decriminalization of marijuana?

Drugs in Portugal: Did Decriminalization Work? - TIME

Pop quiz: Which European country has the most liberal drug laws? (Hint: It's not the Netherlands.)


Although its capital is notorious among stoners and college kids for marijuana haze–filled "coffee shops," Holland has never actually legalized cannabis — the Dutch simply don't enforce their laws against the shops. The correct answer is Portugal, which in 2001 became the first European country to officially abolish all criminal penalties for personal possession of drugs, including marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine.

At the recommendation of a national commission charged with addressing Portugal's drug problem, jail time was replaced with the offer of therapy. The argument was that the fear of prison drives addicts underground and that incarceration is more expensive than treatment — so why not give drug addicts health services instead? Under Portugal's new regime, people found guilty of possessing small amounts of drugs are sent to a panel consisting of a psychologist, social worker and legal adviser for appropriate treatment (which may be refused without criminal punishment), instead of jail.

See the world's most influential people in the 2009 TIME 100.

The question is, does the new policy work? At the time, critics in the poor, socially conservative and largely Catholic nation said decriminalizing drug possession would open the country to "drug tourists" and exacerbate Portugal's drug problem; the country had some of the highest levels of hard-drug use in Europe. But the recently released results of a report commissioned by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, suggest otherwise.

The paper, published by Cato in April, found that in the five years after personal possession was decriminalized, illegal drug use among teens in Portugal declined and rates of new HIV infections caused by sharing of dirty needles dropped, while the number of people seeking treatment for drug addiction more than doubled.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

Portugal's case study is of some interest to lawmakers in the U.S., confronted now with the violent overflow of escalating drug gang wars in Mexico. The U.S. has long championed a hard-line drug policy, supporting only international agreements that enforce drug prohibition and imposing on its citizens some of the world's harshest penalties for drug possession and sales. Yet America has the highest rates of cocaine and marijuana use in the world, and while most of the E.U. (including Holland) has more liberal drug laws than the U.S., it also has less drug use.

"I think we can learn that we should stop being reflexively opposed when someone else does [decriminalize] and should take seriously the possibility that anti-user enforcement isn't having much influence on our drug consumption," says Mark Kleiman, author of the forthcoming When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment and director of the drug policy analysis program at UCLA. Kleiman does not consider Portugal a realistic model for the U.S., however, because of differences in size and culture between the two countries.

But there is a movement afoot in the U.S., in the legislatures of New York State, California and Massachusetts, to reconsider our overly punitive drug laws. Recently, Senators Jim Webb and Arlen Specter proposed that Congress create a national commission, not unlike Portugal's, to deal with prison reform and overhaul drug-sentencing policy. As Webb noted, the U.S. is home to 5% of the global population but 25% of its prisoners.

At the Cato Institute in early April, Greenwald contended that a major problem with most American drug policy debate is that it's based on "speculation and fear mongering," rather than empirical evidence on the effects of more lenient drug policies. In Portugal, the effect was to neutralize what had become the country's number one public health problem, he says.

"The impact in the life of families and our society is much lower than it was before decriminalization," says Joao Castel-Branco Goulao, Portugual's "drug czar" and president of the Institute on Drugs and Drug Addiction, adding that police are now able to re-focus on tracking much higher level dealers and larger quantities of drugs.

Peter Reuter, a professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Maryland, like Kleiman, is skeptical. He conceded in a presentation at the Cato Institute that "it's fair to say that decriminalization in Portugal has met its central goal. Drug use did not rise." However, he notes that Portugal is a small country and that the cyclical nature of drug epidemics — which tends to occur no matter what policies are in place — may account for the declines in heroin use and deaths.

The Cato report's author, Greenwald, hews to the first point: that the data shows that decriminalization does not result in increased drug use. Since that is what concerns the public and policymakers most about decriminalization, he says, "that is the central concession that will transform the debate."

See pictures of Culiacan, the home of Mexico's drug-trafficking industry.

