay for. If this is the case, this has to be a known truth at Comcast. If both of my conclusions are true, then this is fraud pure and simple.

Sure, I am only one person with two experiences, so thats not enough to conclude wrongdoing, but the technical side of this would be pretty easy to test and document. Then the only question is if Comcast knew it was doing this. I bet the average lawyer could prove this in court with ease.

What do you say, do we have a nice class-action on our hands?

The simple cause of city traffic with a nearly impossile solution

As an adult on the west coast of the US, I've been driving for many years. On the freeway, in the suburbs, in the city. While I'm lucky to live in a relatively low traffic major city, I've felt the experience of traffic frustration many times over. For the last couple of years though, I've been living in the heart of the city, and walking as my primary form of transportation.

I still own a car, but it sits in the garage nearly all of the time, with use about once per week. So, now I see the world a little differently. With my point of view as a pedestrian and my many years behind the wheel, I have led to a theory of what causes much (most?) of the traffic jams major cities experience.

Pedestrians. Pedestrians like me are why city streets experience traffic problems.

I can't tell you how many times I've sat in traffic where it took two, three, four, even five cycles of a traffic light before I got through an intersection. Only to be stuck at the next one. How many times have you turned a corner, often onto a major street, only to see a line of cars in front of you, barely moving?

Blame pedestrians.

See, nearly every traffic signal includes signals for pedestrians. They tend to indicate: walk, a warning not to walk, and then don't walk. Walk means go ahead and step off the curb and start crossing the street. Its often a green hand, green/white icon of a person, or event he word "walk." The next symbol is a countdown to the changing of the traffic flow. It is often indicated by a flashing red hand, or flashing red icon of a person. It means do not step off the curb, do not enter the intersection. If you are already crossing, you have a limited amount of time to get to the other side of the street. And of course, there is the 'don't walk at all' sign, indicating that you shouldn't be in the intersection at all, typically because of the oncoming traffic.

Unfortunately, pedestrians don't interpret the signs as I've described above, with three stages. My observations show that pedestrians look at those signs in a very binary way. Two stages. Cross, don't cross. The subtle difference between what is intended and how its interpreting is that much of the time, the signal is indicating not to step off the curb, but continue crossing if you already have. Yet, many pedestrians will continue to step off the curb as long as they think they can cross before the countdown is down, or in some cases they'll step off the curb as long as the countdown is still going, even if its down to 1 second before the signal changes.

I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud, or a grumpy old man, but there is a practical implication here. Those signs are set as such in order to allow cars, trucks, buses, and bikes to have an opportunity to turn right or left. As long as pedestrians are in the intersection or stepping off the curb, traffic cannot turn. When they can't turn, they do not move. When they don't move, traffic backs up. On and on and on it goes.

So, to ease traffic we need to clear the way for traffic to turn. To do that, we need pedestrians to follow the signs, and thus following the law. Easy, right?

Nearly impossible.

I think about this problem nearly every day that I walk to and from work, and I haven't landed on a reasonable solution. Hand out traffic tickets to pedestrians? Install physical barriers at crosswalks? Shame pedestrians for stepping off the curb when they shouldn't? Change the symbols on the signals? None of these options seem to have both the intended result while also being practical/realistic.

It appears that the solution employed by some cities, at select major intersections, is to place a traffic officer in the middle of the intersection with white gloves and a whistle. I always thought that they were there to direct vehicle traffic. Now I realize that they are there to direct pedestrian traffic. Stopping them from entering the intersection so that vehicles can make their turns, reducing traffic down behind them. It seems to work, but its not practical at the large scale. Traffic on the streets of downtown Portland is terrible during rush hour. The city would have to deploy dozens of officers, give days a week, to manage these intersections. Not a good use of police officer time, if you ask me.

So, do you agree? Are pedestrians a significant reason city streets experience traffic? Are there ways to solve this problem, which are both effective and practical? Let me know over on Facebook or Twitter, using the links below!

I wonder how a firm like IDEO would approach the solution?

From the Archives: Thoughts on the Law

The following was originally published on my Blogger blog space, in early 2013. While I don't claim to be a legal expert, I do claim to be a common sense citizen that understands the law. That being said, I still hold the following beliefs.

Recently I've noticed what may be an increasing irreverence of the law. Specifically are two very different but interesting examples.

First, the uproar over the suicide of Aaron Swartz. Not the uproar about his death specifically, but the blame that Swartz supporters are levying on others. If you are unfamiliar with the Aaron Swartz story, here is an overly simplified overview. Swartz is an internet celebrity and internet/technology advocate. He (allegedly) hacked into the MIT computer network, downloaded proprietary research from JSTOR, and then freely distributed JSTOR's property on the internet. He was charged with at least 6 felonies and faced anywhere from 6 months to 35 years in jail. He committed suicide recently, and his family reports that he took such an unfortunate and permanent action because he was so distraught over the legal action pending against him. Many Aaron Swartz supporters (and lovers of the internet for that matter) are blaming Aaron's death on the legal system.

This blows me away. Apparently some people have a hard time separating their affinity from things like logic and reason. Like it or not, breaking into a private computer network and stealing property is a crime! Swartz (allegedly) broke the law! If someone broke into your company, stole your valuable property, and gave it away to strangers for free, would you not expect them to be prosecuted?

Another example comes from my home state of Oregon where a county sheriff has warned the Obama administration that he will not enforce any new gun laws or regulations that he believes violate the Second Amendment. Yes, you read that correctly, he will not enforce the law. The problem here is that it is not a sheriff's job to decide what is or isn't law. That's why they are called law enforcement, not law makers.

Our country has arguably the most fair, transparent, and civilized legal system. The people elect representatives, who create laws, enforced by the legal system, and ultimately ratified or shot down by the courts (specifically, the Supreme Court). There are fair, transparent, and civilized ways of challenging or changing the law. If society doesn't like something, they can change it. Swartz had every opportunity to a fair trial and full defense. Sheriffs and the citizens of their counties have a voice through their elected representatives and via elections.

Why do supporters of the internet and information freedom believe they get to unilaterally decide what is a crime or isn't? Would they have cared so much if Swartz wasn't an internet icon or if it were their property broken into and stolen? Why does a sheriff think he can ignore the law of the land and interpret the constitution on his own?

What happened to the rule of law and civility? This is a scary trend and I hope it does not continue.