#portugal vs usa

[mapisupremacy]

[koalemosz]

i really thought the usa were out of the wc... saved by the post

[fatherjerusalem]

I genuinely cannot believe I stayed up to watch this shit. What an absolutely shambolic performance from the USWNT tonight. This team is going to get absolutely bodied by Sweden in the next round, and its hard to say that they don't deserve it after this horrifically poor group performance.

The only good thing about this is that this clearly has to show that Vlatko isn't it as a coach and needs to go as soon as humanly possible.

[purepastrnak]

ignoring everything to watch the world cup? he's just like me fr

[heywoodsays]

FIFA World Cup 2022: Round of 16 Predictions

It’s been a different kind of World Cup so far — and that’s an understatement. While one always expects some upsets and some thrilling finishes, we’ve had more than our fair share of surprises and drama.

Africa had its best ever group stage with 7 wins. The warm climate of Qatar may be a factor. Two African teams have advanced this year; none advanced in Russia 4 years ago. Europe is less represented in this knockout stage than it was last time around. And while South America sent five teams to the knockout stages at the 2014 tournament in Brazil, only two have survived this time.

Favorites Brazil and Argentina are through, despite losses to Cameroon and Saudi Arabia respectively. Defending champions France also have a blemish on their record, but are through nonetheless. Regular contenders such as Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, and England are also through.

But stalwarts like Germany, Belgium, and Uruguay could not manage to make it out of the group stage this year. Mexico failed to reach the knockout stages for the first time since 1978. Dark horse favorites Denmark couldn’t make an impact. Instead, surprise performances by Japan, Korea, and Morocco stole the show.

It’s truly a “world” tournament:

Europe - 8

South America - 2

Africa - 2

Asia - 2

CONCACAF - 1

Oceania - 1 (though they play in the Asian confederation)

Still, based on the matchups, I suspect the quarterfinals will end up looking as they normally do. Here’s how I think things will pan out…

🇳🇱 Netherlands vs. 🇺🇸 USA

History The Dutch and Americans have met five times, but never in a competitive match. Of the five friendlies, the Dutch have won four. But the U.S. won the most recent contest 4-3 in Amsterdam in 2015.

Qatar 2022 Neither of these teams have looked great so far. Despite going undefeated in the group stage, the Dutch have underperformed. They benefited from being in the easiest group and yet struggled against Ecuador. The Americans, on the other hand, fought their way through a group that included England and two other teams comparable to them in the FIFA world rankings. And while they demonstrated grit in their must-win match against Iran, they never quite managed to show enough quality to defeat a top-flight team.

But there are rumors about the flu making its way through the Dutch team. I don’t think this will be one of the more exciting matchups, but I fancy the Oranje to come away with a narrow win. The Netherlands is undefeated in their last 18 matches, winning 13 of them. The U.S. win against Iran is their only victory in their last 6 games. This U.S. team is still young and has very little World Cup experience. Such experience counts for something in the playoff rounds.

Prediction: 🇳🇱 NED 1 🇺🇸 USA 0

🇦🇷 Argentina vs. 🇦🇺 Australia

History These teams last played each other in a friendly 15 years ago. Australia has not defeated Argentina since 1988. In 7 contests, Argentina has 5W, 1D, 1L. This will be their first World Cup Finals meeting.

Qatar 2022 Kudos to the Socceroos for impressive wins over both Tunisia and dark horse favorites Denmark! They even came out strong in their opener against France, before finally bowing to them after a 4–1 thrashing.

I think that’s exactly what’s going to happen again against Argentina. While La Albiceleste revealed weaknesses in their stunning loss to Saudi Arabia, they showed their mettle in wins against Mexico and Poland. (The loss to the Saudis is their only defeat in their last 39 contests, dating back to 2019.) This team is now starting to click again and should be in top form to ward off any challenge from the pesky Aussies.

Prediction: 🇦🇷 ARG 3 🇦🇺 AUS 0

🇫🇷 France vs. 🇵🇱 Poland

History France has the historic edge in this contest, with 8W, 5D, 3L. Their only previous World Cup meeting was a thrilling third-place playoff in 1982 from which Poland emerged victorious, 3-2. But France has been the better team since then.

Qatar 2022 France’s B-team suffered a 1-0 loss to Tunisia, but have otherwise been perhaps the best squad of the tournament so far. Their midfield has been on point, and Mbappé has been shining. There were some questions about this team, given their Round of 16 exit from the Euros, and recent losses to Denmark and Croatia. But France have come to play and appear poised to make a good run at defending their title.

