Please quote the part of the article that's being commented on that refers to the police being against decriminalisation in Portugal.

All I found was "Crimes such as robbery in public spaces rose 14% from 2021 to 2022, which police have in part blamed on the rise in drug use."

Are you American? Is this some point of pride for you to be agaisnt this kind of program?

> Portugal decriminalised consumption of all drugs for personal use in 2001; it technically remains against the law, but instead of prison, users are registered by police and referred for help (attendance is voluntary). In the early days, it appeared to be an unequivocal success: HIV transmission rates via syringes dropped, as did the number of overdoses, and prison populations were down 16.5% by 2008. But a recent national survey shows illicit drug use up from 7.8% to 12.8% between 2001 and 2022; overdose rates are at a 12-year high, having nearly doubled in Lisbon between 2019 and 2023 (this is still below the European average). In Porto, there has been a 24% jump in drug paraphernalia being collected from city streets in the year to 2022, with this year set to outpace that. Crimes such as robbery in public spaces rose 14% from 2021 to 2022, which police have in part blamed on the rise in drug use.

(italics for emphasis)

> Are you American?

Yes

> Is this some point of pride for you to be agaisnt this kind of program?

On the contrary! I am in favor of this kind of program. I am very critical of my country's war on drugs. It is a war with one singular belligerent: US.

> People whose jobs depend on something claim that thing is getting worse, without any further evidence

That's not one bit compelling, and doesn't support what you're saying

You are not quoting me.

Please check who you are replying to.

I was responding to your comment with a rhetorical device. Your quote is entirely uninteresting because of course police will claim that increased drug use and increased $BAD_THING are linked, and please can they have more funding. There's no evidence behind your quote, and you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

You wrote a thing like this

> some text

I assumed that to be a quote. Was it not?

---

> and you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

You mean the article we are commenting on shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

I agree! My point is that it did indeed bring it up. Nothing more.

You are arguing with no one, and directing it at me.

It's a common way of rephrasing what someone said to point out the absurdity in their statement.

I mean that you in particular shouldn't have brought it up. You should apply your reasoning, and not argue using bad arguments. If the article has a bad argument, don't repeat it.

I provided it as context. For fucks sake, this is the article we are writing comments for! God forbid I talk about the OP!

Did you read literally any other part of my comments?!?

You replied to someone that said "No one I know seriously considers changing the structure that's in place" with an irrelevant comment

There is no source for this, and it does not say the police want to change the program at all.

Police as a whole do not have to agree in order for some police to make that claim. In English, we often leave out the word "some", because we recognize that referring to a group of people very rarely includes the entire group.

I agree that this article's claim really should be backed by a source.

Thank you. I find it odd that articles like this and many others go with "the local residents" line.

Unnamed sources have been used since forever by journalists to create stronger articles, but I disagree with their use entirely. If you're going to quote someone, quote them. Don't tell me "local residents", or "local police" think this or that. It seems like a journalistic writing tactic that blurs the truth more than it clarifies.

Also, I suspect you misunderstood the article somewhat?

The increase in drug use that's being described happened in the last 3-4 years. The decriminalisation policy is from 2001. So the increase is not connected to the policy, thus the police is not asking for a repeal of it.

The increase in drug use and decriminalisation are not related, basically. So the sentence you quoted, I don't see how that is a request from the police for a review.

I never said they were. Maybe you are conflating my comment with another user higher in the thread?