The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 10 of the 85 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
What Can We Learn From The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs?
Open accessAbstract
The issue of decriminalizing illicit drugs is hotly debated, but is rarely subject to evidence-based analysis. This paper examines the case of Portugal, a nation that decriminalized the use and possession of all illicit drugs on 1 July 2001. Drawing upon independent evaluations and interviews conducted with 13 key stakeholders in 2007 and 2009, it critically analyses the criminal justice and health impacts against trends from neighbouring Spain and Italy. It concludes that contrary to predictions, the Portuguese decriminalization did not lead to major increases in drug use. Indeed, evidence indicates reductions in problematic use, drug-related harms and criminal justice overcrowding. The article discusses these developments in the context of drug law debates and criminological discussions on late modern governance.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
59 Sources not found · 48 Own interpretation · 41 No basis given · 16 Own result · 13 Own method · 11 Not checked yet · 7 Partly supported · 4 No full text of the sources · 3 Supported · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The primary impact was reducing the burden and cost in the criminal justice system.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites MacCoun and Reuter 2001a sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “The basis for continued cannabis prohibition” (page unavailable), the authors identify expensive, intrusive enforcement as a primary harm of criminalisation and say prohibition is costly. That supports the rationale for reducing criminal-justice costs, but the passage does not establish that reduced burden and cost was the primary observed impact of removing penalties. (LLM, conf=0.80)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Despite international evidence that rates of drug use are not directly affected by harsher punishment of drug users (Reuter and Stevens 2007;Degenhardt et al. 2008)”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Reuter and Stevens 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Degenhardt et al. 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that the US had high drug-use levels despite punitive policies and concludes that punitive possession-and-use policies account for limited variation in national rates. That supports a weak relationship, but the paper does not establish that harsher punishment has no direct effect on drug-use rates. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This also reduced the intrusiveness of criminal justice responses to users.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites MacCoun and Reuter 2001a source
The Dutch Cannabis Policy section describes a policy of non-enforcement for possession of small amounts and reports that enforcement became more lenient. The discussion of continued prohibition also characterizes criminal enforcement as intrusive. Together, these passages support the claim that removing penalties reduced the intrusiveness of responses to cannabis users; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The extent of additional use depended rather on the extent to which there was commercial promotion.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites MacCoun and Reuter 2001a sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the ‘National Household Survey on Drug Abuse’ section (page not available), the authors hypothesise that increased access and promotion contributed to rising Dutch cannabis use, while cautioning that commercialisation was not the sole cause. In ‘The basis for continued cannabis prohibition’ (page not available), they say they believe supplier promotion would produce larger increases in use. These passages support a link, but not the claim’s unqualified statement that the extent of additional use depended on the extent of promotion. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The removal of criminal penalties alone had little or no impact on the prevalence of drug use or drug-related health harms.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites MacCoun and Reuter 2001a sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and the section on cannabis prohibition say that removing criminal penalties for cannabis possession does not appear to increase drug-use prevalence. They do not establish that removal has little or no impact on drug-related health harms; the paper discusses harms of cannabis use and criminalisation without assessing that outcome. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“They used the example of the Netherlands, where the rise in cannabis use did not immediately follow its depenalization, but coincided with the development of 'coffee shops' that openly promoted their illicit wares (MacCoun and Reuter 2001b).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Introduction
What the sources say
- Supportedcites MacCoun and Reuter 2001b source
In “Trends in the prevalence of cannabis use” (page unavailable), the authors say the 1976 depenalization had little, if any, effect on use during its first seven years. In “Dutch cannabis policy” and the later discussion of use trends (pages unavailable), they describe coffee shops expanding and promoting cannabis more openly during the 1980s, when use rose. They present a link to commercialization as a hypothesis, not an established cause; the citing sentence claims only that the developments coincided. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
In the paper
“the number of deaths in Portugal recorded as drug-related reduced significantly between 1999 and 2002 (Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodepende ˆncia 2009).”
- Also stated in: § Drug-related health harms · plain
“Figure 7 shows that the number of deaths in Portugal recorded as drug-related reduced significantly between 1999 and 2002 (Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodepende ˆncia 2009).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug-related health harms
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodepende ˆncia 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Drug-related death counts are affected by changes in recording practices as well as underlying drug use rates.