Mom in Chief

The Meaning of Michelle Obama - TIME

It was just two days after the Inauguration when an e-mail went around to Michelle Obama's staff, instructing everyone to be in the East Room of the White House at 3 that afternoon. The First Lady's advisers arrived to find the room filled with ushers and plumbers, electricians and maids and kitchen crew gathered in a huge circle, and Michelle in a T shirt and ponytail, very casual and very much in charge.


"This is my team that came with me from Chicago," Michelle said, pointing to her communications staff and policy people. "This is my team who works here already," she went on, indicating the ring of veterans around the room. Many of the household staff had served for decades; some had postponed retirement because they wanted to serve an African-American President. And so the two groups formed concentric rings and spent the next hour or so making sure that everyone had a chance to meet everyone else. I want you to know that you won't be judged based on whether they know your name, Michelle had warned her advisers. You'll be judged based on whether you know theirs. (See pictures of Michelle Obama behind the scenes.)

The White House became as much Michelle Obama's stage as her husband's even before she colored the fountains green for St. Patrick's Day, or mixed the Truman china with the World's Fair glasses at a state dinner, or installed beehives on the South Lawn, or turned the East Room into a jazz lounge for a night or sacrificed her first sock to the First Puppy. Of all the revelations of her first 100 days, the most striking was that she made it seem natural. She did not spend decades dreaming of this destination, and maybe that's the secret. "I'm not supposed to be here," she says again and again. And ever since she arrived, she has been asking, "What are the things that we can do differently here, the things that have never been done, the people who've never seen or experienced this White House?"

Three generations, two adorable girls and a dog — no First Family has lived with the weight of hope and hype that has landed on the Obamas. Clothes they wear fly off the shelves. Dog breeders from Germany to Australia couldn't keep up with the demand for Portuguese water dogs after Bo debuted. Michelle is the first First Lady to make Maxim's hottest-women-in-the-world list. (She's No. 93; it probably wouldn't be proper for a First Lady to come in any higher.) Cameras with lenses that can count her pores from three states away are trained on her around the clock. Former East Wing veterans marvel at the lovesick coverage she gets: when Oscar de la Renta questions her fashion sense — "You don't ... go to Buckingham Palace in a sweater" — the response is, essentially, Well, what does he know? This is what a paradigm shift looks like. (See pictures of Michelle Obama's fashion diplomacy.)

The question now is what she plans to do with all this attention. We ask the usual questions of any new First Lady: What is she really like? How does she see her role? But it is only of Michelle Obama that we ask, What does she mean? Few First Ladies have embedded themselves so quickly in the world's imagination. And none have traveled so far, not just from Chicago's South Side to the East Wing, but from the caricatured Angry Black Woman of last spring to her exalted status as a New American Icon, as if her arrival will magically reverse eight years of anti-American spitballing, elevate the black middle class, promote family values, give voice to the voiceless and inspire us all to live healthier, more generous lives.

She admits that the sheer symbolic power of the role is perhaps greater than she anticipated. "I tried not to come into this with too many expectations one way or the other," she says on a sunny May afternoon in her East Wing office. "I felt like part of my job — and I still feel like that — is to be open to where this needs to go." She's always shown a shrewd eye for the strategic detour, suspending her career in favor of helping her husband get elected, then getting her daughters settled and her garden planted and, in the process, disarming the critics who cast her as a black radical in a designer dress. She will say she's just doing what comes naturally. But whether by accident or design, or a little of both, she has arrived at a place where her very power is magnified by her apparent lack of interest in it. "Over the years, the role of First Lady has been perceived as largely symbolic," Hillary Clinton observed in her memoirs. "She is expected to represent an ideal — and largely mythical — concept of American womanhood." That was not Clinton's favorite part of the job. Maybe this is Michelle's true advantage: she appears at peace, even relieved, that her power is symbolic rather than institutional. It makes her less threatening, and more potent at the same time — especially since her presence at the White House has unique significance. (See pictures of when Michelle met Hillary.)

