Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Decriminalization: Different Models in Portugal and Spain

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Dual Markets

Abstract

This paper analyzes drug policy and related outcomes in Portugal and Spain after decriminalization. Portugal and Spain are usually singled out as countries with permissive drug policies because they have decriminalized drug use. In these countries, individual drug consumption is not considered a crime, and drug users are generally not subject to criminal sanctions. People are increasingly demanding different policies on marijuana, particularly through cannabis social clubs in Spain. In recent years, decriminalization and an absence of criminal punishments for drug users, along with a trend toward less severe punishments for drug trafficking, have not been associated with significant increases in drug use. Portugal and Spain continued their normal patterns of drug use after decriminalization, supporting a growing consensus that decriminalization is not associated with escalating drug use and drug-related problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Non-financial penalties are: barring the offender from practicing a profession or activity; restricting the offender from visiting certain places; prohibiting the offender from accompanying, housing, or hosting certain people; preventing the offender from going abroad without authorization; requiring regular reporting at a certain place to be established by the CDT; prohibiting firearm use; seizing personal property that poses a risk to the offender or the community or that promotes the commission of a crime or administrative offense; and removal of grants or benefits awarded to the offender personally by public services, which will be converted to treatment services, if accepted. As an alternative to these sanctions, the CDT can, by agreement with the offender, require monetary contributions to public or private social welfare institutions or require the performance of unpaid services to the community.

  2. 2.

    Since the reform of 2003, this has been extended to 5 years.

  3. 3.

    Judgment 250/09, 1st Section, July 6, 2009.

  4. 4.

    Court Ruling on Preliminary Inquiries 1727, Examining Magistrate’s Court no. 7 of Bilbao, July 28, 1997.

  5. 5.

    This law has been suspended due to the admission of the unconstitutionality appeal lodged by the President of the Spanish Government.

  6. 6.

    The term “regulation” is used here in a narrow sense, referring to a specific type of Spanish norm called a reglamento.

  7. 7.

    Supreme Court Judgment 484/2015, September 7, 2015 (Ebers case), Supreme Court Judgment 596/2016, October 5, 2016 (Three Monkeys case), and Supreme Court Judgment 788/2015, December 9, 2015 (Pannagh case).

  8. 8.

    In Spanish, “error de prohibición vencible.”

  9. 9.

    Three separate opinions have been appended to the Plenary Chamber Judgment 484/2015 (the Ebers case): The first reasoned that it was necessary to establish the requirements for cannabis associations; the second argued for the existence of a serious mistake concerning the unlawfulness of the act with regard to the accused and thus supported an acquittal; the third partially agreed with the first opinion, although it disagreed with it concerning the existence of an invincible mistake suggested in the second opinion.

  10. 10.

    Study Group on Cannabis Policies (Grupo de Estudio de Políticas sobre el Cannabis [GEPCA]) (gepca.es).