- Also stated in: § Drug-related health harms · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It concludes that contrary to predictions, the Portuguese decriminalization did not lead to major increases in drug use.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, evidence indicates reductions in problematic use, drug-related harms and criminal justice overcrowding.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, evidence indicates reductions in problematic use, drug-related harms and criminal justice overcrowding.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 52
- It may state two separate claims as one. 59
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“They concluded that the removal of criminal penalties appeared to produce positive but slight impacts.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites MacCoun and Reuter 2001a sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract (page unavailable) argues for decriminalising cannabis possession because it does not appear to increase drug prevalence. In “The basis for continued cannabis prohibition” (page unavailable), the authors also describe prohibition as harmful and costly. These passages support a favorable assessment of removing criminal penalties, but they do not characterize its positive impacts as slight. (LLM, conf=0.78)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In contrast, the British Crime Survey reported that in 2001/02, 34 per cent of 16-59-yearolds in the United Kingdom had used an illicit drug (Aust et al. 2002).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > The Portuguese Decriminalization and Drug Action Plan
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Aust et al. 2002Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Extent of drug use among 16-to 59-year-olds’ section gives the 34% figure, but specifies that it is for having used an illicit drug at some time, not necessarily during 2001/02. The paper’s description of the survey says it covers England and Wales, rather than the whole United Kingdom. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Best-practice evidence suggests that the most effective treatment response for cannabis-dependent users is a 'brief intervention' involving six sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy, yet this is not currently provided in Portugal (see, e.g.Copeland et al. 2001).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Reported drug use in general population and specific sub-groups
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Copeland et al. 2001 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports better outcomes for both one- and six-session CBT than for delayed treatment, and greater reductions in cannabis consumption and dependence with six sessions. It also reports no significant difference between the two interventions on several other outcomes, so the trial does not establish six-session CBT as the most effective treatment overall. The cited passages do not address whether it was provided in Portugal. (LLM, conf=0.87)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“For example, Nelken (2009) has argued that one particular risk is of ethnocentrism over definitions of key terms and policy rationales.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Methods
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Nelken 2009 source
In “Comparative Criminal Justice: Beyond ethnocentricism and relativism,” Nelken identifies the risk of assuming that one’s own way of thinking about crime is universally shared. He also urges cross-cultural researchers to examine what they and others mean by “punitiveness” and “tolerance,” and cautions against attributing intentions to other systems based on one’s own expectations. These passages support the paraphrase about definitions and policy rationales. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For key informants, the biggest challenge in understanding the long-term effects of the reform has been a series of decisions to not replace core CDT staff if they retired.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Methods
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The number of processes that have been decided upon or 'finalized' decreased between 2003 and 2006, which meant there was an overall decline in the proportion of cases in which drug users received an administrative sanction from the CDTs (from 75 per cent in 2003 to 48 per cent in 2006).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Implementation of the Decriminalization
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most of the referred drug users are male (94 per cent) and between the ages of 16-24 (47 per cent) and 25-34 (31 per cent).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Implementation of the Decriminalization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As of mid 2008, all CDTs, with the exception of Vila Real, were back in operation.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Implementation of the Decriminalization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This is a notable finding in light of the data from Spain (see Figure 3), where the burden on the police has grown as a result of large increases in the number of offenders detected through the administrative system for drug use/possession (since 1998) and smaller increases in detections through the criminal system for drug trafficking (since 2004) (Reitox National Focal Point 2008).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Burden on the criminal justice system
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Reitox National Focal Point 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the provision of a broader range of responses;”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Implementation of the Decriminalization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But, due to the problems cited above, namely the lack of full staff in all CDTs and the lack of appropriate interventions to which to refer young and occasional drug users, stakeholders said the full potential of the reform had not been reached.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Implementation of the Decriminalization
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Since 2002, the CDTs have initiated about 6,000 administrative processes against drug users per year, with the number trending upwards to 6,543 processes in 2008 (Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodepende ˆncia 2009).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Implementation of the Decriminalization
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodepende ˆncia 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This was very similar to the trends observed in Italy and in broader Europe, with the major differences being that the 2003-07 decline in reported use of any illicit substance appears more pronounced in Portugal and the decline in reported cannabis use appears less pronounced in Portugal.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Reported drug use in general population and specific sub-groups
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, while it is known that only 5-6 per cent of offenders have been referred to a CDT twice in any one year,”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Implementation of the Decriminalization
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All three nations reported increases in lifetime prevalence of hashish, amphetamines and cocaine as well as increases in the last year prevalence of cannabis and cocaine use.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Reported drug use in general population and specific sub-groups
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and increased provision of treatment and harm-reduction services for experienced and dependent users.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Implementation of the Decriminalization
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“But there has been an overall increase in the quantity of illicit drugs seized, particularly those destined for external markets.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug seizures and prices
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Conversely, other forms of theft such as assaults/robberies from post offices and thefts from homes and businesses (which were deemed strongly linked to drugs) declined by 60, 8 and 10 per cent, respectively.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Burden on the criminal justice system
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Direcc xa ˜o Central de Investigac xa ˜o do Tra ´fico de Estupefacientes 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Rates of intravenous use before and inside prison had also fallen, as had the prevalence of HIV amongst prisoners.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Burden on the criminal justice system
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Torres 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The report by the central police agencies concluded that there had been an increase in more opportunistic crimes but a reduction in crimes that were more complex, pre-mediated and likely to involve threats or use of violence (Direcc xa ˜o Central de Investigac xa ˜o do Tra ´fico de Estupefacientes 2004).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Burden on the criminal justice system
