Reimagining Philadelphia's Response to Substance Use: A Public Health Imperative Inspired by the Portuguese Model

1. Executive Summary

Philadelphia confronts a devastating and evolving substance use crisis, characterized by near-record overdose fatalities and profound societal costs. In 2023 alone, the city recorded 1,315 overdose deaths, the second-highest number in its history, driven overwhelmingly by fentanyl and the increasing prevalence of dangerous adulterants like xylazine and medetomidine.1 This tragedy unfolds against a backdrop of stark and worsening racial disparities, with overdose deaths surging among Black and Hispanic residents while declining among White residents.3 The city’s current approach, largely aligned with Pennsylvania's punitive drug laws 5 and the national "war on drugs" framework, has proven demonstrably ineffective at stemming the tide of death and suffering. Despite significant expenditures on law enforcement and incarceration related to drug offenses 7, overdose rates remain catastrophically high, suggesting a fundamental disconnect between current strategies and desired public health outcomes.

This report advocates for a paradigm shift in Philadelphia's drug policy, urging the adoption of a comprehensive public health approach inspired by Portugal's successful model. Implemented in 2001, Portugal decriminalized the personal possession of all drugs, redirecting focus and resources from the criminal justice system towards health interventions.10 Individuals found possessing small quantities are referred to administrative Dissuasion Commissions, staffed by legal, health, and social work professionals, which prioritize assessment, information, harm reduction, and voluntary treatment referral over punishment.10 This legal reform was crucially coupled with significant investments in accessible treatment and harm reduction services.10 The results over two decades include dramatic reductions in overdose deaths and HIV infections among people who use drugs, decreased drug-related incarceration, and increased engagement with treatment services, all without significant long-term increases in overall drug use.10

While acknowledging implementation challenges observed in Oregon's recent decriminalization experience (Measure 110) 15 and recent pressures on the Portuguese system 17, the core principles of the Portuguese model offer a viable, evidence-based path forward for Philadelphia. This report recommends a phased approach, beginning with pilot decriminalization zones coupled with the establishment of Philadelphia Health Engagement Commissions. Further recommendations include scaling up accessible, evidence-based treatment (particularly MAT), expanding and protecting harm reduction services (including revisiting the potential for overdose prevention sites), launching robust public education campaigns to reduce stigma, and reallocating resources from ineffective punitive measures towards proven health strategies.19 Adopting such a model holds the promise of saving lives, reducing profound racial inequities, improving public safety, and fostering a healthier, more resilient Philadelphia.

2. Philadelphia's Escalating Overdose Crisis: An Urgent Call for Systemic Change

The relentless toll of the overdose crisis represents one of Philadelphia's most pressing public health emergencies. Far from abating, the crisis continues to evolve, driven by an increasingly toxic drug supply and marked by devastating impacts on individuals, families, and communities across the city. Understanding the scale, characteristics, and disparate impacts of this crisis is essential for recognizing the inadequacy of the current response and the urgent need for systemic change.

2.1 The Scale of the Tragedy

Philadelphia has consistently ranked among the large U.S. cities most severely affected by overdose deaths.21 In 2022, the city reached a grim milestone, recording 1,413 unintentional drug overdose deaths, an 11% increase from the previous year and the highest number on record.3 While preliminary data for 2023 showed a slight decrease to 1,315 deaths (or 1,122 resident deaths according to separate city data), this figure remains the second-highest annual total recorded, representing an average of nearly four deaths every day.1 This minor dip follows years of steady increases since 2018 23 and offers little comfort given the sheer magnitude of loss. The persistence of such high fatality numbers, even with a marginal decline, underscores that current interventions are insufficient to counter the lethality of the modern drug supply. Comparatively, Philadelphia's overdose death rate has historically been the highest among peer cities studied by The Pew Charitable Trusts, reaching 78.9 deaths per 100,000 residents in 2023.21 While recent national data suggests a potential decline in overdose deaths across the U.S. 24, Philadelphia's situation remains exceptionally severe. The national crisis context reveals overdose as a leading cause of death for Americans aged 18-44 24, a statistic mirrored locally where accidental overdose is the primary cause of death for Pennsylvanians under 40.26 Compounding the tragedy, the majority of these deaths (69% in 2023) occur not in public spaces, but inside residences, often isolating victims from immediate help.2

Table 1: Philadelphia Overdose Death Trends and Key Characteristics (2020-2023)

Feature	2020	2021	2022	2023 (Preliminary/Mixed Sources)	Sources
Total Unintentional Overdose Deaths	1,214	1,276	1,413	1,315 / 1,122 (residents only)	1
Deaths Involving Any Opioid (%)	~80% (est.)	82%	83%	80%	1
Deaths Involving Fentanyl (%)	979 deaths	94% (of opioid)	96% (of opioid)	83% (overall) / 97% (of opioid)	1
Deaths Involving Opioids + Stimulants (%)	~50% (est.)	55%	>70% (overall)	80% (overall) / 55% (opioid+stim)	1
Deaths Involving Xylazine (%)	N/A	~25% (est.)	34%	38%	2
Deaths Involving Medetomidine (%)	N/A	N/A	N/A	Emerging May 2024, 87% Jan 2025	1
NH Black Deaths (Number)	~450 (est.)	542	649	Elevated (trend continued)	3
NH White Deaths (Number)	~580 (est.)	~560 (est.)	537	Declining (trend continued)	3
Hispanic Deaths (Number)	~160 (est.)	~180 (est.)	210	Stable (trend continued)	3
Median Age of Decedent (Years)	~45 (est.)	~46 (est.)	48	N/A	3

Note: Data compiled from PDPH reports and cited sources. Percentages and numbers may vary slightly based on reporting methodology (e.g., resident vs. occurrent deaths, overall vs. opioid-involved). 2023 data is preliminary.

2.2 The Dominance of Fentanyl and Polysubstance Use

The lethality of Philadelphia's drug supply is primarily driven by the synthetic opioid fentanyl. Data from 2023 indicates fentanyl was involved in 83% of all overdose deaths.1 When looking specifically at opioid-involved deaths, fentanyl's presence is nearly ubiquitous, detected in 94-97% of cases in recent years.2 Fentanyl is estimated to be up to 50 times stronger than heroin 2, meaning minuscule amounts can be fatal, especially for individuals with lower opioid tolerance. Its proliferation extends beyond the traditional opioid market; it is increasingly found contaminating other substances, including stimulants like cocaine and methamphetamine, as well as counterfeit pills mimicking prescription medications.1 This widespread contamination means even individuals who do not intentionally use opioids are at high risk of fatal fentanyl exposure.

Compounding the fentanyl crisis is the rise of polysubstance use – the concurrent use of multiple drug types. In Philadelphia, the combination of opioids (primarily fentanyl) and stimulants (primarily cocaine) is exceptionally common in fatal overdoses. In 2023, this combination was present in 80% of deaths.1 Data from 2022 showed stimulants were detected in over 70% of all overdose fatalities, a significant increase from previous years.2 This trend reflects both intentional co-use and unintentional exposure due to the contaminated drug supply. Polysubstance use complicates overdose response, as stimulants can mask the respiratory depression caused by opioids initially, potentially delaying recognition and intervention. It also presents challenges for treatment, requiring approaches that address dependence on multiple substance classes simultaneously.

2.3 Emerging Threats: Xylazine and Medetomidine

Further complicating Philadelphia's crisis is the emergence of non-opioid adulterants, most notably xylazine ("tranq") and, more recently, medetomidine ("Rhino Tranq"). Xylazine, an animal tranquilizer not approved for human use, was involved in 38% of Philadelphia overdose deaths in 2023, almost invariably alongside fentanyl.2 Users may seek out xylazine to extend the shorter-lasting effects of fentanyl.2 However, xylazine carries unique and severe risks. It can cause severe, difficult-to-heal skin wounds, increasing the risk of infection and complicating access to care.2 Its sedative effects are not reversed by naloxone, the standard opioid overdose reversal medication, making overdose management more complex. Furthermore, xylazine withdrawal is severe and distinct from opioid withdrawal, often requiring specialized medical management.2

Alarmingly, an even more potent animal sedative, medetomidine, began appearing in Philadelphia's drug supply in May 2024 and rapidly became dominant. By January 2025, it was detected more frequently than xylazine, present in 87% of tested drug samples.1 Medetomidine is reported to be approximately 200 times more potent than xylazine.1 Its emergence signals a further escalation in the toxicity of the street drug supply. The primary concern associated with medetomidine is the potential for even more severe and intractable withdrawal symptoms, including severe vomiting, sweating, tremors, and tachycardia, often requiring advanced critical care intervention.1 The rapid succession from fentanyl dominance to fentanyl/xylazine mixtures, and now to fentanyl/medetomidine, highlights the volatile nature of the illicit drug market and the immense challenge it poses to public health surveillance, harm reduction efforts, and treatment protocols. Strategies effective against opioids alone are insufficient to address the complex physiological effects and withdrawal syndromes associated with these potent adulterants.

2.4 Deepening Racial Disparities

The burden of Philadelphia's overdose crisis falls disproportionately on communities of color, with racial disparities widening significantly in recent years. Between 2018 and 2022, the number of overdose deaths surged by 87% among non-Hispanic Black individuals and 43% among Hispanic individuals. In stark contrast, deaths among non-Hispanic White individuals decreased by 12% during the same period.3 In 2022, non-Hispanic Black residents experienced the highest number of overdose deaths (649), representing a nearly 20% increase from 2021 alone.3 Black Philadelphians aged 35-44 were the demographic group with the highest number of overdose deaths in 2021 29, and the median age of death among Black males who died from overdose in 2022 was 55 years old.3

This alarming divergence in trends strongly suggests that existing city-wide prevention, harm reduction, and treatment strategies are failing to adequately reach or effectively serve Black and Hispanic communities. The data indicates that the sharp rise in deaths among Black individuals is primarily driven by the introduction of opioids (fentanyl) into the stimulant supply; opioid-and-stimulant-involved deaths among Black residents increased by 146% between 2018 and 2022, compared to a 64% increase in stimulant-only deaths.4 Hispanic individuals saw an 81% rise in opioid-and-stimulant deaths over the same period.4 These patterns point towards differential drug use patterns, market dynamics, or, critically, systemic inequities in access to culturally competent care, socioeconomic opportunities, and the underlying social determinants of health that contribute to substance use and overdose risk. Addressing this crisis effectively requires acknowledging and tackling these profound racial disparities head-on.