References

  • Agra, C. (2003). Ciencia, ética y arte de vivir. Elementos para un sistema de pensamiento crítico sobre el saber y las políticas de la droga. In C. Agra, J. L. Domínguez, J. A. García Amado, P. Hebberecht, & A. Recasens (Eds.), La seguridad en la sociedad del riesgo. Un debate abierto (pp. 201–225). Barcelona: Atelier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agra, C. (2009). Requiem pour la guerre à la drogue: L’expérimentation portugaise de décriminalisation. Déviance & Société, 33(1), 27–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agra, C., Fonseca, E., Quintas, J., & Poiares, C. (1997). A Criminalização da Droga: da Emergência à Aplicação da Lei. In C. Agra (Dir.), Droga e Crime: Estudos Interdisciplinares (Vol. 3). Lisbon: Gabinete Coordenador do Combate à Droga.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali, R., Christie, P., Lenton, S., Hawks, D., Sutton, A., Hall, W., & Allsop, S. (1999). The social impacts of the cannabis expiation notice scheme in South Australia, National drug strategy monograph series n° 34. Canberra: Australian Government Publication Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez, A., Gamella, J. F., & Parra, V. (2016). Cannabis cultivation in Spain: A profile of plantations, growers and production systems. International Journal of Drug Policy, 37, 70–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arana, X. (2012). Drogas, legislaciones y alternativas. . De los discursos de las sentencias sobre el tráfico ilícito de drogas a la necesidad de una política diferente. Donostia: Gakoa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arana, X. (2015a). Código de Buenas Prácticas para los Clubes Sociales de Cannabis. InFundación Renovatio. Memoria 2013 (pp. 9–37). Gasteiz: Fundación Renovatio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arana, X. (2015b). Viabilidad legal de los CSC en la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco y Propuesta de Hoja de Ruta. In Fundación Renovatio. Memoria 2014 (pp. 106–155). Donostia: Fundación Renovatio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arana, X. (2017). Las políticas de drogas en el Estado social y democrático de Derecho. In Cannabis, de la marginalidad a la normalización (pp. 269–288). Bellaterra, Barcelona: GEPCA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arana, X., & Usó, J. C. (2017). Las políticas sobre regulación del cannabis en España, y su relación con el contexto internacional. In Cannabis, de la marginalidad a la normalización (pp. 33–63). Bellaterra, Barcelona: GEPCA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ararteko. (2012). Cannabis. Usos, seguridad jurídica y políticas. In Foros de reflexión y participación. Vitoria-Gasteiz: Ararteko. http://www.ararteko.net/RecursosWeb/DOCUMENTOS/1/0_2771_3.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balsa, C., Farinha, T., Urbano, C., & Francisco, A. (2003). Inquérito Nacional ao Consumo de Substâncias Psicoactivas na População Portuguesa. Lisbon: IDT Colecção Estudos – Universidades.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balsa, C., Vital, C., & Urbano, C. (2013). III Inquérito Nacional ao Consumo de Substâncias Psicoactivas na População Portuguesa 2012. Resultados preliminares. Lisboa: SICAD, Colecção Estudos – Universidades.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balsa, C., Vital, C., Urbano, C., & Pascueiro, L. (2008). Inquérito Nacional ao Consumo de Substâncias Psicoactivas na População geral, Portugal 2007. Lisbon: IDT, Colecção Estudos – Universidades.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballotta, D. (2003). Princípios Gerais de Política da Droga e Incongruências entre Ciência e Política. In D. Vicente (Coordenador), Problemas Jurídicos da Droga e da Toxicodependência, Vol. I, Suplemento da Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Lisboa. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beccaria, C. (1998/1766). Dos Delitos e das Penas. Lisbon: Edições da Fundação Gulbenkian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caballero, F., & Bisiou, Y. (2000). Droit de la Drogue (2nd ed.). Paris: Éditions Dalloz.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calderón Susín, E. (2000). La posesión de drogas para consumir y para traficar. El consumo compartido. Delitos contra la salud pública y contrabando. Consejo General del Poder Judicial, 5, 11–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cauchie, J., & Devresse, M. (2001). La Nouvelle Réglementation Belge pour le Cannabis. Une Politique du Clair-Obscur. Revue de Droit Pénal et Criminologie, 12, 1165–1186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cesoni, M. (1999). La Politique Suisse de la drogue: Un Modèle pour L’Union Européenne? In C. Faugeron (Ed.), Les Drogues en France. Politiques, Marchés, Usages. Geneva: Ed. Georg.

    Google Scholar 

  • De la Cuesta, J. L. (1998). La política criminal en materia de drogas en España, tras el nuevo código penal. Política criminal comparada, hoy y mañana. Consejo General del Poder Judicial, 9, 87–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias, J. (1998). Uma Proposta Alternativa ao Discurso da Criminalização/Descriminalização das Drogas. In Presidência da República (Org.), Droga: Situação e Novas Estratégias. Lisbon: INCM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Díez Ripollés, J. L. (1987). La política sobre drogas en España, a la luz de las tendencias internacionales. Evolución reciente. Anuario de Derecho Penal, II/XL, 347–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Díez Ripollés, J. L., & Muñoz Sánchez, J. (2012). Licitud de la autoorganización del consumo de drogas. Jueces para la Democracia, 75, 49–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • EMCDDA and ESPAD. (2016). ESPAD report 2015 — Results from the European school survey project on alcohol and other drugs. Luxembourg: EMCDDA–ESPAD Joint Publications, Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • EMCDDA. (2002). Prosecution of drug users in Europe: Varying pathways to similar objectives, EMCDDA insights series no. 5. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • ENLCD – Presidência do Conselho de Ministros. (1999). Estratégia Nacional de Luta Contra a Droga, Presidência do Conselho de Ministros. Lisbon: INCM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandes, L. (1990). Os Pós Modernos, a Cidade, o Sector Juvenil e as Drogas. Tese de Mestrado. Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação da Universidade do Porto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fetherston, J., & Lenton, S. (2007). Effects of the western Australian cannabis infringement notice scheme on public attitudes, knowledge and use – Comparison of pre and post change data. Perth: National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamella, J., & Jiménez, M. L. (2003). El consumo prolongado de cannabis. Pautas, tendencias y consecuencias. Madrid: FAD, Junta de Andalucía.

