Written by Angelica Warsaw 

Introduction

After decriminalizing personal drug use and possession under Law 30/2000, Portugal is a representative for policy implementation to curb the transmission of infectious diseases through intravenous injection and mitigate the harms of substance use. Despite its success, questions arise about obligations under the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs¹See generally U.N. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs Mar. 30, 1961, 520 U.N.T.S. 151 [hereinafter SCND]. (SCND). This blog examines whether Portugal’s decriminalization and administrative drug policy keeps the Nation within its international obligations.  

Following the end of Portugal’s dictatorship, the Nation faced societal challenges, including a national drug crisis.²See Rowland Robinson, Origins of Portugal’s Drug Crisis, Inst. of Current World Affs. (Dec. 27, 2024), https://www.icwa.org/portugal-drug-crisis-origins/#:~:text=Scientists%20have%20well%20documented%20how,their%20historical%20and%20cultural%20context [https://perma.cc/XT4F-3NT3](addressing that the populations effected by addiction at the time cut across all levels of society, including the daughter of the justice minister at the time). At its peak, one percent of the population was using heroin, eighty percent of whom tested positive for Hepatitis C and sixty percent for HIV.³Id. After a number of attempts to address the problem, Portugal implemented 30/2000⁴Decreto-Lei n. 30/2000, de 29 de novembro 2000, Diário da República n.º 276/2000 at 6829, https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/lei/30-2000-599720 [hereinafter 30/2000]. , which sought to address drug use through a medical/social welfare perspective, and thus decriminalized drug use and possession.⁵Id. Article Two of 30/2000 states that consumption, acquisition, and possession, for one’s own consumption constitutes an administrative offense.⁶Id. at art. 2. Further, an offender would be subject to the new Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction (CDDA), which enforces fines and alternative penalties.⁷Id. at art. 5.  

One question that arises is whether 30/2000 falls within compliance of the SCND.⁸See generally SCND, supra note 1. This multilateral treaty was formulated to replace, with a single instrument, eight previously enacted treaties, all of which were concerned with the control of narcotic drugs and the production of raw materials used to produce narcotics.⁹See id. at Preamble. Having signed the SCND in 1961, and later signing the amended protocol in 1971, Portugal is bound to the convention.¹⁰Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, United Nations Treaty Collection https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=VI-15&chapter=6&clang=_en [https://perma.cc/GBB3-SY9J](last visited Nov. 16, 2025)(listing signatory Nations, including Portugal).  

Article Four provides that the SCND was implemented to limit drug activities, including possession, to medical and scientific purposes.¹¹ SCND, supra note 1 at art. 4 & Preamble.  The next relevant provision for this analysis is Article Thirty-Three, which states: “The Parties shall not permit the possession of drugs except under legal authority.”¹²Id. at art. 33.  The Official Commentary on the SCND asserts that Article Thirty-Three must be read in connection with Article Four, meaning that Parties may not authorize possession of drugs for any purpose other than scientific or medical.¹³U.N., Econ. & Soc. Council, U.N. Comment. on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, at 402, U.N. Doc. E/INCB/2022/1 (Mar. 25, 1972)[hereinafter Commentary].  

Article Thirty-Six establishes that nations must create measures to ensure that drug-related actions, which in the opinion of such Party may be contrary to the provisions of the Treaty, shall be punishable offenses.¹⁴See SCND, supra note 1 at art. 36. Despite its broad language, Article Thirty-Six attempts to establish that all drug- and trafficking-related activity will be subject to penal sanctions.¹⁵See id. (“Article 36 … tried to ensure that all activities of the illicit traffic and all forms of participation in such activities will be prosecuted … and that the penal sanctions will be adequate for the purpose for which they are imposed by society, i.e. in particular for a deterring effect.”)   

Article Thirty-Eight promulgates that parties must give attention to  measures to prevent abuse of drugs through treatment, rehabilitation, and social reintegration of “abusers of drugs.”¹⁶SCND, supra note 1 at art. 38.  Though previous narcotics treaties did not contain any similar provisions, it was well understood that administrative and penal measures needed to be supplemented by measures of treatment to keep narcotics from potential and actual victims of addiction.¹⁷Commentary, supra note 12 at 446.

The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), is a quasi-judicial monitoring body that works with States to oversee compliance with the Conventions.¹⁸Mandate and Functions, Int’l Narcotics Control Bd., https://www.incb.org/incb/en/about/mandate-functions.html[https://perma.cc/YPM7-RDTL](last visited Oct. 30, 2025)(identifying the functions of INCB). The INCB regularly reviews international drug control and Government compliance.¹⁹See generally Treaty Compliance, Int’l Narcotics Control Bd., https://www.incb.org/incb/en/treaty-compliance/index.html [https://perma.cc/BT94-3ZAL](last visited Oct. 30, 2025)[hereinafter Treaty Compliance]. Given 30/2000 and the obligations of the treaty, Portugal’s decriminalization model is a legally compliant approach to drug policy within the parameters of international law. 

Legal Analysis  

Looking at Article Thirty-Three, the term “possession” does not require signatories to implement penal provisions for personal possession because of its ambiguous nature. While the treaty does not provide a definition of the term, Adolf Lande, a principle drafter maintains that the term means only possession for the purpose of illicit traffic.²⁰See Comm’n of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs 941 (1973)[hereinafter Final Report].  Therefore, the historical context of the drafter’s intention suggests that the goal of the SCND was to address trafficking, rather than personal possession.²¹See id.; see also Commission on Narcotic Drugs, Bulletin on Narcotics, (Jan. 1, 1977) (“Parties are required to limit the use of drugs exclusively to medical and scientific purposes, the Single Convention does not require them to attain the goal by providing penal sanctions for unauthorized “use” or “personal consumption” of drugs”); but see U.S. National Commission on Marihuana Drug Abuse, Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding), 1972, at 207-08 (concluding that parties may decide to deal with non-medical use and possession through education programming designed to discourage use).  Because Article Two of 30/2000 notes possession for personal use and Article Thirty-Three of the SCND establishes no requirement to prevent possession for personal use, Portugal’s remains in compliance under Article Thirty-Three.²²See 30/2000, supra note 4 at art. 2; SCND, supra note 1 at art. 33.

Next, The UN Office on Drugs and Crime addressed that the Article Thirty-Six does not require parties to make drug use for non-medical or non-scientific purposes a per se criminal offense; however, given Article Four of the SCND, parties have an obligation to create measures, whether it be legislative or administrative, that limit drug use to medical or scientific purposes.²³UN Office on Drugs and Crime, Legal and Policy Considerations on Decriminalization of Drug Use and Possession for Personal Use: International Legal Framework and the UN System Common Position on Drug-Related Matters, Jul. 2025, at 4. Despite the later adopted notion that parties must implement measures to create criminal offenses for possession, the INCB maintains flexibility in the manner in which this is done.²⁴See U.N. Convention on Psychotropic Substances, Aug. 16, 1976, 1019 U.N.T.S. 175 [hereinafter Convention on Psychotropic Substances; see also Int’l Narcotics Control Bd., Rep. of the Int’l Narcotics Control Bd. for 2022, at 9, U.N. Doc. E/INCB/2022/1 (2022) (“Another legal argument to justify legalization is that the drug control conventions provide a certain flexibility that provides room for regulations which allow for users of controlled substances which go beyond those set out in article 4(c) of the 1961 Convention as amended and article 5, paragraph 2, of the 1971 Convention”). The International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy,²⁵See generally U.N. Development Programme, International Guidelines for Human Rights and Drug Policy 13 (Morgan Stroffregen 2019)[hereinafter International Guidelines].  establish obligations arising from human rights law.²⁶ See What are the Guidelines?, International Guidelines on Human Rights + Drug Policy (last visited Oct. 19, 2025), https://www.humanrights-drugpolicy.org/ [https://perma.cc/CJB7-RUJ4]( “The Guidelines centralise and reaffirm existing international law and are endorsed by the United Nations Development Programme”).  Specifically, everyone has the right to enjoy the highest standard of physical and mental health, as well as the right to freedom from arbitrary arrest.²⁷International Guidelines, supra note 25.  The UN stated that arbitrariness “must be interpreted … broadly to include elements of inappropriateness, injustice, … reasonableness, necessity and proportionality.”²⁸Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 5, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35 (Oct. 31, 2014)[hereinafter General Comment No. 5]; G.A. Res. 2200A, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Dec. 16, 2014).  

While Article Thirty-Six establishes possession as a punishable offense, the Convention sought to emphasize trafficking; thus, the Article “may be understood to indicate that countries are not obliged by virtue … to declare simple possession a crime.”²⁹Bewley-Taylor & Martin Jelsma, Fifty Years of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs: A Reinterpretation, Series on Legis. Reform of Drug Pol’ys., Mar. 2011, at 425-26.  30/2000, promotes public health and is grounded in proportionality, necessity, and a prohibition of excessive punishment.³⁰See Estratégia nacional de luta contra a droga [National Strategy for the Fight Against Drugs] Resolution of the Council of Ministers No. 46/99, 42 (1999) https://www.euda.europa.eu/drugs-library/portugals-national-drug-strategy-1999-english-version_en (on file with the European Union Drugs Agency); Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 5, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/35 (Oct. 31, 2014).  Thus, 30/2000 complies with Article Thirty-Six of the SCND.  

Finally, the Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy highlight that States should prioritize diversion from prosecution.³¹International Guidelines, supra note 25.  It also proclaims that treatment as an alternative should only be done with informed consent and should never extend beyond the period of the applicable criminal sentence.³²Id.  30/2000 places emphasis on rehabilitative measures, specifically by establishing that a drug-dependent consumer may agree to undergo voluntary treatment, which then allows the CDDA to suspend the penalty assigned to the consumer.³³30/2000, supra note 4 at arts. 13-14.  Therefore, under Article Thirty-Eight, Portugal fulfills its duties to provide rehabilitative measures.  

Conclusion 

This blog has brought to attention the ambiguity within the SCND, yet that ambiguity is where 30/2000 rests. By implementing administrative sanction for below a ten-day threshold, 30/2000 fulfills the goals of the SCND by limiting narcotic use to medical and scientific purposes. 30/2000 demonstrates that a public health approach can coexist with international compliance, through the principles of proportionality, necessity, and respect for human dignity.