2.5 Geographic Spread and Community Impact

While the Kensington neighborhood remains an epicenter of the visible drug market and associated challenges 31, overdose deaths are a citywide tragedy, occurring in nearly every zip code.3 Preliminary 2023 data indicated increases in resident overdose deaths in areas of the River Wards, South Philadelphia, and West Philadelphia, even as some areas in Northeast and Northwest Philadelphia saw decreases.23 This geographic spread underscores that the crisis affects diverse communities across Philadelphia.

The impact extends far beyond mortality statistics. Substance use disorder is closely linked with poverty; Philadelphia, being the poorest large city in the US, faces intersecting challenges.21 The crisis fuels concerns about public safety and order 31, strains healthcare resources, and inflicts deep trauma on families who witness loved ones struggle with addiction, face incarceration, or succumb to overdose.26 The pervasiveness of fentanyl and other potent substances means the risk extends even to individuals who use drugs occasionally or do not identify as having a substance use disorder.29 The complexity and severity of Philadelphia's overdose crisis, marked by a toxic drug supply, entrenched polysubstance use, widening racial disparities, and citywide impact, demand a fundamental re-evaluation of the city's response.

3. The Punitive Status Quo: Pennsylvania Law and Philadelphia's Enforcement Reality

Pennsylvania's approach to drug control, codified in state law and reflected in Philadelphia's enforcement practices, remains largely rooted in a punitive framework inherited from the decades-long "war on drugs." This framework prioritizes criminal sanctions for drug possession and use, despite mounting evidence of its ineffectiveness in curbing substance use or overdose deaths, its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities, and its significant financial costs.

3.1 Pennsylvania's Strict Drug Laws

The cornerstone of Pennsylvania's drug policy is The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act.5 This legislation classifies substances into five schedules based on perceived potential for abuse and accepted medical use, with Schedule I substances (e.g., heroin, LSD, marijuana under state law) considered the most dangerous with no accepted medical use, and Schedule V the least.6

The law distinguishes primarily between "Simple Possession" and "Possession With Intent to Deliver" (PWID). Simple possession, defined as knowingly or intentionally possessing a controlled substance without authorization for personal use, is typically graded as an ungraded misdemeanor.32 Penalties for a first offense can reach up to one year imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine.5 Subsequent simple possession offenses carry harsher penalties, potentially up to three years imprisonment and a $25,000 fine.5 Penalties can vary based on the specific substance; for example, possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana carries a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail and a $500 fine.5 Possession of drug paraphernalia—items intended for using, manufacturing, or distributing drugs—is also a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine.5

Possession With Intent to Deliver (PWID) is treated much more severely, typically as a felony.6 PWID involves possessing drugs with the intent to distribute or sell them. Penalties vary significantly based on the drug type and quantity, ranging from potential years to decades of imprisonment and substantial fines, potentially exceeding $250,000 for large quantities of Schedule I or II substances.5 The determination of intent (personal use vs. delivery) is based on factors such as the quantity of the drug possessed, the presence of packaging materials (like multiple small baggies), scales, large amounts of cash, and evidence of communication with potential buyers.32 This distinction, while legally defined, presents practical challenges. The extreme potency of fentanyl means that an amount constituting many individual doses might still be very small physically, potentially blurring the line between personal supply and intent to distribute. This ambiguity grants significant discretion to law enforcement and prosecutors, potentially leading to felony PWID charges for individuals whose behavior might more accurately reflect dependent personal use, particularly if they purchase slightly larger amounts less frequently to manage withdrawal or pool resources. Such felony charges carry far more severe and lasting consequences than misdemeanor simple possession.

3.2 Philadelphia Enforcement Trends

Enforcement of these state laws in Philadelphia shows fluctuating trends. Data from the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office indicates a general decline in drug offense arrests and charges from a peak around 2019/2020 through 2023, followed by a notable uptick in 2024.36 Specifically, there were 1,219 drug offense arrests and 1,244 drug offense charges filed in 2023. In 2024, these numbers increased to 1,447 arrests and 1,505 charges.36 This recent increase contrasts with broader city and national trends showing decreases in most violent and property crime categories during the same period.38 It is important to note that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted criminal justice system activity, leading to lower overall arrests and charges for several years, potentially skewing trend analyses.36

Despite these enforcement activities, including large-scale seizures of fentanyl by law enforcement 1, the overdose crisis has persisted and, in many ways, worsened. The coexistence of ongoing drug arrests and near-record overdose deaths strongly suggests that enforcement under the current punitive legal framework is not effectively mitigating the most lethal consequences of substance use in the city. If the primary goal of drug law enforcement is to enhance public safety by reducing drug use and its associated harms, the data points towards a failure of this strategy to achieve that objective in Philadelphia's current context.

3.3 The High Cost of Criminalization

The punitive approach carries a substantial financial burden. A study analyzing Pennsylvania state-level criminal justice system (CJS) costs attributable to the opioid crisis between 2007 and 2016 (using 2006 as a baseline) estimated a total net cost of over $526 million.7 The vast majority of this cost was driven by state corrections, highlighting the expense of incarceration.7 While this study focused on state costs and excluded local expenditures 7, it provides a glimpse into the scale of resources consumed by the CJS response. National estimates place the annual cost of drug enforcement by federal and state governments in the tens of billions of dollars.42

Locally, the Philadelphia Department of Prisons operates with a significant budget, exceeding $240 million annually in recent years.8 While the often-cited average daily cost per inmate is around $95, the actual marginal savings from reducing the jail population by one person are estimated to be much lower, around $20 per day, because most jail costs are fixed (e.g., staffing, building maintenance) unless population reductions are large enough to allow for facility closures.8 Furthermore, the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD) consistently has the largest budget of any city department, with personnel costs consuming approximately 95% of its funding—a higher percentage than other large city police departments.9 This heavy investment in CJS personnel and infrastructure represents a significant opportunity cost. Resources dedicated to arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating individuals for drug offenses, particularly low-level possession, could potentially be redirected towards public health interventions like treatment and harm reduction, which evidence suggests may be more effective and cost-effective at reducing drug-related harm.19

3.4 The Human Cost: Incarceration and Disparities

Beyond the financial expenditures, the human costs of criminalization are immense. Drug arrests and convictions create significant, often lifelong barriers to stable employment, secure housing, education, and essential healthcare services.19 This can trap individuals in a cycle of poverty, instability, and further CJS involvement, often referred to as the "revolving door".19 Nationally, the "war on drugs" has disproportionately impacted marginalized communities, particularly Black and Hispanic Americans, contributing to mass incarceration and exacerbating systemic inequalities.25 While specific data on the racial breakdown of drug arrests in Philadelphia was not included in the provided materials, the stark racial disparities observed in overdose deaths 3 and the target populations for diversion programs like PAD 19 strongly suggest that the harms of both addiction and punitive enforcement fall most heavily on the city's communities of color. The stigma associated with a criminal record further isolates individuals and discourages help-seeking, undermining public health goals.19 Treating addiction as a criminal justice issue rather than a health issue perpetuates harm and fails to address the underlying drivers of substance use, such as poverty, trauma, and lack of opportunity.

4. Philadelphia's Public Health Response: Current Services and Systemic Gaps

Alongside its law enforcement efforts, Philadelphia has developed a public health infrastructure aimed at mitigating the harms of substance use and connecting individuals to treatment. However, this system faces significant challenges related to funding, access, capacity, and recent political shifts that contradict established harm reduction principles.

4.1 Harm Reduction Infrastructure

Philadelphia has a relatively long history of harm reduction initiatives, largely pioneered by community organizations. Prevention Point Philadelphia (PPP), founded by AIDS activists in 1991, operates the city's primary syringe services program (SSP), providing sterile injection equipment to reduce the transmission of HIV and Hepatitis C.45 Notably, PPP operates under a specific 1992 city ordinance, as SSPs remain technically criminalized under Pennsylvania state law.45 PPP offers a comprehensive suite of services beyond syringe exchange, including mobile outreach, naloxone distribution, connections to medical care and social services, case management, and emergency shelter, serving tens of thousands of individuals annually.45

Access to naloxone (Narcan), the opioid overdose reversal medication, is widespread in Philadelphia, facilitated by a statewide standing order issued in 2015 that allows pharmacists to dispense it without an individual prescription.46 The city's Department of Public Health (PDPH), through its Division of Substance Use Prevention and Harm Reduction (SUPHR), actively promotes naloxone access and provides training alongside community partners.47

Recognizing the threat posed by fentanyl contamination, Mayor Kenney issued Executive Order 4-21 in August 2021, establishing a city policy not to arrest individuals for possessing or distributing fentanyl test strips (FTS) for harm reduction purposes.28 This aligns with policies from the Philadelphia District Attorney and Pennsylvania Attorney General declining prosecution for FTS possession.28 SUPHR and community groups now distribute FTS to help individuals identify fentanyl in their drug supply and potentially take precautions.46 These existing harm reduction services reflect an official, albeit sometimes fragmented, embrace of harm reduction principles aimed at minimizing the negative consequences of drug use without necessarily requiring abstinence.46

4.2 The Overdose Prevention Site (OPS) Controversy

Despite the established harm reduction infrastructure, efforts to implement overdose prevention sites (OPS), also known as supervised consumption sites (SCS) or safe injection facilities, have faced significant political and community opposition in Philadelphia. OPS are facilities where individuals can use pre-obtained drugs under the supervision of trained staff who can intervene in case of overdose and offer connections to health and social services.51 Evidence from numerous sites operating internationally suggests they are effective at preventing overdose deaths, reducing the transmission of infectious diseases like HIV, decreasing public drug use and discarded syringes, and increasing engagement with treatment services, without increasing crime rates.52

In Philadelphia, the non-profit organization Safehouse sought to open the nation's first officially sanctioned OPS, receiving initial support from former Mayor Kenney and public health officials citing the escalating overdose deaths.48 However, the plan faced immediate legal challenges from the federal government and strong opposition from some community members and elected officials, particularly concerning the proposed location in South Philadelphia.51 Despite an initial favorable federal court ruling for Safehouse 56, the legal battles continued. Critically, in 2023, Philadelphia City Council passed a zoning overlay bill, sponsored by Councilmember Quetcy Lozada, that effectively banned OPS in nine out of ten council districts.26 While some council members, like Kendra Brooks, argued against the ban, citing the life-saving potential of OPS and personal experiences with addiction's toll 26, the majority vote reflected significant political resistance. Furthermore, the current administration under Mayor Cherelle Parker has explicitly stated its opposition to OPS and announced intentions to cease city funding for services providing safer use supplies (like pipes for smoking), signaling a shift away from comprehensive harm reduction towards a more enforcement-focused approach, particularly in areas like Kensington.31 This political reversal creates a significant policy incoherence, blocking a proven harm reduction intervention despite the city's ongoing, severe overdose crisis.

4.3 Addiction Treatment Landscape

Philadelphia offers a continuum of addiction treatment services managed primarily through the Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual disAbility Services (DBHIDS) and its contracted Medicaid managed care organization, Community Behavioral Health (CBH).57 Available levels of care include detoxification (medically monitored inpatient), inpatient rehabilitation (short-term and long-term residential), partial hospitalization programs (PHP), and various intensities of outpatient treatment.57 Specialized services like case management, recovery housing, and problem gambling initiatives also exist.57

Access points vary depending on insurance status. Individuals with Medicaid access services through CBH Member Services.57 Those who are uninsured or unsure where to turn can contact the Behavioral Health Special Initiative (BHSI) or the 24/7 NET Access Point for assessment and referral.57 Pennsylvania also operates a statewide "Get Help Now" hotline and the Treatment Atlas online tool to help individuals find appropriate care.61 Numerous private treatment providers also operate within the city, offering various programs like inpatient, outpatient, and specialized therapies.59 Support groups like Alcoholics Anonymous are also available.60

4.4 Treatment Capacity, Access, and MAT

While a structure for treatment exists, significant questions remain about capacity, timely access, and the availability of evidence-based care, particularly Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT). MAT, involving medications like buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone, is widely recognized as the most effective treatment for opioid use disorder, reducing mortality, illicit opioid use, and criminal justice involvement.19 DBHIDS states a commitment to increasing MAT availability across all levels of care.63

However, accessing this care promptly can be challenging. DBHIDS maintains a Treatment Availability Database, but acknowledges it is not comprehensive, not updated in real-time, and serves informational purposes only.63 This lack of reliable, real-time information on open treatment slots, particularly for MAT or inpatient beds, creates a significant barrier for individuals seeking immediate help, especially given the urgency often associated with fentanyl withdrawal or fleeting moments of readiness for change. Recovery housing capacity is also limited; for instance, the Office of Addiction Services (OAS) funded only 470 recovery house beds citywide.57

Concerns about network adequacy – whether the network of providers is sufficient to meet member needs – are reflected in new federal regulations pushing states to establish and monitor appointment wait time standards for Medicaid managed care plans. These standards suggest targets like no more than 10 business days for routine outpatient mental health and substance use disorder appointments.64 While specific Philadelphia wait time data wasn't available in the provided materials, the national focus on this issue, coupled with past reports raising concerns about CBH's provider monitoring 67, suggests that timely access remains a critical area for improvement. Diversion programs like Police Assisted Diversion (PAD) aim to bridge this gap by connecting individuals directly to services 19, but their success inherently depends on the capacity and responsiveness of the treatment system they refer into. Qualitative evaluations of PAD noted that inadequate access to resources, particularly housing, limited the program's effectiveness.19 These systemic gaps – in real-time capacity information, potentially long wait times, limited specialized resources like recovery housing, and questions around network adequacy – hinder Philadelphia's ability to provide effective, timely care to all residents struggling with substance use disorder.

5. The Portuguese Alternative: A Paradigm Shift to Public Health

In stark contrast to the predominantly punitive approach prevalent in the United States, Portugal embarked on a radical public health experiment in 2001. Facing a devastating heroin epidemic and soaring rates of HIV/AIDS, the nation fundamentally shifted its approach to drug use, moving from criminalization towards a comprehensive strategy centered on decriminalization, harm reduction, and treatment.

5.1 Genesis of Reform

During the 1980s and 1990s, Portugal experienced one of the most severe drug crises in Europe. Heroin use surged, and by 1999, the country had the highest rate of drug-related AIDS cases in the European Union.10 It was estimated that perhaps 1% of the population was addicted to heroin.17 Overdose deaths were climbing rapidly, and visible public drug use fueled widespread public concern, making drug-related issues the top social problem cited by the Portuguese public in 1997.10 Recognizing the failure of existing policies, the government appointed a national commission comprising experts from various fields—including doctors, psychologists, lawyers, and social workers—to study the problem and propose a new national strategy.10 This commission concluded that the criminalization of people who use drugs was counterproductive and recommended a paradigm shift towards a public health framework.10

5.2 Law 30/2000: Decriminalization, Not Legalization

Acting on the commission's recommendations, the Portuguese government enacted Law 30/2000, which took effect in July 2001.10 This landmark legislation decriminalized the consumption, acquisition, and possession of all illicit drugs—including heroin, cocaine, and cannabis—for personal use.10 It is crucial to understand that this was decriminalization, not legalization.71 Drug use and possession remained legally prohibited, but these acts were removed from the criminal justice system and reclassified as administrative offenses.14

The law established specific quantity thresholds, generally defined as an amount not exceeding that required for average individual consumption over a ten-day period (e.g., 1 gram of heroin, 2 grams of cocaine, 25 grams of cannabis leaf).12 Individuals found by police possessing amounts at or below these thresholds are no longer arrested or charged with a crime. Instead, their substances are confiscated, and they are issued a summons to appear before a local administrative body.10 Possession of quantities exceeding the ten-day supply remains a criminal offense, treated as drug trafficking and subject to prosecution and potential imprisonment.17 A 2008 ruling by Portugal's Supreme Court of Justice reinforced this distinction, confirming that possession exceeding the established personal use quantities could indeed be prosecuted as trafficking under existing criminal law (Decree-Law 15/93).25 This maintains a clear legal boundary against drug dealing while diverting personal use cases away from the criminal courts.

5.3 The Role of Dissuasion Commissions (CDTs)

The cornerstone of the administrative response under Law 30/2000 is the Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction (Comissão para a Dissuasão da Toxicodependência, or CDT).12 These commissions, established regionally and operating under the Ministry of Health, represent a fundamental shift in how the state interacts with individuals who use drugs.10 Each CDT panel typically consists of three professionals: one legal expert (often a lawyer or judge) and two individuals from the health or social service fields (such as doctors, psychologists, or social workers).10

When an individual appears before the CDT, the panel conducts an interview to understand the person's circumstances, including their pattern of drug use, whether they exhibit signs of dependence, their family and employment situation, and any co-occurring health issues.10 The primary objective is not punishment, but rather to provide accurate information about drug risks, assess the individual's needs, dissuade problematic use, and facilitate access to voluntary support services.10

For individuals assessed as having non-problematic use, especially first-time referrals, the commission often simply suspends the case, meaning no penalty is applied.14 This occurs in the vast majority of cases.14 If problematic use or dependency is identified, the commission's main goal is to encourage the individual to enter treatment voluntarily.10 Treatment is never mandated or coerced; failure to engage does not result in criminal sanctions.10 For repeat referrals or in specific circumstances, the CDTs do have the authority to impose administrative sanctions, such as fines (typically modest and related to ability to pay), suspension of professional licenses, bans on frequenting certain places, community service, or requirements to report periodically to the commission or health services.12 However, these sanctions are considered secondary to the primary goal of health engagement and support.12 The low rate of individuals appearing before the commissions more than once (estimated at 4-6%) suggests the approach is often effective in its dissuasive and supportive aims.12 This process fundamentally reframes the state's response from an adversarial legal encounter to a therapeutic and administrative one focused on health and well-being.

5.4 Investment in Treatment and Harm Reduction

Crucially, the decriminalization law was not implemented in isolation. It was part of a comprehensive national drug strategy that involved a significant expansion and strengthening of public health infrastructure, particularly treatment and harm reduction services.10 Recognizing that simply removing criminal penalties without providing viable alternatives would be insufficient, Portugal invested heavily in making health services more accessible and effective.

Funding for drug treatment and harm reduction programs increased substantially.10 Treatment services, integrated into the national health system, are voluntary, largely free of charge, and aim to provide holistic care addressing not just addiction but also underlying socioeconomic factors.10 Harm reduction became a central pillar of the strategy.10 This included the expansion of needle and syringe programs (NSPs) to reduce HIV and hepatitis transmission, increased access to opioid substitution therapies like methadone and buprenorphine, widespread outreach by teams distributing sterile equipment, condoms, and health information, and the provision of basic necessities like hygiene kits.10 More recently, Portugal has implemented both mobile and fixed-site supervised consumption sites (SCS/OPS) in cities like Lisbon and Porto, further expanding its harm reduction toolkit.14 This concurrent investment in health services is widely credited as being essential to the positive outcomes observed following decriminalization.

5.5 Guiding Principles

The Portuguese model is underpinned by a clear set of guiding principles that represent a departure from traditional drug war philosophies:

• Addiction as a Health Issue: The core principle is that substance use disorder is a chronic, relapsing health condition requiring treatment and support, not a moral failing deserving punishment.10

• Human Rights and Dignity: The policy emphasizes respecting the human rights and dignity of individuals who use drugs, recognizing their right to health and support.10

• Evidence-Based Pragmatism: The approach is grounded in scientific evidence and public health best practices, with a willingness to adapt based on outcomes.10

• Harm Reduction: Prioritizing the reduction of negative consequences associated with drug use (overdoses, infectious diseases) is seen as a pragmatic and life-saving strategy.10

• Social Reintegration: The focus extends beyond immediate treatment to supporting individuals in rebuilding their lives and reintegrating into society.10

• Stigma Reduction: By removing criminal penalties and adopting a health focus, the policy aims to reduce the stigma surrounding drug use, making it easier for individuals to seek help without fear.11

Together, these components—decriminalization via Law 30/2000, the administrative function of the Dissuasion Commissions, substantial investment in treatment and harm reduction, and a guiding public health philosophy—constitute the Portuguese model that has garnered international attention.

6. Evidence from Portugal: Assessing Two Decades of Decriminalization

More than twenty years after Portugal implemented its groundbreaking drug policy reforms, a substantial body of evidence allows for an assessment of its impacts. While the interpretation of some data points remains subject to debate, the overall picture indicates significant public health successes, particularly in the initial decade following reform, alongside ongoing challenges and evolving trends.

6.1 Public Health Outcomes

Perhaps the most widely cited successes of the Portuguese model lie in its positive public health outcomes. Following the 2001 reforms, the country witnessed dramatic improvements in several key areas:

• Drug-Related Deaths: In the first five years after decriminalization, drug overdose deaths decreased significantly.10 While rates fluctuated in subsequent years, experiencing a low point around 2011 before rising again, they remained substantially below pre-reform levels for many years.14 Critically, Portugal's drug-induced mortality rate fell well below the European average and remains among the lowest in the EU, standing in stark contrast to the devastating rates seen in countries like the United States or Scotland.14 For instance, one report noted people in Portugal were 45 times less likely to die from overdose compared to people in the U.S..82

• HIV/Hepatitis C Infections: The impact on infectious diseases associated with injection drug use was particularly striking. New HIV diagnoses among people who inject drugs plummeted by over 90% between 2000 and 2015.10 This dramatic reduction is largely attributed to the expansion of harm reduction services, particularly needle and syringe programs and outreach efforts, facilitated by the less punitive environment created by decriminalization.11 Similar positive trends were observed for Hepatitis C transmission.72

• Treatment Engagement: Decriminalization, coupled with expanded service availability, encouraged more individuals to voluntarily seek treatment for substance use disorders.10 Removing the fear of criminal prosecution for possession made individuals less hesitant to engage with health services.11

• Problematic and Adolescent Use: Several studies indicated reductions in rates of problematic drug use (particularly heroin injection) and drug use among adolescents (ages 15-19 or 15-24) in the years following the reform.10

These positive health trends strongly suggest that shifting from a punitive to a health-centered approach, combining decriminalization with robust services, can yield significant benefits in reducing the most severe harms associated with drug use.

6.2 Criminal Justice System Impact

The reforms also had a notable impact on Portugal's criminal justice system:

• Reduced CJS Burden: As intended, decriminalizing personal possession significantly reduced the number of people arrested, prosecuted, and incarcerated solely for drug use.10 This freed up police and court resources.20

• Decreased Drug Offender Prison Population: The proportion of the sentenced prison population incarcerated for drug offenses dropped dramatically, from over 40% (and as high as 70% by some accounts) prior to the reforms to around 15-20% in later years, falling below the European average.12 This reduction occurred primarily in the first decade post-reform.14

• Focus on Trafficking: Law enforcement agencies were able to redirect resources previously spent on pursuing individuals for simple possession towards investigating and intercepting larger-scale drug trafficking operations.11

• Drug-Related Crime: Some analyses suggest an overall reduction in drug-related crime following the reforms, potentially linked to increased treatment access reducing the need for acquisitive crime to fund drug use.69 However, interpreting crime data trends is complex, and some specific crime categories may show different patterns.69 Interestingly, one study noted that while the law primarily targeted use, there was a surprising correlation with a significant drop (nearly 50%) in convictions and imprisonments for trafficking between 2001 and 2015, suggesting potential indirect effects on the justice system's handling of supply-side offenses as well.74

Overall, the evidence indicates that decriminalization eased the burden on the criminal justice system, reduced incarceration rates for drug offenses, and potentially contributed to improved public safety outcomes, contrary to fears that leniency would fuel crime.

6.3 Drug Use Prevalence

The impact of decriminalization on overall drug use rates is perhaps the most debated aspect of the Portuguese experience. Critics often claim decriminalization leads to increased use, while proponents highlight Portugal as evidence to the contrary. A nuanced look at the data reveals a complex picture:

• Initial Trends: In the immediate years following the 2001 reform, data generally did not show the feared explosion in drug use. Lifetime prevalence rates for most drugs remained relatively stable or even decreased among key demographics, particularly adolescents and young adults.10

• Later Trends: Some later surveys indicated increases in lifetime prevalence rates for certain drugs (like cannabis and cocaine) among the general adult population.17 However, these increases often mirrored broader trends observed across Europe during the same period, making it difficult to attribute them solely to Portugal's decriminalization policy.69

• Context: Despite some increases in reported lifetime use, Portugal's overall drug use rates have generally remained below the European average.14 Furthermore, indicators of problematic use, such as rates of injecting drug use, decreased in the years following reform.69

• Methodological Challenges: Measuring drug use accurately is inherently difficult due to the hidden and stigmatized nature of the activity.86 Changes in reporting behavior (people being more willing to admit use in a less punitive environment) can affect survey results.86 Isolating the specific impact of the decriminalization law from other concurrent factors—such as economic changes, shifts in the drug market, prevention efforts, and broader cultural trends—is methodologically challenging.20

The most reasonable conclusion from the available evidence is that Portugal's decriminalization policy did not lead to major, sustained increases in drug use, particularly problematic use, and certainly not the "floodgates" scenario predicted by opponents. While some metrics show increases, these often align with regional trends and must be weighed against the significant improvements in public health outcomes.

6.4 Criticisms, Challenges, and Recent Trends

Despite the widely acknowledged successes, the Portuguese model is not without criticisms and has faced challenges, particularly in more recent years:

• Data Interpretation Debates: The interpretation of Portuguese data has been contentious. Reports from organizations like the Cato Institute hailed the reforms as a "resounding success" 71, while critics, including a report from the US Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) during the Obama administration, argued these claims were overstated, selectively used data, ignored adverse trends (like a temporary rise in drug deaths between 2004-2006), and failed to adequately account for confounding factors.18 These debates highlight the complexities of policy evaluation and the potential for bias.

• Impact of Austerity: Significant reductions in Portugal's health and welfare budgets following the global financial crisis around 2008-2009 raised concerns.69 Funding for drug services reportedly decreased, potentially straining the system's capacity and contributing to some of the recent challenges.14 One report noted a drop in drug treatment funding from $82.7 million to $17.4 million between 2012 and 2015-2021 (conflicting end dates in source), leading to a decline in users in treatment.17 This underscores the crucial point that the positive outcomes depend heavily on sustained investment in the accompanying health services; decriminalization alone is insufficient, particularly when resources are cut.

• Recent Challenges: In recent years, reports have emerged of increased visible drug use, particularly in urban centers like Lisbon and Porto, along with rising overdose rates from a 12-year low and concerns about crime.17 Sewage analysis indicates high levels of cocaine and ketamine use.17 These issues may be linked to several factors, including the aforementioned funding constraints, the arrival of new and different drug trends (e.g., increased cocaine availability, potential emergence of synthetics), the socioeconomic impacts of the pandemic, and potentially a degree of system strain or "complacency" after two decades.17

• Ongoing Political Debate: These recent challenges have fueled political debate within Portugal. Some local officials, particularly in Porto, have called for adjustments to the policy, such as targeted re-criminalization of drug use in specific zones like near schools, although this has been met with strong opposition from public health experts.17 This indicates that even successful models require ongoing monitoring, adaptation, and sustained political and financial commitment to address new challenges effectively.

In summary, while Portugal's decriminalization approach yielded substantial and well-documented public health and criminal justice benefits, particularly in its first decade, it is not a panacea. Sustained investment, adaptation to changing drug markets, and integration with broader social policies are crucial for long-term success. The challenges Portugal faces today offer valuable lessons for jurisdictions like Philadelphia considering similar reforms.

7. Comparative Insights: Contrasting Philadelphia's Path with Portugal's Experience

Juxtaposing Philadelphia's current reality under a predominantly punitive drug policy framework with Portugal's two decades of experience under a public health-centered model reveals stark contrasts in philosophy, implementation, and outcomes. This comparison underscores the potential benefits of adopting a new approach in Philadelphia while also highlighting contextual differences that must be considered.

7.1 Philosophical Divide: Punishment vs. Public Health

At its core, the difference lies in the fundamental understanding of substance use disorder. The prevailing approach in the U.S., and reflected in Pennsylvania law and Philadelphia's enforcement focus, largely treats drug use and addiction as criminal behavior or a moral failing requiring punishment and control.19 This aligns with a philosophy of retributive justice. Portugal, conversely, explicitly redefined addiction as a chronic, relapsing health condition requiring medical treatment, psychosocial support, and harm reduction interventions.10 This public health philosophy emphasizes care over punishment, aiming for therapeutic outcomes and social integration rather than solely deterrence through the criminal justice system.17

7.2 Policy Implementation Comparison

These contrasting philosophies translate into vastly different policy implementations, as summarized in Table 2:

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Drug Policy Approaches: Philadelphia vs. Portugal

Feature	Philadelphia/Pennsylvania (Current)	Portugal (Post-2001)
Legal Status of Personal Possession	Criminal Offense (Misdemeanor/Felony) 5	Administrative Offense (for ≤10-day supply) 10
Primary Response Mechanism	Arrest, Prosecution, Incarceration 36	Referral to Dissuasion Commission (CDT) 10
Treatment Access/Funding	Often Limited, Underfunded; Access Issues (Wait Times, Capacity) 57	Expanded Access, Increased Funding (Integrated w/ National Health) 10
Harm Reduction Priority	Limited/Contested (e.g., OPS Ban 26, Funding Cuts 31)	Prioritized (NSP, MAT, Outreach, SCS) 10
Overdose Death Trend	Catastrophically High, Near Record Levels 1	Initially Decreased Significantly, Remains Low by EU Standards 14
HIV Trend among PWID	Less Dramatic Recent Data (Historically High Risk)	Dramatically Decreased (>90% reduction) 12
Drug-Related Incarceration Trend	High Contribution to Incarceration (Historically) 19	Significantly Decreased Burden on CJS 14
Estimated Costs Focus	High Criminal Justice System Expenditures 8	Reduced CJS Costs, Reinvestment in Health/Social Services 17
Dominant View of Addiction	Primarily Criminal Behavior / Moral Failing	Chronic Health Condition 10

This table clearly illustrates the divergence: Philadelphia relies heavily on the criminal justice system as the primary responder, faces challenges in treatment access, and shows ambivalence or opposition to key harm reduction measures like OPS. Portugal, conversely, shifted the primary response to an administrative health body, invested significantly in treatment and harm reduction, and treats addiction fundamentally as a health issue.

7.3 Outcomes Compared: Health, Safety, and Costs

The differing approaches yield vastly different outcomes. Philadelphia struggles with one of the worst overdose crises in the nation, marked by extremely high death rates and alarming racial disparities.1 Portugal, while facing recent pressures, achieved significant and sustained reductions in overdose deaths and infectious disease transmission, maintaining outcomes far better than those in Philadelphia or the U.S. overall.10

From a criminal justice perspective, Philadelphia continues to expend considerable resources on drug enforcement and incarceration, contributing to high jail populations and associated costs.7 Portugal experienced a significant reduction in the burden on its criminal justice system, allowing resources to be potentially reallocated.14 Studies suggest Portugal achieved overall societal cost savings due to reduced healthcare and legal costs associated with its approach.17 The punitive approach in Philadelphia also perpetuates stigma and creates barriers to recovery 19, whereas Portugal's health-focused model aimed explicitly at reducing stigma and encouraging help-seeking.12 The comparison strongly suggests that Philadelphia's adherence to a punitive model has failed to deliver positive public health or safety outcomes commensurate with its costs, while Portugal's alternative has demonstrated significant success in reducing harm.

7.4 Applicability and Context

While the Portuguese experience offers compelling evidence, direct policy transplantation requires careful consideration of context. Portugal implemented its reforms within a nationalized healthcare system, potentially facilitating service integration and access.82 Its initial crisis was primarily driven by heroin, whereas Philadelphia faces a more complex polysubstance crisis dominated by fentanyl and potent adulterants.1 Furthermore, Portugal's reform was a nationally coordinated effort with broad political consensus at the time 17, contrasting with the fragmented and often contentious nature of drug policy debates in the U.S. and Philadelphia.31

However, the fundamental principles underlying Portugal's success are highly relevant and transferable. The core idea that treating addiction as a health issue and investing in evidence-based treatment and harm reduction yields better outcomes than criminalization is supported by extensive public health research.19 The key takeaway is the importance of an integrated approach: legal reform (decriminalization) created an enabling environment, but it was the simultaneous, substantial investment in the health and social response system that drove the positive changes.11 Philadelphia can adapt these principles to its own context, leveraging existing structures like DBHIDS, CBH, and potentially reformed diversion programs 19, while recognizing the need for significant, sustained investment in the service infrastructure.

8. Relevant Lessons from Oregon's Measure 110

Oregon's recent experience with drug decriminalization, enacted through Ballot Measure 110 in 2020 and largely rolled back in 2024, provides critical, albeit cautionary, lessons for jurisdictions like Philadelphia considering similar reforms. While distinct from Portugal's nationally coordinated, health-system-integrated approach, Measure 110 represents the first statewide attempt at decriminalizing possession of all drugs in the U.S. and highlights the crucial role of implementation fidelity and political context.

8.1 Oregon's Experiment: Goals and Design

Approved by nearly 60% of Oregon voters in November 2020 and taking effect in February 2021, Measure 110 aimed to shift Oregon's approach to drug possession from punishment to health.15 It reclassified the possession of small, personal-use amounts of all controlled substances from a misdemeanor crime to a Class E violation, akin to a traffic ticket.15 The penalty was a maximum fine of $100, which could be waived if the individual completed a health needs screening via a statewide telephone hotline.15 Crucially, Measure 110 also mandated that a significant portion of the state's cannabis tax revenue, along with savings from reduced arrests and incarceration, be directed into a dedicated fund. This fund was intended to dramatically expand access to low-barrier substance use disorder treatment, harm reduction services, peer support, housing assistance, employment services, and other vital social supports across the state.15

8.2 Implementation Challenges

Despite its ambitious goals and popular mandate, the implementation of Measure 110 was plagued by significant challenges from the outset:

• Funding Delays: The Oregon Health Authority (OHA), the state agency tasked with overseeing the distribution of Measure 110 funds, faced major delays in getting money out to service providers.15 This meant that the promised expansion of services lagged considerably behind the legal change of decriminalization, creating a critical gap.

• Lack of State Support for Law Enforcement: The state failed to provide adequate training, guidance, or even standardized citation forms to law enforcement agencies regarding the new violation process.15 This led to inconsistent application of the law, with some departments reportedly reluctant to issue citations at all.

• Poor Public Communication: The state made little effort to publicize the health screening hotline, meaning many individuals who received citations were unaware of how to get the fine waived by engaging with services.15

• External Crises and Agency Strain: Measure 110 was implemented amidst the immense pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic, which heavily burdened OHA.15 Compounding this were high staff turnover within the agency units responsible for Measure 110 and the concurrent end of pandemic-era eviction protections, which exacerbated visible homelessness.15 Simultaneously, the rapid proliferation of fentanyl across the Western U.S. drove overdose rates up nationally, including in Oregon.15

• Political Opposition and Scapegoating: Measure 110 faced immediate political opposition. Opponents successfully, though inaccurately, blamed the measure for the rise in visible homelessness and overdose deaths, issues largely driven by the external factors mentioned above.15 Advocates' recommendations for strengthening implementation were largely ignored.15

These implementation failures meant that the full, intended model of Measure 110—decriminalization coupled with immediate, robust, and easily accessible services funded by redirected resources—was never truly realized in its initial years. This created a situation where the policy could be easily criticized and undermined.

8.3 Documented Outcomes

Despite the implementation hurdles, data from the initial period of Measure 110 showed some positive outcomes and, importantly, contradicted many of the negative claims made by opponents:

• Reduced Arrests: As intended, arrests for low-level drug possession plummeted dramatically across Oregon following the implementation of Measure 110.91 Thousands of Oregonians were spared the immediate trauma and long-term collateral consequences of a drug arrest and potential conviction.15

• Increased Service Access: The funding component of Measure 110, despite delays, did eventually lead to substantial investments (over $300 million in the first two years) and resulted in dramatic increases in the number of clients accessing funded services. Documented increases included: 298% for health needs screenings, 114% for behavioral health assessments, 143% for SUD treatment, 205% for peer support, 148% for harm reduction, 296% for housing services, and 286% for supported employment.15 This demonstrates that redirecting funds can significantly expand service reach.

• No Link to Increased Overdoses: Rigorous academic research, notably a study published in JAMA Psychiatry by researchers at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, used synthetic control methods to compare Oregon's overdose trends to states with similar pre-policy trends. The study found no statistically significant evidence that Measure 110 was associated with an increase in fatal drug overdose rates in its first year.15 Oregon's overdose rates increased, but they did so at a rate consistent with comparable states that had not decriminalized, reflecting the broader impact of fentanyl.92

• No Link to Increased Crime: Research found no association between Measure 110 and changes in violent crime rates.15

8.4 The Rollback and Key Takeaways for Philadelphia

Despite the evidence showing Measure 110 was reducing arrests and expanding services without causing an increase in overdoses or crime, intense political pressure fueled by concerns over public disorder and visible drug use led the Oregon legislature to pass HB 4002 in early 2024.15 This bill effectively recriminalized possession of small amounts of drugs, making it a misdemeanor again, thus largely reversing the decriminalization aspect of Measure 110.16

Oregon's experience offers several crucial lessons for Philadelphia:

1. Implementation is Paramount: The success of any decriminalization effort hinges on meticulous planning and effective implementation. This includes ensuring adequate and timely funding for services, robust coordination between health agencies and law enforcement, clear protocols, and proactive training for all involved parties.15 Philadelphia must avoid Oregon's pitfalls by ensuring service capacity is built concurrently with any legal changes.

2. Political Will and Narrative Management are Critical: Evidence alone may not be sufficient to sustain reforms in the face of political opposition and public anxiety about visible social problems like homelessness or public drug use. Proactive public education, strong political leadership championing the health approach, and clear communication about what the policy can and cannot achieve are essential to counter misinformation and build resilience against backlash.15

3. Decriminalization Requires Comprehensive Support: Removing criminal penalties is only one piece of the puzzle. To be effective and sustainable, it must be coupled with robust, accessible, low-barrier services that address the complex needs of individuals who use drugs, including treatment, harm reduction, housing, and employment support.15 Addressing root causes of instability is vital.

4. Service Expansion Potential: Even amidst challenges, Measure 110 demonstrated that redirecting funds from the criminal justice system towards health and social services can significantly increase the number of people accessing care.15 This supports the financial logic behind the public health approach.

Oregon's story is a cautionary tale about the challenges of implementing bold policy shifts in a complex political environment, but it does not invalidate the potential benefits of a well-executed public health approach to substance use.

9. Addressing Local Concerns and Building Consensus in Philadelphia

Transitioning towards a public health-centered drug policy in Philadelphia requires not only presenting evidence from other jurisdictions but also directly addressing the legitimate concerns of local policymakers, community leaders, outreach workers, and residents. Building broad consensus necessitates anticipating and countering common criticisms with data and reasoned arguments, while navigating the city's specific political landscape.

9.1 Concern: Will Decriminalization Increase Drug Use?

A primary fear often associated with decriminalization is that removing criminal penalties will encourage more people to use drugs. However, evidence from jurisdictions that have implemented such policies does not support this concern:

• Portugal: Decades of data show no major, sustained increase in overall drug use attributable to decriminalization. Initial decreases were seen in adolescent and problematic use, and while some later increases in lifetime prevalence occurred, they generally tracked European trends, and Portugal's rates remain below the EU average.10

• Oregon: Rigorous studies found no evidence linking Measure 110 to increases in fatal overdose rates, which often serve as a proxy for problematic use trends in the fentanyl era.92 Overdose rates rose similarly in comparable states without decriminalization.93

• Global Context: A World Health Organization study found the U.S. had the highest lifetime drug use rates despite having among the most punitive drug laws, concluding that criminalization status has little effect on overall usage rates.13

The focus, therefore, should shift from potentially marginal changes in overall use prevalence to the significant reduction in drug-related harm. Portugal demonstrates that a health-centered approach can dramatically decrease overdose deaths, HIV transmission, and incarceration, even if overall usage rates remain relatively stable or track regional trends.10 The argument is not that decriminalization eliminates drug use, but that it creates a more effective framework for managing its consequences and saving lives.

9.2 Concern: Impact on Public Safety and Public Order

Another common concern is that decriminalization will lead to increased crime and public disorder. Again, the evidence largely contradicts this:

• Crime Rates: Portugal experienced reductions in overall drug-related crime after its reforms.14 Oregon studies found no association between Measure 110 and increases in crime rates.15 It is important to reiterate that decriminalization applies only to personal possession; drug trafficking, manufacturing, and associated violent crimes remain illegal and subject to robust enforcement.17 Increased access to treatment can actually reduce crime by lessening the need for individuals to engage in illegal activities to support their drug use.69

• Public Nuisance: While visible drug use is a valid concern, decriminalization does not mean abandoning public order. In Portugal, public consumption can still result in administrative sanctions or referral to CDTs.12 Existing local ordinances regarding public behavior can still be enforced. Furthermore, harm reduction measures often improve public order. Overdose prevention sites, for example, are associated with reductions in public injecting and improperly discarded syringes.52 While recent reports indicate challenges with visible drug use in some Portuguese cities 17, these appear linked to complex factors including funding cuts and changing drug markets, rather than decriminalization itself. Diversion programs like Philadelphia's PAD are specifically designed to address low-level "nuisance" offenses through service connection rather than arrest.19

The argument is that a public health approach ultimately enhances public safety by reducing deaths, disease, and the chaos associated with untreated addiction and survival crime, while still allowing for targeted enforcement against trafficking and serious offenses.

9.3 Concern: Sending the "Wrong Message"

Some worry that decriminalization sends a message that drug use is acceptable or condoned. This concern can be addressed by emphasizing the following:

• Health-Focused Messaging: The primary message of a public health approach is not approval of drug use, but rather that addiction is a treatable health condition and that saving lives is the top priority.11 It signals compassion and a commitment to evidence-based solutions over ineffective punishment.26

• Coupling with Prevention: Portugal's reforms were accompanied by continued investment in drug education and prevention programs.10 A shift in Philadelphia should similarly emphasize robust prevention efforts.

• Failure of the Current Message: The "message" sent by decades of criminalization has clearly failed to deter widespread drug use or prevent the current overdose catastrophe.1 Continuing a failed strategy simply for symbolic reasons is counterproductive.

• Focus on Outcomes: Policy should be judged by its effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes (reduced deaths, disease, crime; increased treatment engagement) rather than its perceived symbolic message. The evidence shows the public health approach delivers better outcomes.14

The "right message" is one that prioritizes life, health, and effective solutions based on evidence, acknowledging that the punitive approach has demonstrably failed.

9.4 Navigating Philadelphia's Political Landscape

Implementing these changes in Philadelphia requires navigating a complex and currently challenging political environment. Mayor Parker's administration has signaled a renewed focus on law enforcement, particularly in Kensington, and has expressed skepticism towards certain harm reduction measures.31 City Council's effective ban on OPS reflects significant political obstacles.26

However, opportunities for building consensus exist:

• Identify Allies: Potential supporters include public health officials within PDPH and DBHIDS, treatment providers, harm reduction organizations (like PPP), recovery advocates, academic researchers, faith-based communities engaged in outreach, community groups in heavily impacted neighborhoods, and potentially some reform-minded individuals within the criminal justice system or on City Council.26

• Frame Arguments Strategically: Emphasize aspects that resonate across the political spectrum:

• Fiscal Responsibility: Highlight the high costs of the current CJS approach (arrests, incarceration) and the potential for significant cost savings through diversion and reduced recidivism.8 Frame investment in treatment as a more cost-effective long-term strategy.

• Public Safety: Argue that reducing overdose deaths and connecting people to treatment ultimately improves public safety by reducing desperation-driven crime and public disorder associated with untreated addiction.52

• Racial Equity: Underscore how the current system disproportionately harms Black and Hispanic communities and frame the public health approach as a way to advance racial justice.3

• Address Law Enforcement Concerns: Engage directly with police leadership and officers. Acknowledge concerns about workload and effectiveness, drawing on lessons from PAD implementation regarding the need for clear protocols, training, and reliable service linkages.19 Emphasize how diversion can free up officer time for more serious crime.

• Propose Incremental Steps: Given the political climate, advocating for pilot programs or strengthening existing diversion initiatives may be more feasible initially than pushing for immediate citywide decriminalization or OPS implementation. Demonstrating success on a smaller scale can build support for broader change.

• Community Engagement: Meaningful engagement with diverse communities, particularly those most affected by both addiction and enforcement, is crucial to build trust and ensure policies are responsive to local needs and concerns.

Building consensus requires persistent advocacy, strategic framing, strong data, and a willingness to engage constructively with all stakeholders, emphasizing shared goals of a healthier and safer Philadelphia.

10. Recommendations for Philadelphia: Charting a Course Towards Health and Recovery

Based on the analysis of Philadelphia's current crisis, the failures of the punitive status quo, the successes of the Portuguese public health model, and lessons learned from Oregon, the following recommendations offer a strategic pathway for Philadelphia to adopt a more humane and effective approach to substance use disorder:

Recommendation 1: Pilot Decriminalization Zones with Health Engagement Referrals

• Action: Establish geographically defined pilot zones, likely corresponding to specific Police Districts or neighborhoods experiencing the highest rates of overdose deaths and drug-related arrests. Within these zones, enact local ordinances or policies to decriminalize the possession of small, pre-defined quantities of controlled substances intended for personal use.

• Mechanism: Instead of arrest for simple possession within these zones, mandate police officers to issue a citation requiring the individual to contact or appear before a newly established "Philadelphia Health Engagement Commission" (PHEC) within a specified timeframe. This approach models Portugal's system 10 while allowing for local adaptation and evaluation, mitigating risks observed in Oregon's less structured rollout.15 Leverage existing diversionary structures like PAD where feasible.19

• Evaluation: Rigorously evaluate the pilot programs, tracking key metrics such as arrest rates for possession and related offenses, overdose incidents (fatal and non-fatal), engagement rates with PHECs and referred services, community perceptions, impact on police resources, and overall costs compared to the status quo.

Recommendation 2: Establish Philadelphia Health Engagement Commissions (PHECs)

• Action: Create PHECs, potentially operating under DBHIDS or PDPH oversight, to serve as the administrative, health-focused point of contact for individuals referred under the pilot decriminalization policy (and potentially expanded diversion programs).

• Structure & Function: Staff PHECs with multidisciplinary teams comprising legal navigators, health professionals (nurses, clinicians), and social workers or certified peer support specialists.10 Their function would be non-punitive: conduct brief, confidential needs assessments; provide harm reduction education and supplies (naloxone, FTS); offer information on safer use practices; and facilitate warm handoffs and voluntary referrals to a comprehensive network of services including MAT, detoxification, counseling, housing assistance, employment services, and primary care.

• Linkage: Develop clear protocols and partnerships to ensure seamless linkage between PHECs and existing service providers (CBH, DBHIDS-contracted agencies, PPP, Federally Qualified Health Centers, etc.), ensuring referred individuals can readily access needed care.

Recommendation 3: Scale Up Accessible, Evidence-Based Treatment

• Action: Significantly increase investment in and access to the full continuum of evidence-based substance use disorder treatment.57

• Priorities:

• MAT Expansion: Prioritize rapid, low-barrier access to all forms of FDA-approved MAT (methadone, buprenorphine, extended-release naltrexone), including expansion of mobile MAT units 48 and telehealth options 81 to reach underserved populations.63

• Capacity & Wait Times: Implement a reliable, real-time public-facing database of treatment availability.63 Establish and enforce stringent network adequacy standards for CBH providers, including maximum wait times for assessment and treatment initiation, aligned with emerging federal standards.64

• Culturally Specific Care: Invest in expanding treatment programs that are culturally competent and specifically designed to address the needs and reduce barriers for Black and Hispanic residents, given the stark racial disparities in overdose deaths.3

• Recovery Supports: Increase the availability and quality of recovery housing and peer support services.57

Recommendation 4: Expand and Protect Comprehensive Harm Reduction Services

• Action: Reaffirm the city's commitment to harm reduction as a critical public health strategy and expand the availability of life-saving services.

• Priorities:

• Funding & Supplies: Reverse recent or planned funding cuts for safer use supplies.31 Scale up the distribution of naloxone and FTS through diverse channels (community groups, libraries, clinics, PHECs).28

• Syringe Services: Protect and expand funding and operational capacity for existing SSPs like Prevention Point Philadelphia.45 Advocate strongly for state-level legislative changes to explicitly authorize and fund SSPs statewide, removing the current legal ambiguity.45

• Overdose Prevention Sites (OPS): Revisit the potential for OPS/SCS, acknowledging the political challenges.26 Initiate robust community engagement and education campaigns presenting the strong international evidence of their effectiveness in saving lives and improving public health.52 Consider piloting mobile OPS units 53 or integrated models within existing health centers 53 as potentially more feasible starting points.

Recommendation 5: Invest in Public Education and Stigma Reduction

• Action: Launch sustained, citywide public education campaigns to reshape public understanding of addiction and drug policy.