    Google Scholar 

  • GEPCA. (2017a). Cannabis, de los márgenes a la normalidad. Hacia un nuevo modelo de regulación. Barcelona: Bellaterra.

    Google Scholar 

  • GEPCA. (2017b). Cannabis: propuesta de un nuevo modelo de regulación. Barcelona: Bellaterra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, G. (2009). Drug decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for creating fair and successful drug policies. Washington: Cato Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerra Martins, A. (2003). Direito Internacional da Droga e da Toxicodependência. In D. Vicente (Coordenador), Problemas Jurídicos da droga e da Toxicodependência, Vol. I, Suplemento da Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Lisboa. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hibell, B., Guttormsson, U., Ahlström, S., Balakireva, O., Bjarnason, T., Kokkevi, A., & Kraus, L. (2012). The 2007 ESPAD report. Substance use among students in 36 European countries. Stockholm: CAN/EMCDDA/Council of Europe (Pompidou Group).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, C., & Stevens, A. (2012). A resounding success or a disastrous failure: Re-examining the interpretation of evidence on the Portuguese decriminalisation of illicit drugs. Drug and Alcohol Review, 31, 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, C., & Stevens, A. (2010). What can we learn from the Portuguese decriminalization of illicit drugs? British Journal of Criminology, 50, 999–1022.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Narcotics Control Board. (2017). Report 2016. United Nations. http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/protected/2017/AR_2016_E.pdf

