
The War on Drugs

The War on Drugs, Legalisation
THE WAR ON DRUGS ABOLITION
Abolition, New World
It is also not a certainty that legalizing drugs would result in the huge spike in addiction that Kleiman predicts. In fact, some data argue against it. The Netherlands effectively decriminalized marijuana uses and possession in 1976, and Australia, the Czech Republic, Italy, Germany, and New York State all followed suit. In none of these jurisdictions did marijuana then become a significant health or public-order problem.
But marijuana’s easy; it isn’t physically addictive. So consider Portugal, which in 2001 took the radical step of decriminalizing not only pot but cocaine, heroin, and the rest of the drug spectrum. Decriminalization in Portugal means that the drugs remain technically prohibited — selling them is a major crime — but the purchase, use, and possession of up to ten days’ supply are administrative offenses.
No other country has gone so far, and the results have been astounding. The expected wave of drug tourists never materialized. Teenage use went up shortly before and after decriminalization, but then it settled down, perhaps as the novelty wore off. (Teenagers — particularly eighth graders — are considered harbingers of future societal drug use.)
The lifetime prevalence of adult drug use in Portugal rose slightly, but problem drug use — that is, habitual use of hard drugs — declined after Portugal decriminalized, from 7.6 to 6.8 per 1,000 people. Compare that with nearby Italy, which didn’t decriminalize, where the rates rose from 6.0 to 8.6 per 1,000 people over the same time span.
Because addicts can now legally obtain sterile syringes in Portugal, decriminalization seems to have cut radically the number of addicts infected with H.I.V., from 907 in 2000 to 267 in 2008, while cases of full-blown AIDS among addicts fell from 506 to 108 during the same period.
The new Portuguese law has also had a striking effect on the size of the country’s prison population. The number of inmates serving time for drug offenses fell by more than half, and today they make up only 21 percent of those incarcerated.
A similar reduction in the United States would free 260,000 people — the equivalent of letting the entire population of Buffalo out of jail. When applying the lessons of Portugal to the United States, it’s important to note that the Portuguese didn’t just throw open access to dangerous drugs without planning for people who couldn’t handle them.
Portugal poured money into drug treatment, expanding the number of addicts served by more than 50 percent. It established Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction, each of which is composed of three people — often a doctor, a social worker, and an attorney — who are authorized to refer a drug user to treatment and in some cases impose a relatively small fine. Nor did Portugal’s decriminalization experiment happen in a vacuum.
The country has been increasing its spending on social services since the 1970s and even instituted a guaranteed minimum income in the late 1990s. The rapid expansion of the welfare state may have contributed to Portugal’s well-publicized economic troubles, but it can probably also share credit for the drop in problem drug use.
Decriminalization has been a success in Portugal. Nobody there argues seriously for abandoning the policy, and being identified with the law is good politics: during his successful 2009 re-election campaign, former prime minister José Sócrates boasted of his role in establishing it. So why doesn’t the United States decriminalize?
It’s an attractive idea: Lay off the innocent users and pitiable addicts; keep going after the really bad guys who import and push the drugs. But decriminalization doesn’t do enough. As successful as Portugal’s experiment has been, the Lisbon government still has no control over drug purity or dosage, and it doesn’t make a dime in tax revenue from the sale of drugs. Organized crime still controls Portugal’s supply and distribution, and drug-related violence, corruption, and gunned-up law enforcement continue.
For these reasons, the effect of drug decriminalization on crime in Portugal is murky. Some crimes strongly associated with drug use increased after decriminalization — street robberies went up by 66 percent, auto theft by 15 percent — but others dropped. (Thefts from homes fell by 8 percent, thefts from businesses by 10 percent.)
A study by the Portuguese police found an increase in opportunistic crimes and a reduction in premeditated and violent crimes, but it could not conclude that the changes were due to the decriminalization of drugs. Heavy-handed enforcement also requires favouring scare tactics over honest inquiry, experimentation, and data gathering; and scare tactics are no way to deal with substances as dangerous as heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine.
Portuguese-style decriminalization also wouldn’t work in the United States because Portugal is a small country with national laws and a national police force, whereas the United States is a patchwork of jurisdictions — thousands of overlapping law-enforcement agencies and prosecutors at the local, county, state, and federal levels.
Philadelphia’s city council, for example, voted to decriminalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana in June 2014, and within a month state police had arrested 140 people for exactly that offense.
The Global History of Psychoactive Substances
David T. Courtwright’s Forces of Habit: Drugs and the Making of the Modern World is widely considered one of the most influential historical analyses of psychoactive substances in global context. Published in 2001, the book synthesises five centuries of drug history, situating psychoactive substances within broader processes of empire-building, capitalist development, globalisation, and modern state formation. Courtwright’s central thesis—that the “psychoactive revolution” fundamentally reshaped human consciousness, social relations, and political economies—offers a compelling framework for understanding how ordinary commodities such as alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine became embedded in global culture, while others were suppressed, criminalised, or marginalised. This literature review evaluates the structure, contributions, limitations, and significance of Courtwright’s work, drawing on detailed references to the text.
Courtwright defines the “psychoactive revolution” as a dramatic expansion in the availability, potency, and consumption of psychoactive substances between 1500 and the present. He illustrates this through the case of Anthony Colombo, a Philadelphia addict whose daily consumption of opium, cigarettes, coffee, and whiskey far exceeded anything possible for even the wealthiest elites in the pre-modern world (pp. 12–13).
Courtwright argues that the twentieth-century world, shaped by industrial capitalism and global trade, created an environment in which:
- psychoactive substances became mass-produced commodities
- transportation networks facilitated planetary diffusion
- processing technologies increased potency and efficiency
- millions of people lived with continuous drug exposure
He describes this as “one of the signal events of world history”—a transformation as significant as industrialisation, colonisation, or urbanisation.
Three components of the revolution
- Scale: billions of consumers instead of localised or elite use.
- Potency: distillation, curing, refining, and chemical synthesis elevated strength and addictive potential.
- Availability: modern retail systems, advertising, and labour patterns made drugs cheap, legal, and ubiquitous.
Thus, the psychoactive revolution is not about humans discovering drugs, but about transforming them into an everyday global infrastructure
Drugs vs. Diseases: A Key Comparison (pp. 13–14)
Courtwright compares his goal with William McNeill’s Plagues and Peoples, a history of microbial diffusion. McNeill showed how diseases shaped civilisations unintentionally. Courtwright argues that drugs spread intentionally, through:
- colonial trade
- commercial enterprise
- state monopolies
- plantation agriculture
- scientific innovation
- corporate marketing