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Direcc xa ˜o Central de Investigac xa ˜o do Tra ´fico de Estupefacientes 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Even in Spain, where the number of problem opiate users is estimated to have declined, estimates from 2006 suggest the overall number of problematic drug users may also have increased, due to an increase in the number of problematic cocaine users (Reitox National Focal Point 2008).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Reported drug use in general population and specific sub-groups
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Reitox National Focal Point 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“increased emphasis on prevention for occasional users;”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Implementation of the Decriminalization
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Key stakeholders in Portugal were in general agreement that there has been small to moderate increases in overall reported drug use among adults.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Reported drug use in general population and specific sub-groups
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As one of the evaluation reports noted between 1995-99 and 2000-04, the amount of drugs seized increased by 499 per cent: 116 per cent for cocaine, 134 per cent for hashish, 219 per cent for heroin and 1,526 per cent for ecstasy (Direcc xa ˜o Central de Investigac xa ˜o do Tra ´fico de Estupefacientes 2004).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug seizures and prices
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Direcc xa ˜o Central de Investigac xa ˜o do Tra ´fico de Estupefacientes 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to the stakeholders that we interviewed, the CDTs provided a number of advantages, including: earlier intervention for drug users by a specialist panel of experts;”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Implementation of the Decriminalization
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, in Spain, cocaine has taken over from heroin as the major cause of hospital admission and is the second most likely drug to be associated with death.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug-related health harms
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the run-up to the 2009 general election, the incumbent Prime Minister gave a speech in Lisbon at the European Monitoring Centre on Drugs and Drug Addiction (So ´crates 2009).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites So ´crates 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It is also different from Italy (see Figure 6), where there had been relatively flat trends with no discernable spikes in hashish or ecstasy seizure quantities since 1999/2000.12”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug seizures and prices
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites EMCDDA 2009b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example, between 2000 and 2008, the number of cases of HIV reduced amongst drug users from 907 to 267 and the number of cases of AIDS reduced from 506 to 108 (Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodepende ˆncia 2009).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug-related health harms
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Instituto da Droga e da Toxicodepende ˆncia 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectn = 267- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“reduction in opiate-related deaths and infectious diseases”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There have been significant reductions in mortality, HIV, HCV and TB.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug-related health harms
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All three nations showed a plateau in the mid 2000s but Portugal is unique in the recent increase.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug-related health harms
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Spanish experts therefore have suggested the lack of change is due to greater-thanestimated levels of cocaine supply in Spain (Reitox National Focal Point 2008).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug seizures and prices
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Reitox National Focal Point 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead, there have been spikes in seizures of a number of different substances with large seizures of ecstasy between 2001 and 2003, hashish between 2003 and 2006, cocaine between 2004 and 2006 and even larger quantities of hashish between 2007 and 2008 (see Figure 4).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug seizures and prices
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, the reported average price of 1 gram of heroin decreased from $50.27 in 2001 to $33.25 in 2008 and the average price of an ecstasy tablet fell from $6.86 in 2001 to $2.80 in 2008 (see Table 5).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug seizures and prices
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“He pledged his continuing support for it.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites So ´crates 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Other jurisdictions such as Western Australia have not been so fortunate, and are in the process of overturning a hard-fought-for reform (Barrett 2009).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barrett 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That aside, it is clear that since the Portuguese introduction of its drug strategy and the decriminalization, all three nations showed declines in drug-related deaths, but that the declines were more pronounced in Portugal and Italy than in Spain.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug-related health harms
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other forms of drug-related deaths, especially due to cocaine, have risen in Spain but not Portugal.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug-related health harms
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The exception is hash, as retail prices have increased since 2001, which is argued to be in line with increasing demand.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug seizures and prices
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The trend in Portugal is similar to that observed in Eastern Europe, such as Croatia and Slovenia.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the reduction in problematic drug users and reduction in burden of drug offenders on the criminal justice system were in direct contrast to those trends observed in neighbouring Spain and Italy”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The trends in Spain and Italy provide a valid comparison to isolate effects specific to Portugal.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Internationally, Portugal has gone furthest in emphasizing treatment as an alternative to prosecution.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In practice, it was rare that people were imprisoned for drug use/possession alone, but criminal convictions were the norm.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is in contrast with apparent market expansions in neighbouring Spain.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In fact, there was a 280 per cent increase in expiable cannabis offences, which meant there was an overall increase in the burden on the criminal justice system (Christie and Ali 2000).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Christie and Ali 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In 2001, only 7.8 per cent of 15-64-year-olds in Portugal had ever used an illicit drug (Balsa et al. 2004).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > The Portuguese Decriminalization and Drug Action Plan
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Balsa et al. 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“The new law applies to use/possession of all illicit drugs-including cannabis, heroin and cocaine-but it is restricted to use/possession of up to ten days' worth of a drug.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > The Portuguese Decriminalization and Drug Action Plan
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Decreto-Lei n.° 15/93
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Portaria n.° 94/96
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Subsequently, on 1 July 2001, the decriminalization entered into force.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > The Portuguese Decriminalization and Drug Action Plan
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lei n.° 30/2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“By 1999, Portugal had the highest rate of drug-related AIDS in the European Union and the second highest prevalence of HIV amongst injecting drug users (EMCDDA 2000).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > The Portuguese Decriminalization and Drug Action Plan