The great-great-granddaughter of slaves now occupies a house built by them, one of the most professionally accomplished First Ladies ever cheerfully chooses to call herself Mom in Chief, and the South Side girl whose motivation often came from defying people who tried to stop her now gets to write her own set of rules.

Read TIME's complete interview with the First Lady.

The Truth About Women, Money and Relationships

Why are so many women reluctant to talk openly about the role money plays in their lives and relationships? Hilary Black, a veteran magazine editor (More, Tango) was determined to find out. The result is her compelling new anthology, The Secret Currency of Love: The Unabashed Truth About Women, Money, and Relationships (William Morrow). In it, a number of prominent female writers (including Julia Glass, Laurie Abraham and Joni Evans) spill the beans about money in their own lives. Black spoke by phone from her home in New York City to TIME senior reporter Andrea Sachs.

Why this particular book?

One thing I noticed over the many years I worked at More was that although people often wrote about divorce and Botox and sex, they didn't really talk about money in a way that was as profound or exploratory. And then I was kind of pushed over the edge when a relationship of mine ended. I was involved with a very wealthy man, and I was in my early 30s. I was surprised, when we broke up, at the reaction of my friends. I broke up with him. My friends, who were all independent, employed, sophisticated women, were not particularly supportive. Not across the board, but they were all kind of like, "He treats you so well, and he's so rich. What are you doing?" It was just amazing to see these very sophisticated, independent women kind of reduced to something out of a Jane Austen novel. (See pictures of Those Things Money Can Buy.)

Why do you think this subject is so taboo?

I think it is because money is so wrapped up in self-worth for a lot of people, and self-esteem. The tradition of not talking about money and not talking about your salary is something that has been long-standing over the past 40 years. I think that it's private because people feel that they don't want to reveal that personal part of themselves. For a lot of people it's wrapped up in how successful they are as a person. It is a very powerful force in intimate relationships, because whether you have a lot of money or a little money, it's always there. You don't ever escape its power.

I was very surprised in reading your book how many women — some of them self-identified feminists, some of them professionals — have the fantasy that some man is going to rescue them financially.

It seems like there's a pattern of ambivalence because so many women were raised with this idea that they could either be an astronaut or a ballet dancer or a mom; whereas I think that men were never sent a conflicting message. So I think that women [who] grew up as the children of baby boomers — certainly, from that generation on — felt they had a lot of options, and one of the options was not to work. I think that's why so many women who wanted to make their own way in the world and did so very successfully are kind of caught up in this conflict and this ambivalence about who earns the money.

There are women in your book who married for love and thereby entered poverty and later said that they hadn't really dealt realistically with their futures.

For many, many centuries, marriage was a financial transaction. And then, in the modern era, where marriage became about falling in love and free love and finding your soul mate, people were looking for that without asking some of the most important questions, which is what drives a long-term partnership. I think having similar financial values is crucial. It doesn't matter if you are a profligate spender or an industrious saver. You both have to be the same about it.

Do you think it's difficult for people to be financially compatible in that way?

No. I just think it takes a certain amount of planning. Money is crucial in the way that everyone lives their lives. It can be as simple as going out to dinner. Some people think that is a luxury, and other people think that it's a necessity. I think that things like that should come up and do come up early on. I think that something that simple can signal a whole lot about the way people value their money and what they do with it.

Did you find writers who married for money?

Not anybody who was willing to go on the table with that. I think that is actually the ultimate taboo. I think that it happens all the time, but it's something that nobody would ever admit to publicly.

What advice would you give people, based on what you learned?

What I hope people will take away from this is the idea that money issues are inescapable and that by reading these stories, people will see themselves — aspects of themselves, ambivalence about money, anger about money, how it changes things between people. And I feel that reading these stories will help people navigate their own issues, which I think will be exacerbated by what's going on in the economy right now.

How do you suppose the recession will affect women's thinking about money?

