essays on drug decriminalization

Decriminalisation or legalisation: injecting evidence in the drug law reform debate

Professor & Specialist in Drug Policy, UNSW Sydney

Disclosure statement

Alison Ritter receives funding from the NHMRC, the ARC and The Colonial Foundation Trust. She was a participant in the Australia 21 Roundtable held in January, 2012.

UNSW Sydney provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

We should all be concerned about our laws on illegal drugs because they affect all of us – people who use drugs; who have family members using drugs; health professionals seeing people for drug-related problems; ambulance and police officers in the front line of drug harms; and all of us who pay high insurance premiums because drug-related crime is extensive.

Drug-related offences also take up the lion’s share of the work of police, courts and prisons. But what can we do? Some people feel that we should legalise drugs – treat them like alcohol and tobacco, as regulated products. And legalisation doesn’t necessarily need to apply for every illegal drug.

Why legalise?

One of the arguments for legalisation is that it would eliminate (or at least significantly reduce) the illegal black market and criminal networks associated with the drug trade. Other arguments include moving the problem away from police and the criminal justice system and concentrating responses within health.

Governments could accrue taxation revenue from illegal drugs as they currently do from gambling, alcohol and tobacco. A regulated government monopoly could secure direct income; our research suggests this may be as high as $600 million a year for a regulated cannabis market in New South Wales.

The strongest argument against legalisation is that it would result in significant increases in drug use. We know that currently legal drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco, are widely consumed and associated with an extensive economic burden to society – including hospital admissions, alcoholism treatment programs and public nuisance. So why create an environment where this may also come to pass for currently illegal drugs?

The moral argument against legalisation suggests the use of illegal drugs is amoral, anti-social and otherwise not acceptable in today’s society. The concern is that legalisation would “send the wrong message”.

Unfortunately, there’s no direct research evidence on legalisation because no country has legalised drugs yet. But suppositions can be made about the extent of cost-savings to society.

Indeed, some of our research on a regulated legal cannabis market suggests that there may not be the significant savings under a legalisation regime that some commentators have argued. But these are hypothetical exercises.

• Decriminalisation

An alternative to legalisation is decriminalisation. Experts don’t agree on the terminology and there’s much confusion. But, in essence, decriminalisation refers to a reduction of legal penalties. This can be done either by changing them to civil penalties, such as fines, or by diverting drug use offenders away from a criminal conviction and into education or treatment options (also known as “diversion”).

Decriminalisation largely applies to drug use and possession offences, not to the sale or supply of drugs. Arguments in favour of decriminalisation include its focus on drug users rather than drug suppliers. The idea is to provide users with a more humane and sensible response to their drug use.

Decriminalisation has the potential to reduce the burden on police and the criminal justice system. It also removes the negative consequences (including stigma) associated with criminal convictions for drug use.

One argument against decriminalisation is that it doesn’t address the black market and criminal networks of drug selling. There are also concerns that it may lead to increased drug use but this assumes that current criminal penalties operate as a deterrent for some people.

The moral arguments noted above also apply to decriminalisation – lesser penalties may suggest that society approves of drug use.

Many countries, including Australia, have decriminalised cannabis use: measures include providing diversion programs (all Australian states and territories), and moving from criminal penalties to civil penalties (such as fines in South Australia, Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory).

Our team’s research on Portugal suggests that drug use rates don’t rise under decriminalisation, and there are measurable savings to the criminal justice system.

In Australia also, there hasn’t been a rise in cannabis use rates despite states and territories introducing civil penalties for users. And research on diverting drug use offenders away from a criminal conviction and into treatment has shown that these individuals are just as likely to succeed in treatment as those who attend voluntarily.

At the same time, research has also noted a negative side effect to the way in which decriminalisation currently operates in Australia – “net widening” - whereby more people are swept up into the criminal justice system than would have occurred otherwise under full prohibition because discretion by police is less likely and/or they do not fulfil their obligations.

Despite the largely supportive evidence base, politicians appear reluctant to proceed along the decriminalisation path. Some commentators have speculated that this is because of public opinion – decriminalisation is regarded as an unpopular policy choice .

But public opinion is largely in support of decriminalisation, where it concerns cannabis (though not decriminalisation for other illegal drugs). In the last national survey , more than 80% of Australians supported decriminalisation options for cannabis. The other reason for equivocal policy support, I believe, is a lack of clarity about the issues.

There’s poor understanding about the different models of decriminalisation and some basic confusion exists. Many people equate decriminalisation with legalisation, but as detailed above, they are very different in policy, intent and action.

Decriminalisation is also sometimes incorrectly confused with harm reduction services, such as injecting centres or prescribed heroin programs.