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites EMCDDA 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“It was within this contextfoot_1 that a government-appointed expert commission proposed to decriminalize illicit drugs for personal use and to introduce Portugal's first national drug strategy, which had the explicit goal of providing a more comprehensive and evidence-informed approach to drug use (Comissa ˜o para a Estrate ´gia Nacional de Combate a `Droga 1998).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > The Portuguese Decriminalization and Drug Action Plan
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Comissa ˜o para a Estrate ´gia Nacional de Combate a `Droga 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Evaluators found that 'decriminalization' led to increased employment prospects and increased trust of police (Lenton et al. 1999).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lenton et al. 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Both sets of recommendations were adopted almost in full (for full details, see Hughes 2006) and Portugal commenced their ambitious reform by rolling out the national strategy and expanded resources in May 1999.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > The Portuguese Decriminalization and Drug Action Plan
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hughes 2006
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The new offences are sanctioned through specially devised Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction (CDTs).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > The Portuguese Decriminalization and Drug Action Plan
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lei n.° 30/2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The Portuguese reform warrants particular attention, as it is a comprehensive form of decriminalization, with the possession of all drugs, when deemed for personal use, 1 now considered to be an administrative rather than a criminal offence.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lei n.° 30/2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Others have found a slight increase (e.g.Williams 2004; Zhao and Harris 2004;Damrongplasit et al. 2010).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Introduction
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“There was also growing concern over the social exclusion and marginalization of drug users, and a perception from many areas of society including the law enforcement and health sectors that the criminalization of drug use was increasingly part of the problem, not the solution (Hughes 2006).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > The Portuguese Decriminalization and Drug Action Plan
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hughes 2006
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Drug-related deaths had increased in Portugal to a peak of 369 in 1999 (an increase of 57 per cent since 1997) (Instituto Portugue ˆs da Droga e da Toxicodepende ˆncia 2000).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > The Portuguese Decriminalization and Drug Action Plan
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Instituto Portugue ˆs da Droga e da Toxicodepende ˆncia 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Moreover, while Italy and Spain have adopted similar drug policies, namely by introducing administrative sanctions for drug use in 1990 and 1992, respectively (for an overview, see EMCDDA 2005), neither country implemented any radical overhauls during the period of study (Reitox National Focal Point 2008;EMCDDA 2009a).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Methods
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites EMCDDA 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Reitox National Focal Point 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites EMCDDA 2009a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While these advantages were often dependent upon the conjoint increase in collaboration and expansion of treatment places, decriminalization was deemed to have played a vital role.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Implementation of the Decriminalization
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further limitations were that the impacts of decriminalization-particularly the actions of the CDTs-were also contingent upon the operation of a number of other organizations, including the police and drug treatment services.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Methods
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have therefore used annual data reported to the EMCDDA to analyse Portuguese trends in light of trends from neighbouring Spain and/or Italy, subject to data availability.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our intention is not to present the interview data as reflecting the full range of public, professional and political opinion, but to use it to supplement and interrogate the data collected from the national documentation.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One way of countering this is by comparing trends from the chosen nation (Portugal) with that of nations that did not undertake the reform.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Methods
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, while general population trends in Portugal suggest slight increases in lifetime and recent illicit drug use, studies of young and problematic drug users suggest that use has declined.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Reported drug use in general population and specific sub-groups
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Individuals found with more than this quantity will be charged and referred to the courts, where they may face charges for trafficking or trafficking/consumption (where the offender is found in possession of more than the consumer amount, but deemed to have obtained plants, substances or preparations for personal use only) (Decreto-Lei n.° 15/93, de 22 de janeiro 1993).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > The Portuguese Decriminalization and Drug Action Plan
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Decreto-Lei n.° 15/93
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While no member of the criminal justice system was willing/able to take part, one stakeholder was a former police officer and another an overseer of CDT implementation; both were able to comment on criminal justice-related issues.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Equally importantly, the number of people detected under the new law for administrative drug use/possession offences has remained fairly constant at about 6,000 per year, thereby indicating no overall increase in the amount of formal contact that drug offenders are having with Portuguese police and so no net-widening.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Burden on the criminal justice system
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trends from Spain and Italy are not known, but this further suggests that even if there were small increases in drug-related crime immediately following the reform, there have been overall reductions in the burden of drug-related offenders on the criminal justice system.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Burden on the criminal justice system
hedgedconditionalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During this process, the primary author had become proficient in reading and speaking Portuguese and collaborated with the IDT.Research for the existing research also utilized the support and feedback from those based in the IDT.These measures should reduce the risk of external bias.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Methods
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This trend is notable given that the number of problematic drug users in Italy is thought to have gone in the opposite direction.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Reported drug use in general population and specific sub-groups
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sample size was not large enough to reach data saturation and neither were we able to interview police or criminal justice representatives.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most important for any evaluation of national drug policy is the absence of a control comparison; there is no counterfactual Portugal, which did not decriminalize drugs in 2001.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our research suggests that current theories and assumptions about decriminalization are themselves in need of development.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: Decriminalization is often discussed as if it is one simple, unitary concept.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One case in point is the South Australian cannabis expiation notice scheme.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When emerging from dictatorship, all three nations adapted their constitutions to recognize rights to citizenship and limit interference by the state in the private lives of citizens.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, the Portuguese decriminalization stands in stark contrast to it, given its adoption and continuation for reasons of human rights, social solidarity and acknowledgement of the failure of punitive policies.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, the lack of increase in the price of cocaine in Spain (and stable purity) is argued to be odd, since other Spanish indicators suggest cocaine demand has been increasing.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug seizures and prices
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, we would dispute Greenwald's (2009) tendency to attribute positive changes in Portugal to decriminalization alone.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Greenwald's (2009) source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Portugal would appear to have been largely immune to this, with very low levels of cocaine use, and the decriminalization would not appear to have disturbed this pattern.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug-related health harms
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The major perceived success of the Portuguese reform has been its contribution to changes in public health problems, with significant referrals-particularly in the early years-by the CDTs of heroin users to treatment.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug-related health harms
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, the reform provides important evidence for the debate on the impacts of decriminalization.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All had totalitarian regimes in the last century.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given that heroin problems were the major driver of the reform, this reduction in overdose and opiate-related death was deemed by key informants as a considerable achievement of both the decriminalization and the broader drug strategy.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug-related health harms
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Others were less controllable.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, such affects can be observed when decriminalizing all illicit drugs.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The reductions in price may point to two phenomena: increased supply and reduced demand.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug seizures and prices
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of the other models is as explicitly linked to dissuasion, treatment and integration as the Portuguese approach.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some difficulties were an inevitable side effect of adopting a new reform.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“In the first decade of this century, it has often been claimed that we are witnessing a general shift towards punitive penal policies and the use of crime policies to legitimate neoliberal governance (Garland 2001;Simon 2007).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Garland 2001;Simon 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The drug price data suggest that this was due to reduced demand rather than the success in seizing drugs (which is supposed to limit drug use by reducing availability and increasing price), but more detailed studies would be needed to confirm this.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug seizures and prices
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our studies of the Portuguese decriminalization over a number of years have further illustrated the challenges in assessing the impacts from such a reform and the need to recognize the importance of the timing of assessment in relation to implementation.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Discussion
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It also remains unclear whether the observed impacts were influenced more by the policy or its implementation.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The 2007 data estimated 3.7 per cent population aged 15-64 used any illicit drug in the last year(Balsa et al. 2007) = approximately 261,968 people.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Balsa et al. 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, data on last-year use, a more relevant indicator of current drug usage patterns, was not collected in the European School survey Project on Alcohol and other Drugs (ESPAD).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This estimate is similar to other estimates of CJS intervention, which vary between 1 and 3 per cent (see, e.g.Lenton 2000).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lenton 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can reduce the burden of drug law enforcement on the criminal justice system, while also reducing problematic drug use.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“But it may offer a model for other nations that wish to provide less punitive, more integrated and effective responses to drug use.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Rests on an assumption: The Portuguese experience is sufficiently relevant and transferable to serve as a model for other nations.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We would argue that they are less important than the major reductions seen in opiate-related deaths and infections, as well as reductions in young people's drug use.”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while some trends clearly reflect regional shifts (e.g. the increase in use amongst adults) and/or the expansion of services throughout Portugal”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Most public arguments about drug decriminalization are based on speculation rather than available evidence.
“However, most public arguments are based on speculation rather than the available evidence on effects.”
The paper relies on this without support.
No reports on the Portuguese decriminalization have appeared in English peer-reviewed journals.
“but so far, no reports on it have appeared in English peer-reviewed journals.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Portuguese reform has been in force long enough to measure its effects.
“The Portuguese reform has now been in force for almost nine years-time enough to measure the effects.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Drug use, market changes, and drug-related crime are notoriously hard to measure by any means.
“Drug use, market changes and drug-related crime is notoriously hard to measure by any means.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are few data on which to assess the long-term impacts of the CDT process.
“There are few data on which to assess the long-term impacts of the CDT process.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Figures have not yet been collected on prior or subsequent offending and drug use amongst those referred through the CDTs.
“figures have not yet been collected on prior or subsequent offending and drug use amongst those referred through the CDTs.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The primary aim of the CDTs is to dissuade drug use and encourage dependent drug users into treatment.
“However, their primary aim is to dissuade drug use and to encourage dependent drug users into treatment.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The qualitative research sample size was not large enough to reach data saturation.
“The sample size was not large enough to reach data saturation”
The paper relies on this without support.
At the start of the decriminalization process and national drug strategy, problematic drug use was the major concern.
“Problematic drug use was the major concern at the commencement of the decriminalization process and national drug strategy.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Drug-related death counts are affected by changes in recording practices as well as underlying drug use rates.
“Drug-related deaths are subject to changes in recording as well as changes in underlying rates of drug use.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Decriminalization is often discussed as if it is one simple, unitary concept.
“Decriminalization is often discussed as if it is one, simple, unitary concept.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Decriminalization is commonly restricted to cannabis alone.
“This is important, as decriminalization is commonly restricted to cannabis alone.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Many reforms are evaluated only early in their adoption, which may lead to underestimation of their true impacts.
“Many reforms are evaluated only early on in their adoption, which may lead to underestimation of their true impacts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The trends in Spain and Italy provide a valid comparison to isolate effects specific to Portugal.
“By comparing the trends in Portugal and neighbouring Spain and Italy, we can say that while some trends clearly reflect regional shifts”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Portuguese experience is sufficiently relevant and transferable to serve as a model for other nations.
“But it may offer a model for other nations that wish to provide less punitive, more integrated and effective responses to drug use.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The statistical indicators and key informant interviews reviewed are adequate to identify changes since decriminalization.
“the statistical indicators and key informant interviews that we have reviewed suggest that since decriminalization in July 2001, the following changes have occurred”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > The Portuguese Decriminalization and Drug Action Plan
“In 2001, only 7.8 per cent of 15-64-year-olds in Portugal had ever used an illicit drug (Balsa et al. 2004).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
“| Any illicit substance | 7.6 | 12.0 | þ4.4 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug seizures and prices
“the reported average price of 1 gram of heroin decreased from $50.27 in 2001 to $33.25 in 2008”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
“TABLE 5 Average price for illicit substances in Portugal in Euros, by year and drugtype, 1998-2008 13”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > The Portuguese Decriminalization and Drug Action Plan
“In 2001, only 7.8 per cent of 15-64-year-olds in Portugal had ever used an illicit drug (Balsa et al. 2004).”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
“Table: 1 TABLE 1 Prevalence of lifetime illicit drug use in Portugal amongst individuals aged15-64, by drug type, 2001 and 2007 | Drug | 2001 | 2007 | Change | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Any illicit substance | 7.6 | 12.0 | þ4.4 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Drug seizures and prices
“the reported average price of 1 gram of heroin decreased from $50.27 in 2001 to $33.25 in 2008 and the average price of an ecstasy tablet fell from $6.86 in 2001 to $2.80 in 2008”
§ WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THE PORTUGUESE DECRIMINALIZATION OF ILLICIT DRUGS? > Conclusion
“Table: 5 TABLE 5 Average price for illicit substances in Portugal in Euros, by year and drugtype, 1998-2008 13”
Citations
Cites
The culture of control: crime and social order in contemporary society
(2002) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.39-3104 · Cited by 3,580
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-7121 · Cited by 1,122
Degenhardt, L., Chiu, W.-T., Sampson, N., Kessler, R. C., Anthony, J. C., Angermeyer, M., Bruffaerts, R., de Girolamo, G., Gureje, O., Huang, Y., et al. (2008) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050141 · Cited by 796
MacCoun, R. J., & Reuter, P. (2001) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511754272 · Cited by 677
The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society
Hannah‐Moffat, K., & Garland, D. (2002) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/3090074 · Cited by 392
Comparative Criminal Justice: Beyond Ethnocentrism and Relativism
Nelken, D. (2009) · European Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1177/1477370809104684 · Cited by 344
A randomized controlled trial of brief cognitive–behavioral interventions for cannabis use disorder
Copeland, J., Swift, W., Roffman, R., & Stephens, R. (2001) · Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment · doi:10.1016/s0740-5472(01)00179-9 · Cited by 322 · cited 1×
“…users is a ‘brief intervention’ involving six sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy, yet this is not currently provided in Portugal (see, e.g. Copeland et al. 2001). by guest on N ovem ber 25, 2010 bjc.oxfordjournals.org D ow nloaded from the issue is a value judgment concerning whether…”
BackgroundBrugal, M. T., Domingo‐Salvany, A., Puig, R., Barrio, G., García de Olalla, P., & De La Fuente, L. (2005) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01089.x · Cited by 228
Drug policy and the public good
Babor, T. F., Caulkins, J. P., Edwards, G., Fischer, B., Foxcroft, D., Humphreys, K. N., Obot, I. S., Rehm, J. T., Reuter, P., Room, R., et al. (2010) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-0303 · Cited by 218
Dangers of Dystopias in Penal Theory
Zedner, L. (2002) · Oxford Journal of Legal Studies · doi:10.1093/ojls/22.2.341 · Cited by 183
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 1993, 88, 737
- 2009, REVISTA TOXICODEPENDENCIAS, 15, 19
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 437
Luong, H. T., Hoang, L. T., Le, T. Q., Hoang, T. A., Vu, M. T., Tran, H. Q., & Thomson, N. M. (2020) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.102990 · Cited by 14
Reddon, H., Fast, D., DeBeck, K., Werb, D., Hayashi, K., Wood, E., & Milloy, M. (2019) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.02.006 · Cited by 14
Mitigation of Marijuana-Related Legal Harms to Youth in California
Banys, P. (2016) · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs · doi:10.1080/02791072.2015.1126770 · Cited by 14
Speed, K. A., McNeil, R., Hayashi, K., Maher, L., & Boyd, J. (2024) · Drug and Alcohol Review · doi:10.1111/dar.13996 · Cited by 13
Decriminalization: Different Models in Portugal and Spain
Quintas, J., & Araña, X. (2017) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-65361-7_8 · Cited by 10
Decriminalization and Initiation into Cannabis UsePreprint
Bretteville‐Jensen, A. L., & Williams, J. (2011) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 14
A critical strong program: Cultural power and racialized civil exclusion
Ostertag, S. F., & Dìaz, L. (2016) · American Journal of Cultural Sociology · doi:10.1057/s41290-016-0005-7 · Cited by 13
Decriminalization thresholds for drug possession: A multi-criteria policy analysis framework
McAdam, E., Small, W., Mullins, G., Graham, B. M., Greer, A., Winder, N. N., & DeBeck, K. (2023) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104126 · Cited by 13
Russell, C., Bardwell, G., Bonn, M., Boyd, J., Hyshka, E., Rehm, J. T., & Ali, F. (2025) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12700 · Cited by 12
Hayashi, K., Ti, L., Buxton, J. A., Kaplan, K., Suwannawong, P., & Kerr, T. H. (2013) · AIDS and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10461-013-0543-8 · Cited by 12
Pardo, B., & Reuter, P. (2018) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12363 · Cited by 12
Ali, F., Russell, C., Torres-Salbach, S., Lo, M., Bonn, M., Bardwell, G., Budau, J., Hyshka, E., & Rehm, J. T. (2025) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2025.104791 · Cited by 19
Shanahan, M., Gerard, K., & Ritter, A. J. (2014) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.03.005 · Cited by 14
Ending drug prohibition with a hangover
Buchanan, J. (2015) · BJCJ. British journal of community justice · Cited by 12
Urgent and long overdue: legal reform and drug decriminalization in Canada
Gruben, V., Hyshka, E., Bonn, M., Cox, C. M., Gagnon, M., Guţă, A., Jackman, M., Mercredi, J., Munga, A., Oscapella, E., et al. (2024) · FACETS · doi:10.1139/facets-2022-0080 · Cited by 11
Lafferty, L., Rance, J., Treloar, C., & on behalf of the SToP-C Study Group (2018) · Drugs Education Prevention and Policy · doi:10.1080/09687637.2018.1494135 · Cited by 11
Oleson, J. C. (2016) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12262 · Cited by 11
Pudney, S. E., Bryan, M. L., & DelBono, E. (2013) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 11
Hall, N. Y., Le, L. K., Majmudar, I. K., Teesson, M., & Mihalopoulos, C. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0258620 · Cited by 12
Chiu, K., Pandya, S., Sharma, M., Hooimeyer, A., de Souza, A., & Sud, A. (2024) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.104993 · Cited by 10
Stevens, A. (2021) · Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice & Criminology · doi:10.21428/88de04a1.a536a85b · Cited by 13
Self-citationSocial Issues in the Use of Novel Psychoactive Substances
Measham, F. C. (2013) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-415816-0.00005-5 · Cited by 10
Social worlds and symbolic boundaries of cannabis users in Poland
Wanke, M., Piejko-Płonka, M., & Deutschmann, M. (2022) · Drugs Education Prevention and Policy · doi:10.1080/09687637.2022.2046706 · Cited by 13
Philippine drug war and impending public health crisis
(2016) · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32468-0 · Cited by 10
Health in the UK: could do even better?