• Content: Frame addiction consistently as a chronic health condition, not a crime or moral failing.17 Explain the principles and effectiveness of harm reduction.46 Promote the evidence supporting a health-centered approach, drawing on positive outcomes from Portugal and elsewhere. Tailor campaigns to resonate with diverse communities, directly addressing stigma and racial disparities.29 Educate the public about the limitations and harms of the current punitive system.

Recommendation 6: Reallocate Resources and Invest in Continuous Improvement

• Action: Shift financial resources from less effective punitive measures towards evidence-based health interventions and ensure ongoing evaluation.

• Mechanism:

• Cost Analysis & Reallocation: Commission an independent, Philadelphia-specific cost-benefit analysis comparing current CJS expenditures on enforcing low-level drug possession offenses (policing, courts, jails) 7 with the costs and projected benefits (lives saved, healthcare savings, reduced crime) of implementing the recommended public health strategies (PHECs, treatment expansion, harm reduction). Use this analysis to advocate for the strategic reallocation of funds.

• Research & Evaluation: Allocate dedicated funding for ongoing, independent research and evaluation of all implemented policy changes and programs, including the pilot zones and PHECs. Use data to monitor outcomes, identify challenges, ensure accountability, and make necessary adjustments over time.95

Implementing these recommendations requires courage, collaboration, and a sustained commitment to prioritizing health and evidence over punitive tradition.

11. Conclusion: A Vision for a Healthier, Safer Philadelphia

Philadelphia stands at a critical juncture in its long and devastating struggle with substance use and overdose. The status quo—characterized by near-record deaths, profound racial inequities, and reliance on a punitive criminal justice framework—is untenable and demonstrably failing.1 The human cost is measured daily in lost lives, traumatized families, and communities burdened by grief and instability. Continuing down this path offers little hope for meaningful improvement.

However, a viable, evidence-based alternative exists. The experience of Portugal over the past two decades provides compelling proof that a fundamental shift towards a public health approach—centered on decriminalizing personal drug possession and robustly investing in harm reduction, treatment, and social support—can yield dramatically positive results.10 Portugal saw significant reductions in overdose deaths, HIV transmission, and drug-related incarceration, fostering an environment where individuals struggling with addiction are met with support rather than punishment.14 While not without its own complexities and evolving challenges, the core principles of the Portuguese model offer a powerful blueprint for change.

This report outlines a series of concrete, actionable recommendations tailored for Philadelphia. Starting with pilot decriminalization zones and dedicated Health Engagement Commissions, scaling up accessible MAT and harm reduction services, tackling stigma through public education, and strategically reallocating resources offers a pragmatic path forward. This approach is not about condoning drug use; it is about prioritizing life, promoting recovery, enhancing public safety through reduced harm and desperation, and addressing the deep racial disparities exacerbated by the current system.3

Achieving this vision requires bold leadership and collective action. Policymakers must be willing to embrace evidence over ideology. Healthcare professionals and service providers must be equipped and supported to deliver comprehensive, low-barrier care. Law enforcement must be engaged as partners in diverting individuals towards health pathways. Civic and religious outreach workers play a crucial role in reducing stigma and connecting communities with resources. Ultimately, the entire city must foster a culture of compassion, understanding, and commitment to proven solutions. The time for incremental adjustments to a failing system has passed. Philadelphia has the opportunity to choose a different future—one where addiction is treated as the health issue it is, where lives are saved, and where all communities can achieve greater health, safety, and well-being. The evidence points the way; the choice rests with Philadelphia to follow it.

Works cited

1. Philadelphia | DEA.gov, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.dea.gov/operation-engage/philadelphia

2. Fatal Overdose Rate | Philly Stat 360 Hub, accessed April 19, 2025, https://philly-stat-360.phila.gov/pages/overdoses

3. Unintentional Drug Overdose Fatalities in Philadelphia, 2022, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.phila.gov/media/20231002090544/CHARTv8e3.pdf

4. Philadelphia Records More than 1400 Overdose Deaths in 2022; Deaths among Black Residents Rose Nearly 20% | Department of Public Health, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.phila.gov/2023-10-02-philadelphia-records-more-than-1400-overdose-deaths-in-2022-deaths-among-black-residents-rose-nearly-20/

5. Pennsylvania Drug Possession Laws - FindLaw, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.findlaw.com/state/pennsylvania-law/pennsylvania-drug-possession-laws.html

6. Drug Possession Charges in Pennsylvania | Sklarosky Law, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.sklarosky.com/drug-possession-charges-in-pennsylvania

7. Estimated costs to the Pennsylvania criminal justice system resulting from the opioid crisis, accessed April 19, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31361427/

8. Philadelphia's Crowded, Costly Jails - Prison Policy Initiative, accessed April 19, 2025, https://static.prisonpolicy.org/scans/Philadelphias_Crowded_Costly_Jails_rev.pdf

9. Review and Analysis of the Philadelphia Police Department and Other Related Police Spending - Christy Brady, CPA - City Controller, accessed April 19, 2025, https://controller.phila.gov/philadelphia-reports/ppd-review/

10. Drug Decriminalization in Portugal, accessed April 19, 2025, https://drugpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/dpa-drug-decriminalization-portugal-health-human-centered-approach_0.pdf

11. Drug Policy in Portugal - Open Society Foundations, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/52ff6eb9-76c9-44a5-bc37-857fbbfedbdd/drug-policy-in-portugal-english-20120814.pdf

12. the portuguese model for decriminalizing drug use, accessed April 19, 2025, https://womenanddrugs.wola.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/DONE-12-Portuguese-decriminalisation_ENGFINAL.pdf

13. Approaches to Decriminalizing Drug Use & Possession, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civil/DrugPolicyAlliance/DPA_Fact_Sheet_Approaches_to_Decriminalization_Feb2015_1.pdf

14. Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight ..., accessed April 19, 2025, https://transformdrugs.org/blog/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight

15. drugpolicy.org, accessed April 19, 2025, https://drugpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/DPA-WhatReallyHappenedM110.pdf

16. Oregon shouldn't go backwards on drug decriminalization | Prison Policy Initiative, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2024/02/15/oregon-110/

17. Is Portugal's Drug Decriminalization a Failure or Success? The Answer Isn't So Simple, accessed April 19, 2025, https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-portugals-drug-decriminalization-a-failure-or-success-the-answer-isnt-so-simple/

18. Portugal Drug Policy Faces Scrutiny - Cornerstone Healing Center, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.cornerstonehealingcenter.com/resource/portugal-drug-policy/

19. Experiences with the Philadelphia Police Assisted Diversion ..., accessed April 19, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9853878/

20. Going after the Addiction, Not the Addicted: The Impact of Drug Decriminalization in Portugal, accessed April 19, 2025, https://ftp.iza.org/dp10895.pdf

21. Philadelphia 2024 | The Pew Charitable Trusts, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2024/04/philadelphia-2024

22. Philadelphia sees a decline in drug overdose deaths among residents for the first time in 5 years, data show, accessed April 19, 2025, https://dbhids.org/news/philadelphia-sees-a-decline-in-drug-overdose-deaths-among-residents-for-the-first-time-in-5-years-data-show/

23. Philadelphia sees a decline in drug overdose deaths among residents for the first time in 5 years, data show - WHYY, accessed April 19, 2025, https://whyy.org/articles/philadelphia-overdose-deaths-decline/

24. CDC Reports Nearly 24% Decline in U.S. Drug Overdose Deaths, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2025/2025-cdc-reports-decline-in-us-drug-overdose-deaths.html

25. The Pennsylvania State University - Electronic Theses for Schreyer Honors College, accessed April 19, 2025, https://honors.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/10316

26. COUNCILMEMBER BROOKS VOTES AGAINST BANNING OVERDOSE PREVENTION CENTERS - Philadelphia City Council, accessed April 19, 2025, https://phlcouncil.com/councilmembers-brooks-votes-against-banning-overdose-prevention-centers/

27. Philadelphia Addiction Stats - Caron Treatment Centers, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.caron.org/addiction-101/drug-use/philadelphia-addiction-stats

28. Mayor Signs Executive Order to Decriminalize Fentanyl Test Strips - City of Philadelphia, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.phila.gov/2021-08-02-mayor-signs-executive-order-to-decriminalize-fentanyl-test-strips/

29. Philadelphia's response to the drug overdose crisis - Big Cities Health Coalition, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.bigcitieshealth.org/philadelphia-overdose-response-2023/

30. Map OUD - Thomas Jefferson University, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.jefferson.edu/content/dam/academic/skmc/departments/family-medicine/MAPOUD.pdf

31. Philly's Plan to End Open-Air Drug Market Part of Larger Crime Crackdown, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.governing.com/management-and-administration/phillys-plan-to-end-open-air-drug-market-part-of-larger-crime-crackdown

32. Pennsylvania Drug Laws | Buzgon Davis Law Offices, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.buzgondavis.com/blog/pennsylvania-drug-laws/

33. Simple Drug Possession Lawyer | Possession of Controlled Substance - State College Personal Injury and Criminal Defense Attorneys, accessed April 19, 2025, https://arjalaw.com/state-college-criminal-defense-attorney/drug-offenses/simple-drug-possession/

34. Drug Possession in Pennsylvania: Understanding the Charges and Legal Defenses, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.grossmcginley.com/resources/blog/drug-possession-in-pennsylvania-understanding-the-charges-and-legal-defenses/

35. Crimes Code of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.wcupa.edu/_services/studentHealthServices/documents/Marijuana_CrimesCode.pdf

36. Charges - PhilaDAO Data Dashboard, accessed April 19, 2025, https://data.philadao.com/Charge_Report.html

37. Arrests - PhilaDAO Data Dashboard, accessed April 19, 2025, https://data.philadao.com/Arrest_Report.html

38. Crime Trends in U.S. Cities: Year-End 2024 Update - Council on Criminal Justice, accessed April 19, 2025, https://counciloncj.org/crime-trends-in-u-s-cities-year-end-2024-update/

39. Crime Statistics | Philadelphia Police Department (PPD), accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.phillypolice.com/crime-data/crime-statistics/

