better and current drug policy is not showing any positive effect either. The reason why Estonia should consider decriminalizing cannabis is that the history of decriminalizing cannabis has shown us that the use of narcotics has gone down. Great examples for that are the Netherlands and Portugal. Portugal decriminalized all narcotics in 2001 and decided to treat possession and use of small quantities of drugs as a public health issue, not a criminal one (Ingraham, The Washington Post 2015). It has had a major effect on society and Portugal now has the second-lowest drug-induced death rate in EU. The Netherlands has a policy of toleration regarding soft drugs and its mortality rate is well below the EU average rate. Second reason why Estonia should consider decriminalizing cannabis is that there has never occurred death by overdosing cannabis. People do feel sick after abusing marijuana, but the
So it is kind of a tool to motivate officials to perform better and produce more qualitative work. (Randma-Liiv 2005) Compensating and motivating employees plays important role in governmental jobs- it helps to attract, motivate and retain qualified workers in the field. Success of pay-for performance tool has been discussed in many ways. Some researchers like Murphy and Cleveland (1995) support the success stories brining out examples why it is necessary, some like Ingraham (1993) are not that optimistic about it and draws attention on its negative effects. To tell weather pay-for performance is good or a bad “thing” we need to discuss positive influence and negative impact of it and weight the results. Next discussion based on different scholars articles (Mogultay 2006, Hays 2010, Weibel et al. 2009) helps us to to that. What pay-for performance aims to do, is that it should boost public sector performance, as it does in private sector
annaabi.ee 