The Australia21 Report released last week to stimulate informed public debate is an important step foward. In order for the debate to progress, we need clarity of terms, and dispassionate presentation of what evidence we have. Every policy has both risks and benefits and we need to talk about these.

• War on Drugs
• Drug reform
• Drug legalisation

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Communications and Engagement Officer, Corporate Finance Property and Sustainability

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›
• The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against

The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against

Douglas Husak and Peter de Marneffe, The Legalization of Drugs: For & Against , Cambridge University Press, 2005, 204pp., $18.99 (pbk), ISBN 0521546869.

Reviewed by William Hawk, James Madison University

In the United States the production, distribution and use of marijuana, heroin, and cocaine are crimes subjecting the offender to imprisonment. The Legalization of Drugs , appearing in the series "For and Against" edited by R. G. Frey for Cambridge University Press, raises the seldom-asked philosophical question of the justification, if any, of imprisoning persons for drug offenses.

Douglas Husak questions the justification for punishing persons who use drugs such as marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. He develops a convincing argument that imprisonment is never morally justified for drug use. Put simply, incarceration is such a harsh penalty that drug use, generally harmless to others and less harmful to the user than commonly supposed, fails to justify it. Any legal scheme that punishes drug users to achieve another worthy goal, such as creating a disincentive to future drug users, violates principles of justice.

Peter de Marneffe contends that under some circumstances society is morally justified in punishing persons who produce and distribute heroin. He argues a theoretical point that anticipated rises in drug abuse and consequent effects on young people may justify keeping heroin production and distribution illegal. According to de Marneffe's analysis, however, harsh prison penalties currently imposed on drug offenders are unjustified.

The points of discord between Husak's and de Marneffe's positions are serious but not as telling as is their implicit agreement. Current legal practices and policies which lead to lengthy incarceration of those who produce, distribute and use drugs such as marijuana, heroin, and cocaine are not, and cannot be, morally justified. Both arguments, against imprisoning drug users and for keeping heroin production illegal, merit a broad and careful reading.

The United States has erected an enormous legal structure involving prosecution and incarceration designed to prohibit a highly pleasurable, sometimes medically indicated and personally satisfying activity, namely using marijuana, heroin, and cocaine. At the same time, other pleasure-producing drugs, such as tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine, though legally regulated for the purposes of consumer safety and under-age consumption, can be purchased over the counter. As a result, while the health and safety risks of cigarettes may be greater than those proven to accompany marijuana, one can buy cigarettes from a vending machine and but go to prison for smoking marijuana. A rational legal system, according to Husak, demands a convincing, but as yet not forthcoming, explanation of why one pleasurable drug subjects users to the risk of imprisonment while the other is accommodated in restaurants.

Drug prohibitionists must face the problem that any "health risk" argument used to distinguish illicit drugs and subject offenders to prison sentences runs up against the known, yet tolerated, health risks of tobacco, as well as the additional health risks associated with incarceration. "Social costs" arguments targeting heroin or cocaine runs up against the known, yet tolerated, social costs of alcohol, as well as the additional social costs of incarceration. Even if one were to accept that illicit drugs were more harmful or exacted greater social costs than tobacco and alcohol (and the empirical studies referred to in the text do not generally support this thesis), that difference proves insufficient to justify imprisoning producers, distributors or especially users of illicit drugs.

Decriminalizing Drug Use. Douglas Husak presents a very carefully argued case for decriminalizing drug use. He begins his philosophical argument by clarifying the concepts and issues involved. To advocate the legalization of drugs calls for a legal system in which the production and sale of drugs are not criminal offenses. (p. 3) Criminalization of drugs makes the use of certain drugs a criminal offense, i.e. one deserving punishment. To argue for drug decriminalization, as Husak does, is not necessarily to argue for legalization of drugs . Husak entertains, but cautiously rejects the notion of a system where production and sale of drugs is illegal while use is not a crime. De Marneffe advocates such a system.

Punishing persons by incarceration demands justification. Since the state's use of punishment is a severe tool and incarceration is by its nature "degrading, demoralizing and dangerous" (p. 29) we must be able to provide "a compelling reason … to justify the infliction of punishment… ." (p. 34) Husak finds no compelling reason for imprisoning drug users. After considering four standard justifications for punishing drug users Husak concludes that "the arguments for criminalization are not sufficiently persuasive to justify the infliction of punishment."