40. District Attorney Larry Krasner, Law Enforcement Partners Announce Arrests, Charging of Five Defendants for Fentanyl Trafficking, accessed April 19, 2025, https://phillyda.org/news/district-attorney-larry-krasner-law-enforcement-partners-announce-arrests-charging-of-five-defendants-for-fentanyl-trafficking/

41. Estimated Costs to the Pennsylvania Criminal Justice System ..., accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.ajmc.com/view/estimated-costs-pennsylvania-criminal-justice-system-from-the-opioid-crisis

42. A Century of Losing Battles: The Costly and Ill-Advised War on Drugs in the United States - CJCJ.org, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.cjcj.org/media/import/documents/a_century.pdf

43. Pew Study: Philadelphia's Jail Population Driven Largely By Individuals Held Pretrial, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/press-releases-and-statements/2010/05/17/pew-study-philadelphias-jail-population-driven-largely-by-individuals-held-pretrial

44. Philly Police Fail to Consider 'Concerns and Needs' of Residents, New Report Says, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/philly-police-fail-to-consider-concerns-and-needs-of-residents-new-report-says/3395390/

45. Harm Reduction in Pennsylvania: Policies, Needs, and Services, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.pa.gov/content/dam/copapwp-pagov/en/ddap/documents/documents/seow/2024%20harm%20reduction%20in%20pa.pdf

46. Harm Reduction Policy Brief - CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, accessed April 19, 2025, https://dbhids.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/DBHIDS-Policy-Unit_Harm-Reduction-Policy-Brief__FINAL.pdf

47. Harm reduction | Programs and initiatives | City of Philadelphia, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.phila.gov/programs/substance-use-prevention-and-harm-reduction/harm-reduction/

48. Mobile service delivery in response to the opioid epidemic in Philadelphia - PMC, accessed April 19, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10687974/

49. Harm Reduction Team - Substance Use Philly, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.substanceusephilly.com/harm-reduction-team

50. Find Harm Reduction Resources Near You, accessed April 19, 2025, https://harmreduction.org/resource-center/harm-reduction-near-you/

51. Harm Reduction Services Are Challenged By Philadelphia Lawmakers - Banyan Treatment Center, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.banyantreatmentcenter.com/blog/harm-reduction-services-challenged-in/

52. The Impact of Safe Consumption Sites Physical and Social Harm Reduction and Economic Efficacy - Westminster University, accessed April 19, 2025, https://westminsteru.edu/student-life/the-myriad/the-impact-of-safe-consumption-sites-physical-and-social-harm-reduction-and-economic-efficacy.html

53. Drug consumption rooms: an overview of provision and evidence | www.euda.europa.eu, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.euda.europa.eu/topics/pods/drug-consumption-rooms_en

54. Overdose Prevention Centers / Safe Consumption Spaces / Supervised Inhalation Rooms / Supervised Injection Facilities | Drug Policy Facts, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.drugpolicyfacts.org/chapter/supervised_consumption

55. New EMCDDA resource on drug consumption rooms: a local response to local problems and needs | www.euda.europa.eu, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.euda.europa.eu/news/2024/new-emcdda-resource-drug-consumption-rooms-local-response-local-problems-and-needs_en

56. Reducing Harm - Overdose Prevention in Philadelphia - Bloomberg Harvard City Leadership Initiative, accessed April 19, 2025, https://content.cityleadership.harvard.edu/BHCLI_Philadelphia_0035TC.pdf

57. Addiction Services - DBHIDS, accessed April 19, 2025, https://dbhids.org/services/addiction-services/

58. COMMUNITY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH - Provider Manual, accessed April 19, 2025, https://cbhphilly.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/CBH_Provider-Manual_2024-12-31.pdf

59. Detox or Rehab in Pennsylvania? Call for Assessment, accessed April 19, 2025, https://pennsylvaniarecoverycenter.org/

60. Resources | Programs and initiatives | City of Philadelphia, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.phila.gov/programs/substance-use-prevention-and-harm-reduction/resources/

61. Substance Use Disorder Treatment | Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs | Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.pa.gov/agencies/ddap/treatment-and-support/substance-use-disorder-treatment.html

62. Addiction Treatment Center | Belmont Behavioral Health System, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.belmontbehavioral.com/addiction/

63. Medication Assisted Treatment - DBHIDS, accessed April 19, 2025, https://dbhids.org/services/addiction-services/mat/

64. New CMS Rules Finalized Addressing Medicaid Provider Network Adequacy and Appointment Wait Times - Policy Center for Maternal Mental Health, accessed April 19, 2025, https://policycentermmh.org/new-cms-rules-finalized-addressing-medicaid-provider-network-adequacy-and-appointment-wait-times/

65. Wait Time Standards for Behavioral Health Network Adequacy - ASPE - HHS.gov, accessed April 19, 2025, https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/wt-standards-bh-network-adequacy

66. Wait Time Standards for Behavioral Health Network Adequacy: Final Report - ASPE, accessed April 19, 2025, https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/33f6d224ed68d9dc1458893a7af77f4d/wait-time-standards-bh-network-adequacy.pdf

67. City Controller Rebecca Rhynhart - City of Philadelphia, accessed April 19, 2025, https://controller.phila.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/DBHIDS-Combined-Report-FINAL-7.29.21.pdf

68. What Should the US Learn From New York's and Portugal's Approaches to the Opioid Crisis?, accessed April 19, 2025, https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/what-should-us-learn-new-yorks-and-portugals-approaches-opioid-crisis/2024-07

69. Drug decriminalisation in Portugal: setting the record straight, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.unodc.org/documents/ungass2016/Contributions/Civil/Transform-Drug-Policy-Foundation/Drug-decriminalisation-in-Portugal.pdf

70. Portugal - Drug Policy Facts, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.drugpolicyfacts.org/region/portugal

71. Drug DECRIMINALIZATION IN PORTUGAL - Cato Institute, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/greenwald_whitepaper.pdf

72. Portugal decriminalized the possession and consumption of illicit substances and invested in treatment - Pathfinders, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.sdg16.plus/policies/portugal-decriminalized-the-possession-and-consumption-of-illicit-substances-and-invested-in-treatment/

73. Portugal's Harm Reduction Policies Seem to be Working | American Addiction Centers, accessed April 19, 2025, https://americanaddictioncenters.org/blog/portugals-harm-reduction-policies

74. Drug policy of Portugal - Wikipedia, accessed April 19, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

75. Decriminalization of Narcotics: Portugal - Library of Congress, accessed April 19, 2025, https://maint.loc.gov/law/help/decriminalization-of-narcotics/portugal.php

76. Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Challenges and Limitations | The White House, accessed April 19, 2025, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ondcp/ondcp-fact-sheets/drug-decriminalization-in-portugal-challenges-and-limitations

77. www.euda.europa.eu, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.euda.europa.eu/system/files/publications/4508/TD0116918ENN.pdf

78. GATEWAYS FROM CRIME TO HEALTH: THE PORTUGUESE DRUG COMMISSIONS - SICAD, accessed April 19, 2025, https://sicad.pt/BK/Dissuasao/Documents/AS%20report%20GATEWAYS%20FROM%20CRIME%20TO%20HEALTH.pdf

79. How Portugal is solving its opioid problem - American Psychological Association, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/10/portugal-opioid

80. Connecting with Care - Lisbon, Portugal - INHSU, accessed April 19, 2025, https://inhsu.org/what-we-do/advocating-for-change/innovative-models-of-hcv-care-films/portugal/

81. City-level drug policies in Portugal: the COVID-19 pandemic as an analyzer of harm reduction responsiveness in Porto and Lisbon - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed April 19, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11900517/

82. NPR Compares Portugal's Drug Policies With The US, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.drugpolicyfacts.org/node/4441

83. Report: Drug Decriminalization Works in Portugal | Cato Institute, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.cato.org/policy-report/july/august-2009/report-drug-decriminalization-works-portugal

84. Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.cato.org/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies

85. Uses and Abuses of Drug Decriminalization in Portugal - UC Berkeley Law, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/Laqueur_%282014%29_-_Uses_and_Abuses_of_Drug_Decriminalization_in_Portugal_-_LSI.pdf

86. (PDF) The Effects of Decriminalization of Drug Use in Portugal - ResearchGate, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238070854_The_Effects_of_Decriminalization_of_Drug_Use_in_Portugal

87. Drugs: The Portuguese Fallacy and the Absurd Medicalization of Europe Abstract, accessed April 19, 2025, http://wfad.se/images/articles/The_Portuguese_Fallacy_and_the_Absurd_Medicalization_of_Europe-1.pdf

88. The “Resounding Success” of Portuguese Drug Policy, accessed April 19, 2025, https://d1r9bdsrv6vekg.cloudfront.net/images/resources/pdf/dart/ThePortugueseDrugFallacyReport.pdf

89. A resounding success or a disastrous failure: Reexamining the interpretation of evidence on the Portuguese decriminalisation of, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.oas.org/cicaddocs/Document.aspx?Id=2746

90. Comparative policy analysis for alcohol and drugs: Current state of the field - ResearchGate, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293647068_Comparative_policy_analysis_for_alcohol_and_drugs_Current_state_of_the_field

91. Decriminalizing Drug Possession Doesn't Lead to More Fatal Overdoses - Time, accessed April 19, 2025, https://time.com/6318102/decriminalizing-drugs-overdose-study/

92. Decriminalizing Drug Possession Not Linked to Higher Overdose Death Rates in Oregon or Washington | NYU Langone News, accessed April 19, 2025, https://nyulangone.org/news/decriminalizing-drug-possession-not-linked-higher-overdose-death-rates-oregon-or-washington

93. Measure 110 decriminalized drugs in Oregon but a study shows it did not lead to more fatal overdoses - OPB, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.opb.org/article/2023/10/03/ballot-measure-110-did-not-lead-to-more-fatal-overdoses-study-finds/

94. One-Year Association of Drug Possession Law Change With Fatal Drug Overdose in Oregon and Washington - PubMed, accessed April 19, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37755815/

95. Guidelines for Implementing and Evaluating the Portuguese Drug Strategy - RAND, accessed April 19, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1508.pdf