“The prediction that Portugal would become a centre for drug tourism has been disproved.”

I’d be a little careful about that point. You’re right: but there’s a good reason for it. Whether or not the police give you any hassle depends rather on what you look like. Look Portuguese and no hassle. Look too obviously like a drug tourist and you’ll get lots of it.

It certainly has when it comes to HSBC.
http://madammiaow.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/aint-life-funny-hsbc-started-off-in.html

Although I think decriminalisation of personal possession of all drugs constitutes progress, I don’t think it goes far enough – it still leaves some of the worst aspects of prohibition intact.

First, the production and sale of drugs in the black market – where they become drastically more dangerous. It is well acknowledged that heroin – in it’s pure, medical form – is not harmful to the body: it is the adulterants, extreme addictive ness, and injection technique which cause the harm. Crack has didn’t exist in the US until 1984, a few years after Reagan intensified drug law enforcement: empirical evidence of the iron law of prohibition.

Secondly, you will still get the violence generated from turf wars and law enforcement. Because drug cartels can’t appeal to the law to protect their property rights, they protect them themselves. And because the market is solid and ineradicable, the harder the law enforcement, the higher the violence – something which has been demonstrated so tragically in Mexico.

But certainly, the sea is shifting on drugs policy… And that can only be a good thing.

Sadly not turning all that fast, given Cameron’s rejection of the findings.

I agree with Stuart @3. Also worth mentioning that legalising narcotics, as opposed to either the current system or decriminalisation, would change them from being a big national expense to a big source of revenue.

> Home Office and health ministers should be sent to Portugal

I disagree; it’s not nearly far enough away.

It’s rather telling that Melanie Philips finds fault with Brand for the following:

And insofar as he had a message, it was, of course, that we needed to stop regarding drug addiction as a judicial and criminal issue and develop instead ‘more compassionate, altruistic, loving attitudes’ towards drug users.

How dreadful that we should be more compassionate, altruistic and loving. God forbid!

She really is hideous, isn’t she?

As for her alleged facts, clearly she didn’t take into account http://fullfact.org/factchecks/Portugal_decriminalisation_drugs_effects-3276
or
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2012/12/10/portuguese-drug-policy-alex-stevens/

MM: the federal court accepted that HSBC’s offence was not having strict enough controls, rather than condoning laundering. Like if someone installed malware on your PC because you were an incompetent idiot, and then used the infected computer for nefarious purposes (I also have no idea where your blether about terrorism comes from: the offences were related to the lack of controls in Mexico, and to the bank helping Americans to do business with legitimate nation states against which their government has petty squabbles – Cuba, Iran, etc)

@ 6 UKLiberty

“How dreadful that we should be more compassionate, altruistic and loving. God forbid!”

YOMANK