Reasons to Criminalize Drug Use . 1) Drug users, it is claimed, should be punished in order to protect the health and well being of citizens . No doubt states are justified in protecting the health and well being of citizens. But does putting drug users in prison contribute to this worthy goal? Certainly not for those imprisoned. For those who might be deterred from using drugs the question is whether the drugs from which they are deterred by the threat of imprisonment actually pose a health risk. For one, Husak quotes research showing that currently illicit drugs do not obviously pose a greater health threat than alcohol or tobacco. For another, he quotes a statistic showing that approximately four times as many persons die annually from using prescribed medicines than die from using illegal drugs. In addition, one-fourth of all pack-a-day smokers lose ten to fifteen years of their lives but no one would entertain the idea of incarcerating smokers to further their health interests or in order to prevent non-smokers from beginning. In sum, Husak accepts that drug use poses health risks but contends that the risks are not greater than others that are socially accepted. Even if they were greater, imprisonment does not reduce, but compounds the health risks for prisoners.

2) Punishing drug users protects children . Husak here responds to de Marneffe's essay which focuses on potential drug abuse and promotes the welfare of children as a justification for keeping drug production and sale illegal. Husak finds punishing adolescent users a peculiar way to protect them. To punish one drug-using adolescent in order to prevent a non-using adolescent from using drugs is ineffective and also violates justice. Punishing adult users so that youth do not begin using drugs and do not suffer from neglect -- which is de Marneffe's position -- is not likely to prevent adolescents from becoming drug users, and even if it did, one would have to show that the harm prevented to the youth justifies imprisoning adults. Husak contends that punishing adults or youth, far from protecting youth, puts them at greater risk.

3) Some, e.g. former New York City mayor Guiliani, argue that punishing drug use prevents crime . Husak, conceding a connection between drug use and crime, turns the argument upside-down, showing how punishment increases rather than decreases crime. For one, criminalization of drugs forces the drug industry to settle disputes extra-legally. Secondly, drug decriminalization would likely lower drug costs thereby reducing economic crimes. Thirdly, to those who contend that illicit drugs may increase violence and aggression Husak responds that: a) empirical evidence does not support marijuana or heroin as causes of violence and b) empirical evidence does support alcohol, which is decriminalized, as leading to violence. Husak concludes "if we propose to ban those drugs that are implicated in criminal behavior, no drug would be a better candidate for criminalization than alcohol." (p. 70) Finally, punishing drug users likely increases crime rates since those imprisoned for drug use are released with greater tendencies and skills for future criminal activity.

4) Drug use ought to be punished because using drugs is immoral . In addition to standard philosophical objections to legal moralism, Husak contends that there is no good reason to think that recreational drug use is immoral. Drug use violates no rights. Other recreationally used drugs such as alcohol, tobacco or caffeine are not immoral. The only accounts according to which drug use is immoral are religiously based and generally not shared in the citizenry. Husak argues that legal moralism fails, and with it the attempts to justify imprisoning drug users because of health and well-being, protecting children, or reducing crime. Husak concludes, "If I am correct, prohibitionists are more clearly guilty of immorality than their opponents. The wrongfulness of recreational drug use, if it exists at all, pales against the immorality of punishing drug users." (p. 82)

Reasons to Decriminalize Drug Use. Husak's positive case for decriminalizing drug use begins with acknowledgement that drug use is or may be highly pleasurable. In addition, some drugs aid relaxation, others increase energy and some promote spiritual enlightenment or literary and artistic creativity. The simple fun and euphoria attendant to drug use should count for permitting it.

The fact that criminalization of drug use proves to be counter-productive provides Husak a set of final substantial reasons for decriminalizing use. Criminalizing drugs proves counter-productive along several different lines: 1) criminalization is aimed and selectively enforced against minorities, 2) public health risks increase because drugs are dealt on the street, 3) foreign policy is negatively affected by corrupt governments being supported solely because they support anti-drug policies, 4) a frank and open discussion about drug policy is impossible in the United States, 5) civil liberties are eroded by drug enforcement, 6) some government corruption stems from drug payoffs and 7) criminalization costs tens of billions of dollars per year.

Douglas Husak provides the conceptual clarity needed to work one's way through the various debates surrounding drug use and the law. He establishes a high threshold that must be met in order to justify the state's incarcerating someone. Having laid this groundwork Husak demonstrates that purported justifications for drug criminalization fail and that good reasons for decriminalizing drug use prevail. For persons who worry about what drug decriminalization means for children, Husak counsels that there is more to fear from prosecution and conviction of youth for using drugs than there is to fear from the drugs themselves.

Against Legalizing Drug Production and Distribution. Peter de Marneffe offers an argument against drug legalization . The argument itself is simple. If drugs are legalized, there will be more drug abuse. If there is more drug abuse that is bad. Drug abuse is sufficiently bad to justify making drug production and distribution illegal. Therefore, drugs should not be legalized. The weight of this argument is carried by the claim that the badness of drug abuse is sufficient to justify making drug production and sale illegal.