I think it's going to have an enormous impact. I think that what's going on now is so serious, and I think it hasn't even remotely begun to play out yet. I think that without a second Depression, these issues are powerful and can really transform people's relationships. But I think now, when people's lifestyles and very careers are being threatened, all of these things are going to be in the forefront and wield an even stronger influence. So I'm hoping that this book will help women figure out their own circumstances and make them feel that they're not alone and see the different ways that money can impact people's relationships — and hopefully take some of the lessons away that each of these writers have told. (See Sanjay Gupta's article on The Heart of a Woman.

Michelle Obama

Interview with the First Lady - TIME

Mrs. Obama: Welcome. Thanks for taking the time to come.

TIME: Well, thanks for making time.

This is a good day. It's pretty outside, a little sun.

So, I've been following your events, I've been talking extensively with your staff. One of the things I wanted to get at actually goes back to something you said on Tuesday night at the poetry jam. You said it's one thing for people to be speaking in their own spaces. It means something different ... I'm paraphrasing ... but it means something different for them to be speaking in this space. I wonder if you could elaborate on it. What is the meaning of being able to bring these new different voices?
I kind of think back to my childhood, and I tell this story a lot. I mean, I grew up in Chicago on the South Side, and literally a 10-minute drive away was the University of Chicago in all of its grandeur. And I never knew anything about that institution that was a few minutes away from me, and that was so telling, even to the point that my mother worked there. She worked there for four years as a secretary to the legal office. But I never set foot on campus. We came through, we picked her up, we left. It was sort of like another world that didn't belong to me. I didn't think about college in that sense when I was younger. So it was a very foreign place even though it was a stone's throw. It had an impact on my life. (Watch TIME's video "Election Day in Chicago's South Side.")

And there are so many institutions like that around the world, and so many kids like that who are living inches away from power and prestige and fame and fortune, and they don't even know that it exists. And the White House, all these wonderful buildings, these monuments and capitols ... I'm sure there are children who feel that way. I'm sure there are people in this country who feel the same way about these places that I did about the University of Chicago.

And I have probably dedicated more of my life to trying to break down those barriers for people. I think that might be one of the small themes in my professional life, is to try to be the bridge so that more people feel like they have access; that their voice, that their faces, that their worlds count in places like this, and that there is understanding across those divides.

And as I grew up and came to work in those places, right, and got to know them, I realized that the misunderstanding or the disconnect goes both ways; that folks outside of these communities have no idea what goes on within these institutions, and sometimes the people in the institutions have no real understanding of the people who live outside. You know, everybody is dealing in these misperceptions about one another because there is no bridge.

And I just feel like through the small things that we can do here at the White House, we can start exemplifying the importance of building those bridges, in real meaningful ways, so that when you come ... when young people come here, they don't have to come here and be something they're not; they can come here and be who they are, and the folks here will listen. And we can go out and be ourselves and listen in their communities, as well.

Well, you know, that makes me wonder, because you've said so many times, especially to groups of kids, "I'm not supposed to be here." It makes me wonder whether in the last couple of months, maybe you've thought, "Maybe I am supposed to be here." (Laughter.)
You know, I don't know if I have thought that deeply about it, but I think that now that I'm here, there's a whole lot that hopefully I can bring to being here, because of, you know, the differences in the way that I've grown up, the different perspectives that I bring.

And I think that Barack and I and ... you know, I think all of our staff, they're just trying to think about what are the things that we can do differently here, the things that have never been done, the people who've never seen or experienced this White House. How do we make that possible for them?

Well, that day that you started in Anacostia and then ended up with all these amazing women and girls, can you talk a little bit about that day and what it meant to you and what you think it meant to them?
Yes, I think it's a part of this theme. You know, I had this vision when ... as we were going through the campaign and you started thinking about, okay, what if my husband wins and I'm the First Lady, what are the kind of things that I'd like to do? And you always get that question ... or, I got that question a lot over the course of the campaign. But one of the things that I thought was, well, how powerful would it be for young girls to come into this space and hear from other really powerful, impressive, dynamic women, and to have that conversation go on here in the White House?