It’s hard to see Robert Lewandowski’s Poland overcoming the depth and skill of this French squad. While the French have shown vulnerabilities in their defense (they have conceded in each game), their offensive prowess is simply too much for Poland. Les Bleus should walk away with this one.

Prediction: 🇫🇷 FRA 2 🇵🇱 POL 0

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 England vs. 🇸🇳 Senegal

History These two nations have never met in international football. But England has an impressive record against African competition — undefeated in all 20 games they’ve played against African nations. By contrast, Senegal have a 6-5-5 record against European teams, most recently losing to the Dutch in the group stage.

Qatar 2022 The Three Lions looks difficult to beat. If Rashford, Kane, and Saya are on their game, and a spritely Foden can make an impact coming off the bench, they should be able to score a healthy amount. But their goalless draw against the USA was a sign that this team could be stifled if faced with an opponent who wants it enough.

Senegal is Africa’s highest-ranked team, but with their star striker (Sadio Mané) out for the tournament, their path forward is a little more challenging. I’m not sure the energy from their exciting win over Ecuador will be enough to overpower or withstand one of the best squads England has sent to the World Cup in years.

Prediction: 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 ENG 3 🇸🇳 SEN 1

🇯🇵 Japan vs. 🇭🇷 Croatia

History Japan and Croatia have squared off three times before, with each team winning once and the other match in a draw. A 1997 match in Japan saw the home side victorious, but a 1998 World Cup meeting in France went to the Europeans. Their 2006 World Cup fixture in Germany ended goalless.

Qatar 2022 The Samurai Blue have been one of the most delightful surprises of this tournament. Their stunning upsets of both Spain and Germany en route to win their challenging group places them as one of the top teams of the tournament. But can their grit and determination be enough to push them past Luka Modrić and a skilled, scrappy Croatia team that were runners-up at the last World Cup?

Get ready for this to be one of the more exciting matches of the Round of 16. Both teams play with an urgency, especially when pushed. As soon as one team takes the lead, they’ll fight to tie it up. I might not usually expect Japan to put more than one into the Croatian net, but they’ve already done that against better teams. Sadly, I think their luck will run out against the more experienced Croatians.

Prediction: 🇯🇵 JPN 1 🇭🇷 CRO 1 (wins on penalties)

🇧🇷 Brazil vs. 🇰🇷 Korea Republic

History Brazil and South Korea have squared off in seven international matches, mostly friendlies. Korea has just one triumph, a 1-0 win in 1999. When the two teams faced off just six months ago, Brazil won 5-1. Neymar netted two in that game.

Qatar 2022 Like France and Portugal, Brazil rested their star players for their final group match and paid the price. But even Brazil’s reserves should have done better. A key issue for the team has been finishing. They need Neymar’s creativity to get their strikers in the best positions. There’s no reason the likes of Richarlison, Gabriel Jesus, Vini Jr., and Raphina shouldn’t be racking up goals.

The Koreans were able to best Portugal’s B-squad to secure their place in the Round of 16, knocking out Uruguay in the process. But other than that, their play has not provided much to suggest that they can beat The Seleção. It seems near impossible to score against Brazil’s top 11. They’ve recorded clean sheets in 22 of their last 32 games. In fact, they didn’t even surrender a shot on goal for the first two group stage matches. If Neymar is healthy, I think we should be prepared to see the Samba Kings break out at last.

Prediction: 🇧🇷 BRA 3 🇰🇷 KOR 0

🇲🇦 Morocco vs. 🇪🇸 Spain

History Spain and Morocco faced off in the group stages at the 2018 World Cup. That match ended in a 2-2 draw, with Spain netting an equalizer in the 90th minute. Their only two other meetings came in World Cup qualifying in 1961. Spain won both.

Qatar 2022 La Roja were the early stars of the tournament after their 7-0 thumping of Costa Rica. But a draw against a lackluster Germany and a loss to Japan have tempered expectations. Morocco, on the other hand, has been one of the most consistent teams at the tournament, even defeating the second-ranked Belgians.

But this is only Morocco’s second trip to the Round of 16, and first since 1986. This Spain team has valuable experience in high-stakes tournaments. They also have exciting young players like Gavi to bring a renewed energy as well. Looking at Spain’s pacing, control, and penchant for possession, it’s hard to see Morocco extending their brilliant run. But I wouldn’t count them out. This one could head to extra time or even penalties.

Prediction: 🇪🇸 ESP 3 🇲🇦 MAR 2

🇵🇹 Portugal vs. 🇨🇭 Switzerland

History One of two all-European battles in the Round of 16, there’s a lot of history between these two teams. The Swiss have a slight edge with 11W, 5D, 9L. The two have seen each other twice this year in the UEFA Nations League, with Portugal winning 4-0 in Lisbon and Switzerland winning 1-0 in Geneva.

Qatar 2022 Portugal joined France and Brazil as the only teams to secure their second-round berths after two games. They made several changes to their lineup against South Korea, ultimately costing them the match. But prior to that, the Portuguese looked strong — fighting off Ghana and controlling play against Uruguay.

Switzerland is much more comfortable with a slow, defensive style of play. They’re a team that ekes out 1-0 and 2-1 victories. (Their 3-2 win against Serbia was their first time scoring more than 2 goals in over a year.) But as Brazil was able to dictate the flow of their game against the Swiss, I suspect Portugal’s offense will do the same. But don’t count the Swiss out. They were still able to hold mighty Brazil to one goal, so Portugal will have their work cut out for them. I think Ronaldo and his team will prevail, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they had to go through extra time or penalties to do so.

Prediction: 🇵🇹 POR 2 🇨🇭 SUI 1

No upsets?

I realize that, in each case, I’ve predicted the favored team will win. While I really do think these are the most likely outcomes given how the teams have played so far and their histories, this is the World Cup, and there’s bound to be a surprise or two (or three). If an upset is to happen, here’s who I think is most likely to do it.

Most likely upsets

USA (16) over Netherlands (8)

Japan (24) over Croatia (12)

Morocco (22) over Spain (7)

Switzerland (15) over Portugal (9)

Senegal (18) over England (6)

Poland (26) over France (4)

Korea Rep (28) over Brazil (1)

Australia (38) over Argentina (3)

[hanjisungz]

excuse me i just need to scream abt soccer for a second

[fc-bayern-clownchen]

that goalpost is the woman of the match

[hotsugarmumcall]

[astrobiscuits]

Astro obs part 9

🐌 The planets in your 12th house indicate your sleeping style:

Sun in 12th house - their sleep schedule is extremely messed up; for them, daylight hours = nighttime hours and vice versa, so they have trouble being themselves during the day; their true self comes out at night

Moon in 12th house - goes to sleep very late; full moons have a special effect on these people; their intuition is more clear at night; as kids, they probably slept a lot with their mother

Mercury in 12th house - loves texting/calling people late at night; they might journal their thoughts before sleep because they overthink a lot and it helps to clear their mind or maybe they just like to relax by reading a book at night

Venus in 12th house - cares a lot about getting their "beauty sleep"; sleeps with sleep masks on, buys expensive bed lingerie, skincare night routine might be very important; loves sleeping in general lmao

Mars in 12th house - enjoys working out before going to sleep, can go to sleep angry because they tend to get into conflict more at night than during the day

I have Uranus in 12th house and i can be both a light sleeper or a heavy sleeper, depending on where i am. For example, when i'm traveling, during the first night i wake up several times, but from the second night on i sleep like a baby lmao. Another thing would be that i can't sleep in a quiet car but i don't have any problem sleeping during a thunderstorm

🐌 Mars in fire signs (Aries, Leo, Sag) and Mars in 3rd house individuals love riding motorbikess

🐌 While Mars in 9th house peeps would probably love to go on a world tour on their motorbike. The sign ruling their 9th house represents the countries they would love to visit (i'm aware that some of these can only be visited by plane, take it with a grain of salt): 

♈ in 9th house: Ireland, Poland, Japan, Zimbabwe

♉ in 9th house: Cuba, Paraguay, South Africa, East Timor

♊ in 9th house: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Montenegro

♋ in 9th house: Canada, USA, Bahamas, Argentina, Slovenia, Madagascar

♌ in 9th house: Hawaii, France, Italy, The Netherlands, India, South Korea, Peru, Bolivia

♍ in 9th house: Switzerland, Mexico, Brazil, Chile, Vietnam

♎ in 9th house: Belgium, Portugal, China, Equatorial Guinea, Lesotho

♏ in 9th house: Panama, Spain, Turkey, Arab countries (Saudi Arabia, UAE), Palestine, Lebanon

♐ in 9th house: Finland, Lithuania, Romania, Tanzania, Thailand

♑ in 9th house: UK, Germany, Czech Republic, Australia, Camerun

♒ in 9th house: Greece, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka

♓ in 9th house: Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt, Mauritius, Saint Lucia

🐌 I have a feeling Pisces Suns like to spend their time in a garage lmao. Mostly because their opposing sign, Virgo, would hate to spend time in a garage due to how dirty it can get.

🐌As a 7th house Sun who's been in love for almost a year now (haha, are we surprised, ofcours not; i'm not even in a relationship with him but ugh we're so perfect for each other), i realised that Sun in 7th house people tend to behave differently with their partner when they're in a healthy relationship vs when they're in a toxic one

Sun in 7th house in:

♈ Aries in a healthy relationship: empowers their partner, knows how to balance me time vs us time in a healthy manner, encourages their partner to take safe risks

♈ Aries in an unhealthy relationship: impulsive, impatient, selfish, dismisses their partner's feelings, often controlled by rage, prone to abusing their partner

♉ Taurus in a healthy relationship: veryyy generous (their love language is gift giving), accommodating to their partner's wants and needs, cooks for their partner

♉ Taurus in an unhealthy relationship: stubborn af, hard to please, focused more on the material gain from their partner rather than the love they share

♊ Gemini in a healthy relationship: curious, always lightens the mood of their partner by cracking up tons of jokes or telling them funny stories, knows that communication is key to everything so they're not afraid to discuss serious topics, teaches their partner a lot of random stuff

♊ Gemini in an unhealthy relationship: superficial, doesn't have a problem moving on from their partner to another person in a matter of seconds, if they're still in school/college, then they prioritize studying over their partner

♋ Cancer in a healthy relationship: nurturing, knows how to balance babying their partner vs being babied by their partner, emotionally vulnerable, feels safe enough to present their partner to their family early on in the relationship

♋ Cancer in a unhealthy relationship: if they don't trust their partner, they tend to become emotionally closed off to hide their deep sadness; defensive, but if their partner attackes them, then they'll hide, worries excessively, avoids presenting their partner to their family

♌ Leo in a healthy relationship: treats their partner like the king/queen they are, keeps their ego in check so it doesn't interfere with the relationship, if they've got artistic talents (music, acting, art etc.), they'll show their love for their partner by performing in front of them

♌ Leo in an unhealthy relationship: egocentric, shows off their partner/relationship too much out of pride, often feels entitled in the relationship and wants to be put on a pedestal by their partner

♍ Virgo in a healthy relationship: selfless to a healthy degree, remembers every lil detail from every casual conversations with their partner just to please them, remembers every important date and plans ahead for it, takes care of their partner when they're sick

♍ Virgo in a unhealthy relationship: critical, overfixates on past hurts and mistakes that their partner made in the relationship (often times their partner doesn't even remember those things because they're usually not that serious), loves their pets more than their partner

♎ Libra in a healthy relationship: romantic, charismatic, truly values their partner and the relationship with them, acts fair in the relationship, teaches their partner lovingly about the importance of honesty, truth and a healthy give and take dynamic in a relationship

♎ Libra in an unhealthy relationship: doesn't prioritize the relationship; instead, they flirt with others despite being in a relationship, emotionally detached, cold and calculated in their current relationship

♏ Scorpio in a healthy relationship: loyal, loves their partner deeply and intensely, but without suffocating them, keeps their partner's secrets like they're a locked safe box with no public access

♏ Scorpio in an unhealthy relationship: obsessive, manipulative, seeks to dominate their partner, displays stalkish behaviour in the relationship, liar

♐ Sagittarius in a healthy relationship: exposes their partner to various cultures, belief systems and philosophies to expand their mind and form their own opinion on certain topics, loves freely but is still able to maintain a long-term relationship, improves their partner's mood, usually brings an element of surprise and excitement to the relationship

♐ Sagittarius in an unhealthy relationship: travels in order to avoid dealing with their partner, parties a bit too much, doesn't take the relationship seriously

♑ Capricorn in a healthy relationship: loves their partner in a mature, serious and secure manner, doesn't shy away from improving their partner's social status and/or career if they can, discusses plans for the future (getting married, having kids, adopting pets, buying a house) with their partner early on in the relationship, they make time for their partner, despite the fact that they're busy most of the time

♑ Capricorn in an unhealthy relationship: displays no emotions or physical affection in the relationship, has a hard time communicating their thoughts with their partner, settles in a relationship for the wrong reasons (money/kids/safety/"i'm getting old and i need to have my life established"), prioritizes work/career over their partner

♒ Aquarius in a healthy relationship: flexible, makes their partner's dreams and aspirations come true (whether they're related to the relationship or not), has got a very open-minded attitude towards their partner's opinions, lifestyle and identity, takes the time to become friends firsts with their future partner because they value a relationship built on solid foundation (often times their partner is also their best friend), knows how to balance couple time vs time with friends

♒ Aquarius in an unhealthy relationship: displays wishy-washy behaviour, emotionally detached, prioritizes their friends over their partner, seeks online validation from strangers and acquaintances to fulfill their needs

♓ Pisces in a healthy relationship: sensitive to their partner's emotions, knows how to balance wearing their heart on their sleeve vs hiding their emotions in unfavourable circumstances, always honest with their partner

♓ Pisces in an unhealthy relationship: prone to drown their relationship problems and sorrows in alcohol, drugs and meds for mental health issues, runs away from problems instead of dealing with them with their partner, displays dishonesty to a fault, prone to self-sabotage

[wileys-russo]

once again sharing the streaming for todays international matches (the ones I can find anyway)

England vs Scotland

Spain vs Sweden

Republic of Ireland vs Northern Ireland

Portugal vs France

Italy vs Switzerland

USA vs China

Austria vs Norway

Wales vs Germany

Netherlands vs Belgium

[mapisupremacy]

[koalemosz]

usa uve been boring and i want you to leave

[leveloneandup]

Tobin and Christen Break Down USA vs Portugal with Abby Dahlkemper & Jess Fishlock ⚽️ | Episode 4

Tobin and Christen return with a supersized episode of The RE—CAP Show! After watching the USWNT tie Portugal in a heart pounding 0 to 0 World Cup match, they discuss what they saw and what they would like to see in the Round of 16. Later, Tobin has a conversation with NWSL and Welsh international star, Jess Fishlock, for her thoughts on the game and the US performance as well. Then, they are joined by friend and teammate, USWNT defender Abby Dahlkemper, for an insightful interview on playing in a toxic environment, prioritizing your mental health, “The Year of Abby D.” and so much more. Finally, Tobin sits down with an “off the field gamechanger,” Ally CMO, Andrea Brimmer to learn about what Ally is doing to provide a more equitable playing field in Women’s Sports. And, as always, community questions, a Japan / Norway prediction and Tobin’s Top Things!

[mediocre-knight]

The USA vs Portugal game was "the most watched overnight program in Fox history"

But no one watches women's sports ��

[ultimateaclrecovery]

So I need to have a serious conversation with my boyfriend about how our relationship is going, and I’m not really sure what the end result will be. I’m not really looking to end things but things also can’t continue as they currently are.

The awkward parts of this the next time I will see him in person is valentines and the second awkward part is I still need to decide if I’m going to join him and then his family in Italy and then buy a flight if so. I don’t really want to have an intense conversation with a potential sad outcome on Valentine’s Day but I also kind of want to make sure we aren’t just going to instantly break up before I buy a flight. And I don’t want to wait to long on buying a flight in case prices go up. The flights from the USA would be fully refundable for a future flight credits but one leg of the trip is with an international airline (still Ike’s through the us one though) and flights not departing from the us would have change fees. If we talk and decide to keep going and then break up in couple months of making changes doesn’t work, I’ll just change my flights and go ride ponies in Portugal in October instead and if I pay some change fees such it goes. But I don’t want to buy a flight today and break up within the week.

But I also can’t fake anything so trying to wait until Friday or Saturday when we’d most likely see other again and just trying to enjoy the moment on valentines probably won’t work for me.

So then I’m left with either calling him today or tomorrow or just having a hard conversation on valentines. The current plan is to make heart shaped ravioli, so I’d feel like we’d probably do that and have dinner and maybe then talk.

It’s extra annoying because I fully fell for Instagram ads of the lingerie with the bow around the boobs and I wanted to wear that as a fun surprise. But that only works if the conversation is a good one.

I’ve been having some negative feelings for awhile but it took a little bit of self reflection to really sort out my own feelings and what I need and try to figure out what is my own insecurities and anxieties (that I need to work on for my own self) what things I do actually need from him to be happy in the relationship.

I also have a therapy consult scheduled for Wednesday (thru a work program that offers 8 free sessions). It it’s just a 15 min intake sort of thing vs an actual appointment. And that will take time to work thru.

But I actually feel very good about the steps I’m taking/planning to take even if the timing is terrible. And I have all my talking points laid out for what I need to remember to bring up (yes I made a detailed yes, and yes maybe that’s insane but I wanted to get my thoughts in order).

I had mentioned on Saturday morning that we should actually talk about things and we discussed what sort of setting we should have those talks in (I like to bring things up as we’re falling asleep because it’s quite and feels intimate but then he’s half asleep so that’s not great). So hopefully he doesn’t feel too blinded but I’m wondering if I should give him more of a heads or ask if it’d be okay to talk about some things then. Or if it that would just make it worse

[onecornerface]

Some criticisms of Washington Post's terrible article about Portugal's drug decriminalization

About a month ago, the Washington Post ran a terrible article about Portugal’s drug decriminalization. There are numerous bizarre and unreasonable aspects to the article. I can only make a first-pass overview of the problems here

To be clear, I think many pro-decrim people oversimplify the situation of Portugal, and overstate its importance to the case for decrim. Moreover, there is a lot I simply don’t know about Portugal, especially regarding developments in recent years. So I can’t currently insist, with much confidence, that the article is factually incorrect about many of its particular claims. Nor can I confidently give my own well-grounded overview of what exactly is going on in Portugal or why. Also, I don’t know the authors’ policy views or intentions. Anthony Faiola at least does not seem to have a track record on WP of conservative fearmongering, but that’s what this specific article ultimately is.

Here's what I can say confidently right now. From start to finish, the article has a certain strong pattern—in what topics it mentions vs. omits, what questions it asks vs. erases, what statistics it provides vs. omits, whose concerns it emphasizes vs. marginalizes/ignores, what proposals it spends more time discussing vs. less time, what experts it cites at length vs. briefly or not at all, etc.

Regardless of intent, and despite a few counterinstances to this trend, the article overwhelmingly functions as propaganda which will predictably encourage its readers to think irrationally, to support vicious agendas, and to make the world even worse for people who are already among the worst-off.

From start to finish, the article continually insinuates that Portugal’s police should be allowed to drastically increase how many drug users they can arrest. The details are mostly left unspecified, and the rationale is mostly left unspecified. But basically the idea seems to be (1) the police should be able to arrest drug users on a wider variety of *grounds* (mainly but not limited to public drug use/possession), and (2) after arresting them, the police should be able to coerce these drug users in more ways or to a greater degree.

In any case, the end result is supposed to be some serious reduction in prevalence of various actual or putative bad stuff—e.g. addiction, public drug use, drug-associated crime, homelessness, and/or suchlike. Supposedly, all or many of these problems have increased in recent years. And supposedly, the only solution requires that police be enabled to drastically increase their coercive powers—presumably as a route to force drug addicts into addiction treatment. I’ll call this, roughly, the pro-crackdown thesis.

The authors don’t directly argue for the pro-crackdown thesis. But the overall pattern of the article is clearly to promote the pro-crackdown thesis regarding Portugal—and I think, by further implication, to suggest something in the ballpark of the pro-crackdown thesis for other reform-leaning countries such as the USA. The article should be read in context of the broader conservative “tough on crime” backlash which has been occurring in the USA & Canada for the last couple of years.

To a first approximation, the article alleges that Portugal’s drug problem (or drug-related problems) has gotten worse in recent years. This sounds to me like it is probably basically true and largely agreed-on, so I don’t challenge it, although I note that the article fails to much explain or clarify it. The article mostly relies on anecdotes, and occasionally on a smattering of no-context statistics, which don’t allow much of a sense of what exactly has gotten worse, or over what timeframe—let alone why. Still, actual experts do seem to agree that things have gotten worse overall.

The article insinuates that the police need to arrest lots of drug users in order to seriously mitigate the problem. But the article provides extremely little evidence that this is true. Most of the article’s evidence is too vague and decontextualized for us to interpret its relevance to the pro-crackdown thesis.

Throughout much of the article, the pro-crackdown thesis sounds vaguely like repealing decriminalization, though occasionally it is (very slightly) clarified that it isn't supposed to repeal decriminalization outright but only implement some more limited re-criminalization. Again the details are left remarkably vague. I’m not certain without further research, but it sounds to me like fake moderation that provides cover for extreme changes. The article is obviously pushing for the arrests of quite a lot of people who aren’t currently being arrested.

Most shockingly, the article occasionally mentions evidence which (if true) challenges or even refutes its own pro-crackdown thesis—yet the article mostly ignores the relevance of all this.

On a preliminary note, the article never specifies whether police enforcement powers have actually changed in recent years, in terms of what the police are and aren't allowed to do. Has there been any contraction in the grounds on which police can make arrests? Has there been any reduction in what police can do to coerce those whom they’ve arrested? I don’t think the article indicates any such thing. If the police’s powers stayed the same, but the drug problems got worse, then it would be at least a little surprising if the solution is to change the police’s powers. Of course, decriminalization itself reduced the police’s powers—but decriminalization occurred some 20 years ago, whereas things only started getting worse in the last several years or so. So decriminalization in itself can’t be the cause. So then, what was the cause?

More significantly, the article occasionally mentions that a decade or so ago, Portugal suffered an economic crisis and then drastically cut addiction treatment funding. Near the end of the article, this is briefly discussed in a few paragraphs—but then the article continues and concludes as if this discussion never happened.

So, if and insofar as drug problems got worse in the last several years, the article presents no evidence whatsoever that decriminalization or enforcement changes had anything to do with it. But rather, the article actually presents an obviously salient and severe set of events (economic crisis + funding cuts) that could easily account for the increase in drug problems—seemingly meeting conditions of (1) plausible causal mechanisms & (2) relevant timeframe.

This is not mentioned until late in the article, and the article concludes by ignoring it. The large bulk of the article instead argues for (or insinuates, implicitly arguing for) the pro-crackdown thesis.

If the pro-crackdown thesis is true, how would it work? How would arresting lots of drug users solve the problem? Mostly the article avoids any exploration of the mechanisms that would need to be involved. But insofar as the article *does* suggest a mechanism, it is that the police need to arrest drug users specifically in order to force them into addiction treatment.

The argument presupposes that addiction treatment is crucial for solving the drug problem, and that Portugal needs to get lots more drug users to attend treatment, and that the best way to increase attendance is by empowering the police to arrest lots more of them, on a wider variety of grounds, and coerce them more severely.

Now, there are a lot of unspoken empirical premises that need to be true in order for this argument to have any chance of succeeding. Many such empirical premises are already false or dubious, which I will ignore. But notice that the argument requires, at minimum, that the addiction treatment system be capable of taking in many, many new patients within a short timeframe—i.e. the many addicted drug users whom the police should be newly allowed to arrest & coerce.

So here’s where the argument gets even worse and dumber. Very briefly, early on, the article seemingly mentions that Portugal’s addiction treatment system is basically at capacity, cannot take on new patients readily, and has extremely long wait-lists.

Here’s the key quote: “there are year-long waits for state-funded rehabilitation treatment even as the number of people seeking help has fallen dramatically.” There are tons of variables left unspecified, but the picture given here (and indirectly supported further on, in the section on funding cuts) seems to be a serious problem in treatment capacity. Another quote: “The number of users being funneled into drug treatment in Portugal, for instance, has sharply fallen, going from a peak of 1,150 in 2015 to 352 in 2021, the most recent year available.” Why did this happen? Obviously there could be many variables involved, not suggested by the article.

The drastic funding cuts would likely cause a severe reduction in capacity. And the article never mentions any relevant post-decrim changes to drug laws. There’s no indication that the police used to be allowed to force many people into treatment and no longer are. So, for all the article says, this sounds mostly due to funding cuts. Yet the article barely suggests increasing funding, and rather spends most of its time supporting a drastic increase in police powers.

But the article’s own arguments suggest there needs to be a drastic increase in addiction treatment funding FIRST. Otherwise, what are the police supposed to do with all the drug addicts they’re expected to arrest? They CANNOT force them into treatment, because there is NO CAPACITY for so many new patients.

For the moment, let’s ignore the facts that (1) many scholars have cast doubt on the benefits of forced treatment, (2) many scholars argue that forced treatment causes many direct & indirect harms (which may compete with or outweigh the benefits), and (3) many scholars argue that forced treatment would be unethical or ethically dubious even if it worked and did not cause other harms. (These facts are easy to forget, because the article never mentions or remotely alludes to any of them, other than selectively quoting some vague and easy-to-dismiss appeal to rights.)

Even setting all this aside, the simple fact—acknowledged or strongly implied by the article itself—is that Portugal’s addiction treatment system cannot presently take on many new patients. So, by the article’s own lights, arresting lots of drug users to force them into treatment is *impossible*. Or at least it is impossible unless there were a drastic expansion in addiction treatment capacity first—which the article barely discusses, and clearly considers much lower priority than empowering the police to crack down on drug users. To the extent that any actual experts on drug policy (such as Alex Stevens) have commented on the article, they seem to agree that Portugal needs to re-invest in treatment and/or social programs, not any kind of re-criminalization.

It is at best an open question whether arresting people would be a good way to improve treatment attendance *after* drastically expanding addiction treatment capacity. Perhaps the expansion of addiction treatment would be enough by itself, or perhaps not. But the article’s own brief discussion of Portugal’s history during ca. 2000-2010 suggests the already-successful solution was expanded addiction treatment *without* police coercion. Now, this may or may not be accurate. And I think it is plausible that all sides are inclined to overstate the importance of addiction treatment. It wouldn’t surprise me if other changes to Portugal’s society, e.g. investment in infrastructure other than addiction treatment (e.g. housing, healthcare, etc.), played a bigger role than the addiction treatment itself. But setting that aside, by the article’s own evidence, everything here tends to logically support the solution of expanding addiction treatment without empowering the police. Yet the article instead insists, illogically, on empowering the police and putting treatment at a distant second-place.

One of many elephants in the room: There are also many possible policy domains OTHER than police OR treatment, which could well have a big impact on drug problems—such as housing, job programs, etc. The article avoids all these topics, of course, despite the obvious opportunity presented by the mention of the economic crisis. And so far I have ignored the matter of homelessness, which I’ll briefly return to further down.

In the meantime, absent such a big expansion of addiction treatment capacity, the suggestion of seriously increasing police powers as a way to increase treatment attendance is OBVIOUSLY INSANE. If the police were to empowered to arrest lots of drug users immediately, without other massive changes first, then it would just lock most of them up without treatment anytime soon.

But I think that’s the real agenda here, regarding the thrust of the article in itself and in the broader ongoing context. The real agenda supported by the article, at least functionally, is to support a combination of policies that prioritize getting (some) drug users off the streets and out of sight of wealthy people—that’s basically it. This agenda may need to be artificially propped up by vague appeals to the notion of helping the drug users by forcing them into treatment. But it doesn’t really matter whether this is logistically feasible in terms of scale (it’s not) or typically overall beneficial to the user (it’s not) or ethical (it’s not). The agenda, first and foremost, is to remove some marked underclass of people from the sight and mind of a more wealthy and powerful class of people.

Those are some of the main problems with the article. Even without knowing much about what’s really going on in Portugal in recent years, I can recognize that the article is making an invalid argument for an insane conclusion that obviously clashes with the evidence already provided in the very same article—and in the service of moral priorities that are vicious. But even beyond this, the problems with the article go much, much deeper.

The article is continually unclear about the exact targets of its complaints. Most of the discussion is ostensibly on drug use and/or addiction—but a ton of the article seems really to be complaining about homeless people (possibly even including homeless people who don’t use drugs). I have been simplifying my discussion for the sake of argument as if this were about “drug users” or possibly “addicted drug users,” but a great many aspects of the article simply cannot be interpreted other than being about homeless people.

This raises layer upon layer of issues that I haven't even touched on, all of which make the article worse and worse. Among other things, it raises the question of whether and how much homelessness in Portugal has increased, and why. Although I need to research this a lot more, there are all kinds of debates on the causal relation between homelessness and addiction. The article is clearly premised on the notion that addiction is pretty much the main cause of homelessness—despite the fact that any simple version of this theory cannot be true. The article avoids discussing any other contributors to homelessness.

This in turn is obviously an opportunity to discuss housing policy. I have many serious questions about all this, which I’ll need to research at length. But the article has no interest whatsoever in any of this—except to repeatedly encourage the reader to find homeless people scary and insinuate that the police should be given more power to arrest them en masse.

Yet more problems abound. The article continually casts aspersion against harm reduction services—without acknowledging (or, at most, barely acknowledging) that lots of research and health authorities support these services on the grounds of consistently positive evidence. No evidence or arguments are presented against harm reduction services, nor does the article directly condemn them—but it consistently depicts them negatively, largely using emotional rhetorical techniques.

Notably, the article provides no reason whatsoever to reconsider decriminalization. And, while I’ll need to look into the specifics more to say for sure, I don’t think there is any serious chance that its vaguely described “limited re-criminalization” has any merit.

I have many more complaints besides these, and a lot of possible elaboration on many of these. I have multiple complaints about nearly every paragraph. Nevertheless, by reading it I have gained a better sense of where I need to do more research into Portugal’s policy and society, especially over the last 15 years or so.