De Marneffe centers his argument on heroin. Heroin, he contends, is highly pleasurable but sharply depresses motivation to achieve worthwhile goals and meet responsibilities. Accordingly, children in an environment where heroin is legal will be subjected to neglect by heroin using parents and, if they themselves use heroin, they will be harmed by diminished motivation for achievement for the remainder of their lives. It is this later harm to the ambition and motivation of young people that, according to de Marneffe, justifies criminalizing heroin production and sale. As he puts it:

… the risk of lost opportunities that some individuals would bear as the result of heroin legalization justifies the risks of criminal liability and other burdens that heroin prohibition imposes on other individuals. The legalization of heroin would create a social environment -- call it the legalization environment -- in which some children would be at a substantially higher risk of irresponsible heroin abuse by their parents and in which some adolescents would be at a substantially higher risk of self-destructive heroin abuse. (p. 124)

Are the liberties of individual adult drug producers, distributors and users sacrificed? Yes, but this may be justified by de Marneffe's "burdens principle." According to the burdens principle, "the government violates a person's moral rights in adopting a policy that limits her liberty if and only if in adopting this policy the government imposes a burden on her that is substantially worse than the worst burden anyone would bear in the absence of this policy." (p. 159) According to this, de Marneffe claims that burdens on drug vendors or users may be justified by the prevention of harms to a particular individual or individuals. As he puts it:

What I claim in favor of heroin prohibition is that the reasons of at least one person to prefer her situation in a prohibition environment outweigh everyone else's reasons to prefer his or her situation in a legalization environment, assuming that the penalties are gradual and proportionate and other relevant conditions are met. (p. 161)

According to this view, the objective interest of a single adolescent in not losing ambition, motivation and drive justifies the imposition of burdens on other youth and adults who would prefer using drugs. Although Johnny might choose heroin use, his objective interest is for future motivation and ambition that is not harmed by heroin use.

De Marneffe's "burdens principle" seems to hold the whole society hostage to the objective liberty interests of one individual. Were this principle applied to drug producers or distributors who faced imprisonment it seems that imprisonment could not be justified. I suspect a concern for consistency here gives de Marneffe reason to make drug production and distribution illegal but without attaching harsh prison sentences for offenders. He advocates an environment where drugs are not legal, in order to protect youth against both abuse and their own choices that may cause them to become unmotivated, but recognizes that prison sentences are unjustified as a way to support such a system.

In The Legalization of Drugs the reader gets two interesting arguments. Douglas Husak makes a compelling case against punishing drug users. His position amounts to drug decriminalization with skepticism toward making drug production and sale illegal. On the other side, Peter de Marneffe justifies making drug production and sale illegal based upon the diminishment of future interests of young people. De Marneffe introduces a "burdens principle" which is likely much too strong a commitment to individual interests than could ever be realized in a civil society. In both instances, the reader is treated to arguments that effectively undermine current drug policy. The book provides philosophical argumentation that should stimulate a societal conversation about the justifiability of current drug laws.

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Human Rights — Decriminalization of Drugs

Essays on Decriminalization of Drugs

Critical issue of drug decriminalization, decriminalizing all drugs and public health and safety, the economic implications of decriminalizing drugs, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Decriminalizing Drugs: The Social and Cultural Implications

Relevant topics.

• Death Penalty
• Freedom of Speech
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• Police Brutality
• Child Labour
• Same Sex Marriage
• Aggressive Driving
• Body Shaming

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Decriminalization of Drugs: Affirmative Side Research Paper

Introduction, drug decriminalization, supporting drug decriminalization.

The war against drugs has taken different shapes over the past century. Governments and jurisdictions rely on emerging ideas and criminal issues to implement superior policies that are intended to protect the lives and experiences of citizens. The possession, use, and trafficking of drugs are some of the practices that are linked to reduced security and increased criminal activities. However, the criminal justice systems and procedures put in place reveal that there is a need for drug decriminalization. This essay examines the nature of this issue from an affirmative point of view.

The idea of drug decriminalization is an evidence-based approach aimed at addressing the challenges of illicit substances. Different states in the United States have introduced new policies aimed at legalizing the possession, use, and transport of small quantities of various substances, such as bhang. A good example of such efforts is the Law Enforcement Assisted Diversion (LEAD) whose aim is to guide and support drug users through personalized treatment (Brennan, 2017). This model ensures that the individuals are to be booked or arrested for specific drug offenses. Some of them include low-level marketing and possession of certain substances.

From this analysis, it is evident that drug decriminalization is an initiative intended to eliminate the penalties for minor crimes associated with various substances. Some of these offenses include drug possession, abuse, and marketing (Virani & Haines-Saah, 2020). Another malpractice the relevant agencies address using the established legal systems includes the possession of various equipment individuals use to inject drugs into their blood systems, such as syringes and needles. In the United States, the government is proposing several measures to take the war on illicit drugs to the next level. A good example is the targeted Drug Policy Reform Act that has remained controversial. Many stakeholders have, therefore, been focusing on new approaches to help abusers instead of victimizing them.

Drug decriminalization has emerged as an evidence-based strategy that is capable of delivering various benefits. First, the model is capable of the federal funds or costs incurred in the country’s prison system. For instance, Virani and Haines-Saah (2020) revealed that around 1.6 million citizens were arrested in 2018 for drug-related offenses. Around 86 percent of such individuals were guilty of possessing, distributing, or selling small quantities of various drugs. These numbers overwhelmed the established criminal justice system. The consideration of the proposed initiative will address these challenges and make it possible for the targeted individuals to transform their lives.

Second, the government will be in a position to free up most of the available resources and systems. This achievement means that the relevant stakeholders will use such opportunities to address the needs recorded in other fields, such as healthcare, transportation, and homeland security (Gallagher, 2015). The decriminalization of such drugs will present additional opportunities for other participants to remain involved and identify better ways to achieve their maximum potential.

Third, the whole idea of drug decriminalization is capable of presenting additional strategies for focusing on the safety and health demands of the citizens. This initiative will guide the relevant agencies to be involved and empower these victims to lead better lives. They will acquire additional ideas for learning more about their medical problems and seek relevant support (Gallagher, 2015). This effort will transform their experiences and encourage them to sensitize their colleagues and partners. Such malpractice has the potential to deliver positive and sustainable outcomes.

Fourth, the established criminal justice model allows traffickers and users of drugs to be incarcerated. The move to decriminalize such substances will guide the relevant authorities to find and guide offenders accordingly. Such an initiative is capable of reducing the current problem of stigmatization (Brennan, 2017). The members of the society will be keen to support such individuals and guide them to identify better opportunities for transforming their experiences. The new model will become a new opportunity for most of the abusers to seek the relevant treatment and join support groups.

Finally, the process of decriminalizing drugs is recommendable since it might set the stage for other practices that are designed to reduce harm. For instance, the government has heroin-assisted support and treatment, drug checking, and medical marijuana programs that remain critical to meet the demands of the greatest majority (Virani & Haines-Saah, 2020). The decriminalization model will minimize some of these misdemeanors and encourage more people to be involved in strategies that can result in better life experiences. These efforts are capable of delivering notable results and transforming the experiences of more citizens in the country.

The above discussion has identified the concept of drug decriminalization as evidence-based and capable of delivering numerous advantages. The government needs to address some of the existing loopholes and identify additional ways to support the idea. Such an initiative will encourage more citizens to be part of the current harm reduction projects and free up the available resources to support the country’s homeland security, transport, and healthcare goals.

Brennan, M. (2017). Should marijuana be legalized? Point Counterpoint, 13 (2), 116-117.

Gallagher, L. (2015). Should the United States move towards Portugal’s decriminalization of drugs? University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review, 22 (2), 207-231. Web.

Smiley, E. (2016). Marijuana & other drugs: Legalize or decriminalize . Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 33 (3), 825-856.

Virani, H. N., & Haines-Saah, R. J. (2020). Drug decriminalization: A matter of justice and equity, not just health . American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 58 (1), 161-164.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, February 27). Decriminalization of Drugs: Affirmative Side. https://ivypanda.com/essays/decriminalization-of-drugs-affirmative-side/

"Decriminalization of Drugs: Affirmative Side." IvyPanda , 27 Feb. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/decriminalization-of-drugs-affirmative-side/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Decriminalization of Drugs: Affirmative Side'. 27 February.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Decriminalization of Drugs: Affirmative Side." February 27, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/decriminalization-of-drugs-affirmative-side/.

1. IvyPanda . "Decriminalization of Drugs: Affirmative Side." February 27, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/decriminalization-of-drugs-affirmative-side/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Decriminalization of Drugs: Affirmative Side." February 27, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/decriminalization-of-drugs-affirmative-side/.

• Legalization vs. Criminalization
• The Marijuana Usage Legislation
• Marijuana Legalization: Chronic Seizure Treatment
• Applications of Administrative Law
• Suit Holguin v. Sally Beauty Supply, Inc
• Zoning Regulations Law in Cities
• “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau
• The US Patriot Act and Privacy Rights

Essay on Drug Decriminalization

Drug decriminalization is a contentious topic to discuss as opinion is divided if it is an option or not. It can be defined as eliminating criminal penalties for drug use and possession. Drug decriminalization can also include the elimination of criminal penalties on the use and possession of equipment used to manufacture drugs. Some people argue that drug decriminalization would lead to a much bigger drug addiction problem, while others see the success Portugal has had since it decriminalized drugs some years ago. It should be noted that the criminalization of drug use leads to several arrests in the US. According to the Drug Policy Alliance report (2017), drug-related arrests stand at 1.5 million annually, which is above all the arrests from the other violent crimes combined. In addition to mass arrest, drug use criminalization has led to some other social ills such as racial and ethnic disparities, loss of financial aid, and mass detentions. Considering the success drug decriminalization has enjoyed in Portugal and the punitive penalties and consequences attached to the criminalization of drug use, it is prudent and timely for other countries like the US to consider trying drug decriminalization to free-up resources for critical functions such as keeping drug addicts as healthy as possible.

A review of its success in Portugal is necessary to understand the potential success of a drug decriminalization policy. According to Aleem (2015), Portugal’s drug decriminalization policy led to a general decrease of drug users in the 15-24 years age bracket, the population extensively exposed to drug use. Drug-related deaths have significantly reduced, AIDS infections and deaths related to drug use have also considerably decreased. According to the findings of a report published in 2010 in the British Journal of Criminology, after drug decriminalization, the number of arrests and imprisonments decreased (Aleem, 2015). Additionally, Drug Policy Alliance (2015) asserts that drug decriminalization has led to more people in Portugal seeking drug treatment. For instance, the number of people on drug treatment increased by 60% between 1998 and 2011. Furthermore, drug decriminalization led to an 18% reduction in per capita social cost of a drug in Portugal.

Opponents of drug decriminalization argue that it sets a bad example for the young and future generations. However, the probation of drug use has only led to a drug addiction menace globally. Additionally, it is critical that even if a drug is prohibited, that does not mean that the market has been eliminated. Nations should adopt a drug decriminalization policy as it is a proven way of dealing with drug use. Prohibition shrinks the market, leading to hiked drug prices, creating a multibillion-dollar market that is detrimental to the economy (Sayal, 2022).

In conclusion, the advantages of a drug decriminalization policy outnumber the demerits. Portugal has illustrated that drug decriminalization leads to fewer drug-related arrests and drug-related AIDS cases. It also decreases drug use and increases the number of drug treatment patients. Even though many nations have criminalized drug use, they have failed to eliminate the drug trade through the black market, which hampers economic growth.

Aleem, Z. (2015, February 11).  14 Years After Decriminalizing All Drugs, Here’s What Portugal Looks Like . Mic. https://www.mic.com/articles/110344/14-years-after-portugal-decriminalized-all-drugs-here-s-what-s-happening

Drug Policy Alliance. (2015, February 2015).  Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: A Health-Centered Approach . DPA_Fact_Sheet_Portugal_Decriminalization_Feb2015.pdf (drugpolicy.org)

Drug Policy Alliance. (2017, August 31).  It’s Time for the US to Decriminalize Drug Use and Possession . https://drugpolicy.org/resource/its-time-us-decriminalize-drug-use-and-possession#:%7E:text=Drug%20decriminalization%20is%20the%20elimination%20of%20criminal%20penalties,drugs%20into%20the%20human%20body%2C%20such%20as%20syringes.

Sayal, A. (2022, March 25).  Opinion | Let drug decriminalization win the War on Drugs | Part II . The Daily Illini. https://dailyillini.com/opinions-stories/2022/03/25/war-on-drugs-2/

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

Related Essays

Music theory technology project, us-china relations in the 21st century, speculation on the future of childhood, emotional and social development in single-parent families: strategies for support, living in a big city paper, “seen: living with the schizophrenias” – an analytical review, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

Opinion: The real reason why Oregon recriminalizing drugs is a cautionary tale

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

In a move widely hailed as a failure for the drug decriminalization movement, Oregon restored criminal penalties for low-level drug possession in April. Headlines chalked up this policy reversal to mounting overdoses , evoking a crisis in the state.

In reality, Oregon’s overdose rate remains in the middle of the pack nationally, with more than half of U.S. states having a greater number of deaths per capita. But increasing homelessness and visible drug use have spurred panic over drugs, which overruled statistics and scientific recommendations — and offers a cautionary tale about the fight for sensible drug laws.

Opinion: ‘Just say no’ can kill kids. Teach them how to stay safe in the fentanyl era

Drug use has become deadlier for teens, and Southern California is an overdose hot spot.

Feb. 3, 2024

In 2020, a majority of Oregon voters approved decriminalization via Measure 110 — a landmark ballot measure that made simple possession of a small quantity of drugs for personal use subject to citation instead of jail. It diverted tax revenue from cannabis, which the state legalized for recreational use in 2014; in its first round of grants alone, the measure infused $300 million into the state’s threadbare drug treatment system and funded harm reduction services.

These were solid steps, backed by decades of science about addiction and consistent with United Nations recommendations in support of drug decriminalization. Other nations, including Portugal , Spain and Uruguay , have seen success with similar shifts away from arrest and toward healthcare-based approaches.

However, the same year Measure 110 passed, fentanyl use rose sharply on the West Coast. Despite nearly a decade of advance notice from the fentanyl crisis in the East, the region failed to prepare. As in other Western states, overdose rates in Oregon soared — from among the lowest in the country to nearly reaching the national average in 2022. Although data suggest that rates of drug use in Oregon have remained fairly stable in recent years, fentanyl makes for a much deadlier drug supply. At the same time, homelessness in Oregon has risen rapidly . As more people live outside, more drug use that used to occur behind closed doors now happens in plain sight.

The combination of these factors fed the perception that Oregon’s drug crisis was uniquely severe. Even though research shows that drug decriminalization did not increase the death rate and broadly supports leaving it in place to reduce the harms and wasteful spending of incarceration, Measure 110 became a scapegoat for Oregon’s social problems. Democrats, including Portland’s typically progressive district attorney , reversed their support and in effect repealed it.

World & Nation

Oregon’s first-in-the-nation drug decriminalization law faces growing resistance

Since the law’s approval, the state has seen a surge in public drug use fueled by fentanyl and an increase in synthetic opioid overdose deaths.

Nov. 21, 2023

Criminal penalties do little to affect rates of drug use . Typically they just increase the degree to which people with addiction bounce between the street and jail, a cycle of imprisonment and release known to drive overdose deaths. Occasional anecdotes of people finding their way into recovery through contact with the criminal justice system are outliers. If police massively scale up arrests of people who use drugs, increased overdose deaths will be the predictable result .

Countries such as Portugal and Norway have followed a well-defined, alternative path to reduce drug-related deaths and public drug use. The steps include: Scale up opportunities for compassionate contact with the system, such as with free walk-in clinics for vulnerable people who use drugs. Make it easier and cheaper to access buprenorphine and methadone, medications that treat opioid addiction, than street fentanyl. Give people safe, controlled spaces to keep their drug use out of the public sphere while connecting with healthcare and shelter. Defend their human dignity and help them build positive relationships with health professionals and social workers. Drug decriminalization is worthwhile, but it does not replace these larger solutions.

Public drug use and streets full of tents are distressing for many Oregonians. They also provide images that are easily exploited by mainstream media and politicians to stoke public fears. But recriminalizing drugs is unlikely to decrease homelessness or eliminate public drug use.

California seized enough fentanyl last year to kill everyone in the world ‘nearly twice over’

Seizures of fentanyl smuggled into California have dramatically surged over the last few years, according to officials.

Feb. 27, 2024

Although blaming drugs for homelessness is a common mistake, the scientific consensus shows that increased housing costs are the single most important cause. And Oregon simply does not have sufficient shelter beds or public housing options for those affected by extremely sharp increases in those costs. The state also struggles to hospitalize people in need of treatment for severe mental illness, both because there aren’t beds available and because its laws inhibit holding people involuntarily in many cases , including serious episodes of psychosis.

Oregon’s public safety system is struggling. Calling 911 frequently means being put on hold for several minutes. There are often no ambulances to dispatch. It took police 21 minutes on average to respond to a high-priority crime as of last year, five minutes longer than the year before.

These real public safety issues demand urgency. They also have nothing to do with the fact that drug users were not being arrested for possession. Under Measure 110, theft, public indecency, assault — and selling drugs — remained illegal. Focusing on punishing people who use drugs will further stretch the police force while not solving the larger problems.

Measure 110 took steps in the right direction by investing in social services. However, a single round of funding cannot undo decades of inadequate spending on addiction treatment and prevention. Robust mental health, substance treatment and public housing systems take years to build.

With the nation’s housing and overdose crises worse than ever, what’s happening in Oregon is not unique. Similar tensions between scientific approaches to addiction and concerns about homelessness and public drug use are playing out in San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston and other cities. Our task is to resist the temptation to cave to panic and instead commit to evidence-backed solutions.

Morgan Godvin (@MorganGodvin) is a lifelong Oregonian, writer and drug policy researcher who served on the Measure 110 Oversight and Accountability Council and the Multnomah County Local Public Safety Coordinating Council. Joseph Friedman (@JosephRFriedman) is a researcher at UCLA who has published widely on the U.S. overdose crisis.

More to Read

Opinion: This tough-on-crime proposal won’t solve California retail theft, but it would crowd our prisons

May 7, 2024

Editorial: Reclassifying marijuana is not decriminalization, but is a welcome step in that direction

May 1, 2024

State senators respond to fentanyl and retail theft crises with new legislation

Feb. 26, 2024

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Litman: Michael Cohen started testifying against Trump. Here’s what prosecutors need from him

May 13, 2024

Opinion: How L.A.’s Chinatown helped reinvent Southern California

Opinion: Californians love the state’s parks. We just don’t know they’re state parks

Calmes: Our elections have integrity. These politicians do not

May 12, 2024

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Canada Re-Criminalizes Public Drug Use in British Columbia

A province that was a global pioneer in harm reduction took a step back after a political backlash.

By Ian Austen

Reporting from Ottawa

The government of Canada on Tuesday walked back part of a program allowing people in British Columbia to possess small amounts of drugs, including heroin and cocaine, without fear of criminal charges. At the request of the province and after a public backlash, people in British Columbia are no longer permitted to use drugs in public places.

Under the changes, which went into effect immediately, adults will still be allowed to possess small amounts of drugs. But they will now have to use them in legal residences, at safe injection sites and at other harm-reduction centers established by the health authorities.

The re-criminalization of public drug use in British Columbia underscores the difficulties that governments face as they grapple with the opioid crisis. Even in a province that has been a global pioneer of the harm reduction movement, an approach that seeks to reduce risky behavior rather than to punish drug users, there are no easy answers.

The province’s coroner estimated that there were a record 2,511 toxic drug deaths last year. Drug overdoses from toxic substances kill more people ages 10 to 59 than homicides, suicides, accidents and natural diseases combined in British Columbia, according to the provincial coroner’s office.

The goals of decriminalizing possession were to enable police officers to focus their time on large drug distributors rather than users and encourage users to be open to treatment. But concerns about public drug use have quickly surfaced and raised repeatedly in the provincial legislature by members of opposition parties.

Eugenia Oviedo-Joekes, a professor in the medical school at the University of British Columbia who studies addiction and public health policy, said the decision amounted to “three steps back” in dealing with the opioid crisis.

Smoking and drinking in public, she noted, are both successfully restricted without resorting to criminal law, and she criticized the two levels of government for re-criminalizing public drug use without expanding the availability of safe drug-use sites or taking other measures.

“Instead of going after improvements, we go after restrictions,” Professor Oviedo-Joekes said. “That’s what is a bit frustrating here.”

“This is a health crisis, not a criminal one,” Ya’ara Saks, the federal minister of mental health and addictions, told reporters. “That being said, communities need to be safe. People need to have confidence of that in their own communities so they can move about freely and feel comfortable.”

The decriminalization of the possession of small amounts of drugs was a three-year exemption that started in January 2023, and was one of several measures by British Columbia to deal with its opioid crisis. The decriminalization plan was supported by police officials and the province’s chief coroner.

The use of drugs in public has long been a fact of life in parts of British Columbia, particularly Vancouver. Statistics from the city’s police force show that complaints about it have fallen since the start of the pilot program, but public use appears to have spread beyond the neighborhoods where it was most common before decriminalization.

“There have been several high-profile instances of problematic drug use at public locations including parks, beaches and around public transit,” Fiona Wilson, the deputy chief of the Vancouver Police Department , told a parliamentary committee last month. “In addition, there have been concerns from small businesses about problematic drug use.”

But, she added, police were unable to act on complaints after decriminalization: “If you have someone who is with their family at the beach and there’s a person next to them smoking crack cocaine, it’s not a police matter.”

In response, the provincial government first tried to ban public drug use last year in public places like parks, beaches, playgrounds and areas near workplaces. But a judge on British Columbia’s Supreme Court brought an injunction against the ban, and then ruled that it threatened to cause “irreparable harm” to drug users by pushing them to less safe areas.

David Eby, the province’s premier whose government faces an election this year, asked the federal government to again make public drug use a crime two weeks ago.

Garth Mullins, a member of the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users, said that the acute housing problems in the city mean that many of the province’s estimated 225,000 drug users do not have a private residence, and safe injection sites lack the capacity to deal with them.

“This is going to force people back into the alleys and into the shadows, and that’s not good,” he said. “It’s going to mean more people getting arrested, getting records and going to jail for simple possession.”

Mr. Mullins also disputed that public drug use had become a substantial problem in British Columbia since decriminalization.

“There is no data or evidence that there’s any actual danger to people,” he said. “So it’s all about feelings and these feelings are being whipped up by conservative politicians.”

Ian Austen reports on Canada for The Times based in Ottawa. He covers politics, culture and the people of Canada and has reported on the country for two decades. He can be reached at [email protected] . More about Ian Austen