And as we sort of started thinking through the event and thinking about how I wanted to relate to the D.C. community, as well, I always thought whenever we invited somebody in, I wanted to go out to their space, too. I wanted that to be a mutual exchange; that it's not just people coming here where I live, but it's me going out to where they live.

So we've tried to do that in almost every event that we've done from, you know, the White House Kitchen Garden to whenever we go to a school and read to kids. Either their teachers or the kids will be invited back here very soon. That's sort of a theme. (See pictures of the White House kitchen.)

So the event started coming together. And it came off so beautifully. I think it was ... it's one of those events that stand out in my mind as, this is why I'm here ... to help make this possible and to see the faces on those girls as they entered the East Room in all its glory, and to be sitting around these tables with women they saw on TV, or saw on the news, and to have them having real conversations. Alicia Keyes, who's the idol of every single girl under 30, probably, when she came in, she literally walked around to every single table, because everybody is still a little sort of ... I'm in the White House, let me behave, I can't get up.

Spent: Sex, Evolution and Consumer Behavior

Sex Sells. Here's Why We Buy - TIME

Geoffrey Miller

The Gist:

That iPhone in your pocket? That's for sex. As is pretty much everything you've ever bought, from the car you drive to the t-shirt you wear — or so says evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller. From mating to marketing, Miller explores how everyday consumer choices subtly — and sometimes not so subtly — reveal society's misguided attempts at projecting four central traits (intelligence, conscientiousness, openness, agreeableness) to attract sexual partners.

Highlight Reel:

1. On the difficulty of explaining modern life to our prehistoric ancestors: "Compared with their easygoing clannish ways, our frenetic status seeking and product hunting would look bewildering indeed. Our society would seem noisy, perplexing and maybe psychotic ... All you have to do is sit in classrooms every day for sixteen years to learn counterintuitive skills, and then work and commute fifty hours a week for forty years in tedious jobs for amoral corporations, far away from relatives and friends, without any decent child care, sense of community, political empowerment, or contact with nature. Oh, and you'll have to take special medicines to avoid suicidal despair, and to avoid having more than two children. It's not so bad, really. The shoe swooshes are pretty cool."

2. On the biological concept of marketing: "Since about 1990, there have been two bloodless but momentous revolutions in human affairs: the collapse of Communism in politics, and the rise of signaling theory in biology. Both depended on the same insight: individuals work hard mostly because they want to show off to others, not for the good of the group. This tendency holds true in both organic evolution and human economics ... We've known since Darwin that animals are basically machines for survival and reproduction; now we also know that animals achieve much of their survival and reproductive success through self-advertisement, self-marketing, and self-promotion.

2. On the futility of consumer capitalism: "We take wondrously adaptive capacities for human self-display — language, intelligence, kindness, creativity, and beauty — and then forget how to use them in making friends, attracting mates, and gaining prestige. Instead we rely on goods and services acquired through education, work, and consumption to advertise our personal traits to others. These costly signals are mostly redundant or misleading, so others usually ignore them. They prefer to judge us through natural face-to-face interaction. We thinking our gilding dazzles them, though we ignore their own gilding when choosing our friends and mates."

The Lowdown:

Like Sigmund Freud, Miller sees sex everywhere; all our acquisitions of personal goods, according to Miller, are motivated by the primal desire for procreation or pleasure or both. Though he advocates abolishing income taxes in favor of a "consumption tax" and learning to buy secondhand, he isn't a utopian hippie radical either. "Unlike many malcontents," Miller writes, "I consider the three best inventions of all time to be money, markets, and media." But while Miller does his best to avoid sounding too academic (and has an ear for pulled-from-TMZ.com phrases like "insecure, praise-starved flattery-sluts"), his broad, rambling arguments read, at times, like a college professor's lecture notes. Worse still, his ideas don't seem particularly ground-breaking. "Consumerism is hard to describe when it's the ocean and we're the plankton," Miller argues in his defense. But still: Men buy Porsches to project power, women use eyeliner to look pretty and everybody seeks attention without realizing they're going about it all wrong? Sounds about right to me.