Jessop, E. (2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)60188-9 · Cited by 9
Response: Uses of History in Creating New Futures
Gambrill, E. D. (2012) · Research on Social Work Practice · doi:10.1177/1049731512443714 · Cited by 9
Lessons to be Drawn from U.S. Drug Control Policies
Caulkins, J. P., & R.Kleiman, M. A. (2018) · European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research · doi:10.1007/s10610-018-9376-3 · Cited by 9
The good, the bad and the vague: Assessing emerging Conservative drug policy
Watson, J. (2012) · Critical Social Policy · doi:10.1177/0261018312457861 · Cited by 9
Prevention of Youthful Marijuana Use
Cermak, T. L., & Banys, P. (2016) · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs · doi:10.1080/02791072.2015.1117689 · Cited by 9
Cannabis and Canadian youth: evidence, not ideology.
Spithoff, S. M., & Kahan, M. (2014) · PubMed Central · Cited by 10
Alon, L., Bruce, D., Blocker, O., Bouris, A. M., Reirden, D. H., & Schneider, J. A. (2020) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.103035 · Cited by 7
Weston, S. K., & Mythen, G. (2023) · Crime Prevention and Community Safety · doi:10.1057/s41300-023-00183-3 · Cited by 11
Sandøy, T. A., Østhus, S., & Bretteville‐Jensen, A. L. (2021) · European Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1177/14773708211039646 · Cited by 9
In defence of the decriminalisation of drug possession in the UK
Stevens, A., Eastwood, N., & Douse, K. (2024) · Drug Science Policy and Law · doi:10.1177/20503245241239200 · Cited by 8
Self-citationChange Is in the Air: The Smell of Marijuana, after Legalization
Garriott, W. (2020) · Law & Social Inquiry · doi:10.1017/lsi.2020.6 · Cited by 8
Milshteyn, Y., & Bensimon, M. (2023) · Harm Reduction Journal · doi:10.1186/s12954-023-00908-5 · Cited by 10
Skinner, A., Nolen, S., Cerdá, M., Rich, J. D., & Marshall, B. D. L. (2024) · The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse · doi:10.1080/00952990.2024.2364338 · Cited by 8
Heidt, J., & Wheeldon, J. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198875215.001.0001 · Cited by 9
On the biopolitics of humane drug policies: What can we learn from 19th century sobriety boards?
Johansen, K. A., Vandenbroeck, M., & Vandevelde, S. (2021) · Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs · doi:10.1177/14550725211015847 · Cited by 8
Psychologists’ responsibility to society: Public policy and the ethics of political action.
Allen, L. R., & Dodd, C. G. (2018) · Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology · doi:10.1037/teo0000077 · Cited by 7
Weston, S. K., & Mythen, G. (2019) · The British Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1093/bjc/azz045 · Cited by 7
Cannabis, research ethics, and a duty of care
Wheeldon, J., & Heidt, J. (2023) · Research Ethics · doi:10.1177/17470161231164530 · Cited by 9
Medical cannabis: time for clear thinking
Penington, D. G. (2015) · The Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/mja14.01573 · Cited by 7
Factors associated with awareness of decriminalization of marijuana in Jamaica
Oshi, D., Ricketts-Roomes, T. F., Oshi, S., Campbell-Williams, K. A., Agu, C., Mitchell, G., Whitehorne-Smith, P., Atkinson, U., & Abel, W. (2020) · Journal of Substance Use · doi:10.1080/14659891.2019.1664671 · Cited by 6
The pros and cons of prohibiting drugs
Weatherburn, D. (2014) · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1177/0004865814524423 · Cited by 6
Fentanyl: the many challenges ahead
(2019) · doi:10.1111/add.14587 · Cited by 6
Gu, C., Geng, Y.-C., & Zhu, L. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1434083 · Cited by 12
Does substance use affect academic performance?