  • Kilmer, B. (2002). Chapter 8: Do cannabis possession laws influence cannabis use? In Cannabis 2002 report. Technical report of the international scientific conference. Brussels: Ministry of Public Health of Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kury, H., & Quintas, J. (2010). Zur Wirkung von Sanktionen bei Drogenabhängigen – Argumente für eine rationale Drogenpolitik. Polizei & Wissenschaft, Zur Veröff. Angenommen, 32(1), 32–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lourenço Martins, A. (2003). Direito Internacional da Droga e da Toxicodependência. In D. Vicente (Coordenador), Problemas Jurídicos da droga e da Toxicodependência, Vol. I, Suplemento da Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Lisboa. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luzón Peña, D. (1982). Tráfico y consumo de drogas. In La Reforma Penal. Cuatro cuestiones fundamentales. Madrid: Instituto Alemán.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R., & Reuter, P. (2001). Evaluating alternative Cannabis regimes. British Journal of Psychiatry, 178, 123–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R. (1998). Toward a psychology of harm reduction. American Psychologist, 53(11), 1199–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R. and Reuter, P. (2002). Preface: The varieties of marijuana prohibition: Do laws influence drug use? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 582(1):7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R., Pacula, R., Chriqui, J., Harris, K., & Reuter, P. (2009). Do citizens know whether their state has decriminalized marijuana? A test of the perceptual assumption in deterrence theory. Review of Law & Economics, 5(1), 347–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez Oró, D. P. (2015). Sin pasarse de la raya. La normalización de los consumos de drogas. Barcelona: Bellaterra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Megías, I., & Rodríguez San Juan, E. (2016). Tendencias de cambio en la representación social del cannabis: la perspectiva de adolescentes y jóvenes españoles. Madrid: Centro Reina Sofía sobre Adolescencia y Juventud y FAD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministerio del Interior. (2015). Anuario Estadístico del Ministerio del Interior 2014. Madrid: Ministerio del Interior.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz Sánchez, J. (2015). La relevancia penal de los Clubes Sociales de Cannabis. Reflexiones sobre la política de cannabis y análisis jurisprudencial. Revista electrónica de Ciencia Penal y Criminología, 17–22, 1–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • OEDT. (2015). Informe 2015. Alcohol, tabaco, y drogas ilegales en España. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacula, R., & Lundberg, R. (2014). Why changes in price matter when thinking about marijuana policy: A review of the literature on the elasticity of demand. Public Health Review, 35(2), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pacula, R., Chriqui, J., & King, J. (2003). Marijuana decriminalization: What does it mean in the United States, NBER working paper 9690. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pallarés, J. (2003). Las drogas en la sociedad contemporánea. In L. Pantoja & J. A. Abeijón (Eds.), Drogas, Sociedad y Ley (pp. 135–157). Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parés, O., & Bouso, J. C. (2015). Innovation born of necessity. Pioneering drug policy in Catalonia. New York: Open Society Foundations.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poiares, C. (1996). Análise Psicocriminal das Drogas – O Discurso do Legislador. Tese de Doutoramento. Porto: Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação – Centro de Ciências do Comportamento Desviante.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poiares, C. & Agra, C. (2003). A droga e a Humanidade – Reflexão Psicocriminal. In D. Vicente (Coordenador), Problemas Jurídicos da droga e da Toxicodependência, Vol. I, Suplemento da Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Lisboa. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintas, J., & Fonseca, E. (2002). Portugal country profile. In Prosecution of drug user in Europe: Varying pathways to similar objectives, EMCDDA insights series n° 5. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintas, J. (2006). Regulação Legal do Consumo de Drogas: Impactos da Experiência Portuguesa da Descriminalização. Tese de Doutoramento. Faculdade de Direito da Universidade do Porto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintas, J. (2011). Regulação Legal do Consumo de Drogas: Impactos da Experiência Portuguesa da Descriminalização. Porto: Fronteira do Caos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintas, J. & Agra, C. (2010). L’Impact de la Loi Portugaise de Décriminalisation de L’Usage de Drogues. M.L. Cesoni & M.S. Devresse (Ed.s). La Détention de Stupéfiants entre Criminalisation et Décriminalisation. Res Socialis, Vol. 37. Fribourg: Academic Press Fribourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romaní, O. (2001). Perspectiva sociocultural del uso de drogas. Cultura, representaciones sociales e intervenciones en drogas. In Libro de ponencias de la 1ª Conferencia Latina sobre reducción de daños relacionados con las drogas. Barcelona: Grup Igia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampaio, J. (1998). Discurso Final do Presidente da República. In Presidência da República (Org.), Droga: Situação e Novas Estratégias. Lisbon: INCM.

    Google Scholar 

  • SICAD (2016). Relatório Anual 2015: A situação do país em matéria de drogas e toxicodependências. Lisboa: SICAD – Serviço de intervenção nos comportamentos aditivos e nas dependências.

    Google Scholar 

  • SIIS. (2013). Euskadi y Drogas 2012. Gasteiz: Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Single, E., Christie, P., & Ali, R. (2000). The impact of Cannabis decriminalisation in Australia and the United States. Journal of Public Health Policy, 21(2), 157–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thies, C., & Register, C. (1993). Decriminalization of marijuana and the demand for alcohol, marijuana and cocaine. The Social Science Journal, 30(4), 385–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CJS – Crime, Justice and Security, Interdisciplinary Research Centre, Criminology School, Faculty of Law, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Jorge Quintas

  2. Basque Institute of Criminology (IVAC-KREI), University of the Basque Country (UPV-EHU), San Sebastián, Spain

    Xabier Arana

Authors
  1. Jorge Quintas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xabier Arana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge Quintas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Transcrime, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy

    Ernesto U. Savona

  2. Marron Institute of Urban Management, New York University, New York, New York, USA

    Mark A.R. Kleiman

  3. Transcrime, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy

    Francesco Calderoni

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Quintas, J., Arana, X. (2017). Decriminalization: Different Models in Portugal and Spain. In: Savona, E., Kleiman, M., Calderoni, F. (eds) Dual Markets. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65361-7_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65361-7_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-65360-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-65361-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation