Drug Decriminalization in Portugal a Success

Here's a great case study at the CATO Institute on the effects of drug decriminalization in Portugal:

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 Portugal's 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.

It's a slam dunk. The population has experimented with it and agree it's better this way. Usage is down, and side related diseases among addicts are down. The nightmare scenarios never happened.

Now they just have to take the step to full legalization from decriminalization.

Hat tip: Pat

Cato: US Needs to Look at Canada For Pointers On Capitalism, Small Government

In things I never thought I would be reading: The libertarian think tank Cato Institute is touting the merits of Canada. So much for being a socialist backwater. Canada and Jefferson’s Natural Progress

Major pro-market reforms are possible in advanced welfare states — Jefferson can be proven wrong, as Canada illustrates. U.S policymakers can prove Jefferson wrong as well. They can start by cutting spending, decentralizing power out of Washington, and making pro-growth tax reforms in response to globalization, as Canada has, rather than imposing self-defeating “Buy America” provisions and making childish rants about “corporations moving jobs offshore.”

This is another result of George W. Bush's disastrous administration. Who would have even considered reading something like this 10 years ago? Canada has taken some positive steps in the right direction while the US was getting worse and worse. It only took a less than a decade to see the rot show through in America.

Bush: Big Government Checklist

The CATO institute add's up Bush's insane expansion of government. (here)

-Increased federal domestic discretionary spending (even before the bailout) faster than any president since Lyndon Johnson.
-Enacted the largest new entitlement program since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, an unfunded Medicare prescription drug benefit that could add as much as $11.2 trillion to the program’s unfunded liabilities;
-Dramatically increased federal control over local schools while increasing federal education spending by nearly 61 percent;
-Signed a campaign finance bill that greatly restricts freedom of speech, despite saying he believed it was unconstitutional;
-Authorized warrantless wiretapping and given vast new powers to law enforcement;
-Federalized airport security and created a new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security;
-Added roughly 7,000 pages of new federal regulations, bringing the cost of federal regulations to the economy to more than $1.1 trillion;
-Enacted a $1.5 billion program to promote marriage;
-Proposed a $1.7 billion initiative to develop a hydrogen-powered car;
-Abandoned traditional conservative support for free trade by imposing tariffs and other import restrictions on steel and lumber;
-Expanded President Clinton’s national service program;
-Increased farm subsidies;
-Launched an array of new regulations on corporate governance and accounting; and
-Generally did more to centralize government power in the executive branch than any administration since Richard Nixon.

Things We Never Hear About: Tenuous Supply Line Through Pakistan to Afghanistan

Fighting a war in a land locked country like Afghanistan has many logistical hurdles. Right now the main route is through Pakistan and it's become more difficult to control. The Cato Institute has an article explaining the difficulty:

Militants operating in and around the Pakistani tribal region of Khyber Agency have repeatedly hijacked supply vehicles entering Afghanistan. Earlier this month, gunmen torched more than 160 vehicles near the Pakistani border city of Peshawar, the biggest assault yet on the vital military supply line. Last March, dozens of oil tankers were attacked in the tribal town of Landi Kotal. If the Pakistani supply routes are severed, Washington's options are not good.

Relying on providing enough supplies through the air using planes off of aircraft carriers in the Indian Ocean is not realistic. That is true even with the current troop levels in Afghanistan, much less with the 20,000 to 30,000 additional forces earmarked for deployment in 2009.
....

For the time being, the U.S. and NATO will have to rely on Pakistan. America's foreign policy in the region remains hostage to events in that increasingly unstable country. Washington would be wise to take steps immediately to repair relations with either Tehran or Moscow if it wishes to have another feasible option for sustaining the Afghanistan mission.

It's sad irony that both NATO and the Taliban/Al Qaida are supplying their principles from Pakistan. The question arises again: What the hell do we do with Pakistan?