Rees, D. (2019) · IZA World of Labor · doi:10.15185/izawol.66.v2 · Cited by 7
Hall, N. Y., Le, L. K., Abimanyi-Ochom, J., & Mihalopoulos, C. (2023) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104939 · Cited by 6
Wire, S. E., Sivaraman, J. J. C., McDonald, H. S., Silver, I. A., Lambdin, B. H., & Kral, A. H. (2025) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2025.104834 · Cited by 6
Where Are We and Where Are We Going?
Iversen, L. L. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190846848.003.0008 · Cited by 5
Évaluation économique de la loi du 31 décembre 1970 réprimant l'usage et le trafic de stupéfiants
Lakhdar, C. B., & Tanvé, M. (2013) · Psychotropes · doi:10.3917/psyt.191.0027 · Cited by 5
Ferencz, S., Greer, A., & Butler, A. (2025) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/1745-9133.70007 · Cited by 6
(2016) · doi:10.1080/00952990.2016.1236384 · Cited by 5
The effects of decriminalization of cannabis in Georgia (country) on user behaviors
Mgebrishvili, T., Kirtadze, I., Beselia, A., Vardanashvili, I., & Otiashvili, D. (2020) · Journal of Substance Use · doi:10.1080/14659891.2020.1798523 · Cited by 5
Who would try (or use more) cannabis if it were legal?
Weatherburn, D., Darke, S. G., Zahra, E., & Farrell, M. (2021) · Drug and Alcohol Review · doi:10.1111/dar.13360 · Cited by 6
Park, B., Hammond, A. S., Dunn, K. E., Strain, E. C., & Bergeria, C. L. (2023) · Journal of Drug Issues · doi:10.1177/00220426231216086 · Cited by 5
Seddon, T. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192846525.001.0001 · Cited by 5
Deemed Supply in Australian Drug Trafficking Laws: A Justifiable Legal Provision?
Hughes, C., Cowdery, N., & Ritter, A. J. (2015) · Current Issues in Criminal Justice · doi:10.1080/10345329.2015.12036028 · Cited by 5
Self-citationWelfare first: transforming harm reduction at UK festivals
Janes, J. (2025) · Harm Reduction Journal · doi:10.1186/s12954-025-01184-1 · Cited by 5
Imtiaz, S., Abdul, S. A., Jiang, H., Russell, C., Ali, F., Henderson, I., Foll, B. L., Elton‐Marshall, T., Kinniburgh, B. A., & Rehm, J. T. (2025) · Drug and Alcohol Review · doi:10.1111/dar.70036 · Cited by 6
Los, G. (2023) · Archives of Criminology · doi:10.7420/ak2022.07 · Cited by 3
Drug law reform: when bad policy is good politics
(2012) · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)61847-9 · Cited by 5
(2016) · doi:10.1093/wentk/9780190262419.003.0003 · Cited by 4
Adjudication Under Cover: Compliance and Inequality in the Criminal Courts
Stitt, M. E. (2024) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/733928 · Cited by 5
Does correctional supervision of amphetamine users reduce the risk of re‐offending?
Weatherburn, D., & Yeong, S. (2020) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.15298 · Cited by 4
Clinical Approach to the Heavy Cannabis User in the Age of Medical Marijuana
Cermak, T. L. (2016) · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs · doi:10.1080/02791072.2015.1130279 · Cited by 4
Marking a Quiet Community: Analyzing Narratives of Community Reentry Among Filipino Plea Bargainers
Canoy, N. A., & Villasanta, A. P. V. P. (2021) · Journal of Constructivist Psychology · doi:10.1080/10720537.2021.1878076 · Cited by 7
Debbaut, S. (2021) · International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice · doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2021.100508 · Cited by 4
Piatkowski, T. M., Kill, E., Keating, C., & Brown, G. (2025) · Journal of Drug Issues · doi:10.1177/00220426251356909 · Cited by 5
Public Health and the Harm Reduction Approach to Illegal Psychoactive Substances ☆
Emerson, B., & Haden, M. (2018) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-801238-3.66208-6 · Cited by 5
A Century of Dissonance and Harmony in Swedish Intoxication Policy
Edman, J. (2021) · doi:10.16993/bbo.j · Cited by 4
Double standards and arguments for tobacco regulation
(2016) · doi:10.1136/medethics-2016-103528 · Cited by 4
Reframing the response to the opioid crisis: The critical role of resilience in public health
Roberts, D. L. (2024) · Open Health · doi:10.1515/ohe-2023-0006 · Cited by 6
The Value of Ellul’s Analysis in Understanding Propaganda in the Helping Professions
Gambrill, E. D. (2012) · Bulletin of Science Technology & Society · doi:10.1177/0270467612458064 · Cited by 4
(2017) · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2017.09.003 · Cited by 4
Moriconi, M. (2024) · Middle Atlantic Review of Latin American Studies · doi:10.23870/marlas.424 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Hughes, C. E., & Stevens, A.
- Affiliations
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- University of Kent (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hughes, C. E.
- Venue
- British Journal of Criminology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-07-21
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 999-1022
- ISSN
- 0007-0955 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3529
- OpenAlex
- W2148618983
- Cited by
- 440
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 44.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The British Journal of Criminology (publishedVersion)
- Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Beckley Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Law and Policy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Keywords
- drug decriminalization, Portugal, drug policy, drug use trends, drug-related harm, drug law, harm reduction, Spain, Italy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
