Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Interview of Professor William Stuntz (DJS)

Professor Eric Goldman on the proposed federal Anti-SLAPP Bill (DJS)

Important advice for new profs: DO NOT make jokes (online or otherwise) about killing your students. (kw)

FTC Report: ID theft is down but overall fraud is up (DJS)

Balkin on reconciliation vs. filibuster (DJS)

Schneier: Security cameras don't reduce crime (DJS)

Most trusted companies for privacy 2010 (by the Ponemon Institute) (DJS)

The internet pile-on over a woman dean's paycheck (kw)

Plagiarism, or "Mixing"? (kw)

Google Buzz launch raises privacy concerns (kw)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Seth Finkelstein on Googling Employees: Why Your Online Reputation Matters

    • Dumbledore on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • John Henry on Thoughts about choosing a law school, part 1

    • ParanoidProf on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • m. Rosenbaum on ECCO Shoes, Transaction Costs, Reputational Norms, the Limits of the Legal System, and Internet Disintermediation

    • Jonathan H. Adler on Standards for Assessing Judicial Nominees

    • Aspirant on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Karloff on Murder Map of Philadelphia

    • PublishingProf on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Aspirant on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • ano on Spring 2010: Is the Window Open? (re-re-bumped)

    • Kaimipono D. Wenger on Strange (Leiter) Poll on Best Law Blogs

    • William Awur on “With All Due Deference to Separation of Powers”

    • Robert Ahdieh on Can We Teach?

    • durendale on Can We Teach?

  •  

    Site Meter

What does decriminalization mean?

posted by Alex Kreit

Earlier this week, the Czech government approved a proposal made by its Justice Ministry to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs starting January 1.  (More here and here.)  As some readers may recall, drug decriminalization made some headlines earlier this year after the CATO Institute released a report by Glenn Greenwald that provided a very favorable picture of Portugal’s 8-year-old drug decriminalization policy.

But, what does “decriminalization” really mean?

This is something that I’ve been spending a fair amount of time thinking about recently as I’ve been working to finish up a paper that I presented at the University of Chicago Legal Forum’s Symposium on Crime, Criminal Law, and the Recession and that compares decriminalization to criminal drug courts.  When I mention to my friends what I’ve been working on and note that Portugal has decriminalized all drugs, most say–”really, all drugs?  Wait, so, what does that mean exactly?  Can people there just go around using drugs on the streets?”

In the United States, I think that when most people hear “decriminalization” they think of the elimination of all criminal penalties for possession of a drug for personal use, perhaps accompanied by a fine.  (“Legalization,” meanwhile, is often used to refer to a system in which it is legal not just to possess a substance but also to manufacture and distribute it.)  I suspect that this is in part because the only time decriminalization typically comes up as a serious policy option in the U.S. is in the context of marijuana policy.

But, as the Portuguese system demonstrates, decriminalization can be much different than what I think most of us typically envision of when we hear the phrase.  In Portugal, it is true that simple possession of small amounts of drugs is not a crime (hence, it is referred to as “decriminalization.”)  And yet, possession and use of drugs in Portugal is still very closely regulated.  If an individual is found in possession of a legal amount of a drug, he or she is issued a civil citation to appear before what is called a “dissuasion panel.”  The panel is made up of 3 individuals, two of whom typically have a medical background.  The panel then assesses whether the individual has an abuse or addiction problem and recommends a course of action.  The recommendations can range from nothing more than a warning with information about the dangers of drug abuse (for an occasional user who does not appear to have an abuse problem) to an order to get treatment.  And individual can be subjected to a fine only if he or she fails to seek treatment after being ordered to by the panel.

Interestingly, when I explain this to my friends, many of them respond by saying: “I thought you said Portugal decriminalized drugs.  From what you’ve described, it sounds like they just have a drug court system.”  And, personally, I think that’s a great description of Portugal’s policy–a civil drug court system.  But of course, in the U.S., “drug court” has traditionally meant a criminal court in which defendants can get treatment but will face prison if they fail.

Unfortunately, none of the reports that I’ve seen so far on the new Czech decriminalization policy have contained a great deal of detail about it (other than regarding the drug amounts that will be decriminalized for each drug.)  But, as Portugal demonstrates, “decriminalization” may not necessarily mean what most of us would think of.  Whatever the Czech system will look like, however, between the positive reviews of Portugal’s policy and this new development (not to mention decriminalization policies taking shape in Mexico, Argentina, and other Latin American countries), it appears that drug “decriminalization” may be becoming a policy trend (at least outside of the United States.)


 December 16, 2009 at 2:15 pm   Posted in: Uncategorized   Print This Post Print This Post

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Nate Oman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Robert Ahdieh
Lisa Fairfax
Michelle Harner
Sherrilyn Ifill
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Tuan Samahon
Alfred Yen










Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Adam Benforado
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress