Omiotek 1

Alex Omiotek
250790265
Narcis B
Political Science 1020E 002 Wednesday
Nigmendra Narain
Illicit Drugs: The Argument for Decriminalization
One of todays hottest public policy debates involves the criminal status of drugs.
In the USA alone, approximately 80-90 million people have tried an illicit drug in their
lifetime. Over 400 000 citizens are in jail for drug charges, about 130 000 of them just
for possession alone.1 With progressive liberal views on drugs becoming ever more
common as time goes on, public opinion is starting to sway towards more relaxed views
on drug policy. There is still much resistance to this idea from more conservative
thinkers, but the evidence in favour of drug decriminalization is only growing stronger.
For this reason, I argue that the state should decriminalize all drugs for personal use.
In the present, the general human consensus is that using psychoactive drugs for
recreational purposes is frowned upon. Currently, most drugs are illegal due to laws in
every country banning the production, selling, or possession of them. The only
exception to this rule so far is Portugal, who decriminalized the possession of all drugs
on July 1, 2001. Citizens are allowed to carry on their person 10 days worth of the
average dose of any drug, with no threat of a criminal penalty. This is a far cry from the
drug policies of all other nations, especially Canada, but times are changing. Many
countries are slowly starting to adopt more relaxed approaches to drugs, or at least
cannabis (aka. marijuana). The Netherlands allows citizens to purchase marijuana from
coffeeshops, and possess up to 5g of it. The USA now has legal marijuana in the states
1Babor,

Thomas , et al., Drug Policy and the Public Good: A Summary of the Book,
Addiction 105.7, 2010, 21

Omiotek 2
of Colorado, Alaska, Washington, and Oregon. Uruguay is the first and only country to
have fully legalized the production, sale, and possession of marijuana. Will other
countries follow suit? We will find out in time.
To discuss this topic, one must first understand what decriminalization entails.
There is currently no official definition of it, but usually it refers to policy where it is not a
criminal offence to simply possess the drug; you cannot be sent to prison. Most often
the punishments given for possessing decriminalized drugs are either a warning, a fine
(similar to a parking ticket), or a treatment program.2 Decriminalization does not allow
for the production or sale of drugs; if either is suspected the individual may be sent to a
criminal court. This differs from legalization, which means that all aspects of a drug are
legal, allowing you to produce, sell, and possess it.
Legalization would mean a lot more freedom, but due to this it can be very
unpredictable and possibly cause unexpected results when switching to that policy style
from our current status quo. Decriminalization frees our currently overloaded criminal
justice system of non-violent offenders, allowing for law enforcement and the judicial
system to focus on more severe crimes like domestic violence. In doing this, it still does
not show that the state is condoning drug use because there is still a small penalty
attached to drug possession. Decriminalization is also a safer first step towards a more
sensible drug policy because it does not allow for the free reign of legalization, but
certain drugs like marijuana could be fully legalized in the future if it can be proven to be
a beneficial move.

2Kleiman,

Mark, Jonathan Caulkins, and Angela Hawken, Drugs and Drug Policy: What
Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011, 26-27.

Omiotek 3
Now that we have discussed what decriminalization means, there are four
exceptional reasons to decriminalize. The first is the harm principle. Conceived by John
Stuart Mill, the harm principle is the idea that the actions of individuals should only be
limited to prevent harm to others. Consider the idea of a middle-aged, successfully
employed citizen sitting in the basement of their house smoking a marijuana joint.
Similar to drinking a beer to unwind, the individual is only causing any potential harm to
their own self, not to anybody else in the process. Even consider a hard drug example,
like taking LSD or smoking crack cocaine in ones home. If done in private, what harm
are they causing to the public? It would violate the harm principle to coerce another
person in to consuming a dangerous drug, but unless that happens it is clear that drug
use should not continue to be criminalized because of its lack of harm to others.
Another reason for decriminalization is the promotion of treatment and access to
it. In Portugal, the view on drug addicts is that they are sick people who need to be
treated, while maintaining responsibility for their offence. Even the law enforcement
sector was supportive of decriminalization because it focused more on treatment than
punishment. In 1999, 6040 people used substitution treatment to wean off drug
addiction. In 2003 after decriminalization, Portugal saw that number jump to 14 877.
There were also more options for treatment, such as large increases of therapeutic
communities and half-way houses since 2001. People who are for the criminalization of
drugs state that this is evidence for worsening conditions, but the truth is in fact the
opposite. When the fear of a criminal penalty is taken away, the dirty stigma against
drug users is lifted, and addicts can feel comfortable seeking treatment instead of hiding

Omiotek 4
in the shadows.3 For those who do seek treatment, there is good evidence for a couple
of options. Opioid substitution therapy (OST) involves gradually lowering the amount of
the drug that the user takes and switching it for another which will not cause such a
heavy withdrawal. OST has been shown to lower overall mortality, lower the HIV
infection rate from dirty needles, and lower crime rates. For those with moderate-level
addiction or marijuana dependence, therapeutic communities have the next best level of
evidence for its success.4
Contrary to the guesses of many, decriminalization can actually reduce the rate
of drug use. When Portugal decriminalized, their intention was to focus on prevention,
not to condone drug use or increase the availability of them. In 2001, lifetime drug
prevalence rate for 7th-9th grade students was 14.1%. Five years later that number
dropped to 10.6%. In 1996 the lifetime drug prevalence rate in 10th-12th grade students
was 14.1%. In 2001 the number rose to 27.6%, only to lower to 21.6% in 2006 after
decriminalization.5 In fact, usage of all types of drugs lowered over a five year period.
Clearly the fears of many anti-drug organizations that kids would be more enticed to try
drugs after decriminalization is completely false. One possible reason for this is the
forbidden fruit effect. It is the idea that people (especially adolescents) are attracted to
an activity because it is forbidden and perceived as dangerous. Drugs are a prime

3Greenwald,

Glenn. Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and

Successful Drug Policies, Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2009, 15.
4Babor,

Thomas , et al., Drug Policy and the Public Good: A Summary of the Book,
Addiction 105.7, 2010, 105.
5Greenwald,

Glenn. Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and

Successful Drug Policies, Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2009, 11-12.

Omiotek 5
example, because of their illegality and culture of deviance. If you decriminalize drugs, it
takes away the coolness factor while still showing that drugs are not condoned.6
Finally, I must call upon a quote from Douglas Husak to introduce my next
argument: The best reason not to criminalize drug use is that no argument in favor of
criminalizing drug use is any goodno argument is good enough to justify
criminalization.7 When you take a look at the arguments given for criminalization, they
are sound in their claims but cannot possibly be strong enough to justify criminalization
of possessing drugs. Punishment must be regarded as the worst thing a state can do to
its citizens, a last resort option. Therefore, with all the aforementioned reasons, it is not
sensible to lock people in prison for possessing a drug; the damage caused by the
offence does not justify such severe punishments.
Looking at the contrary side of this argument, I have found four main defences
for the continued criminalization of drugs. The first of this is the paternalistic argument,
which remarks that the state should attempt to protect the well-being of every individual
to save them from potential injury. In particular, cocaine and methamphetamine increase
the risk of heart attack and stroke, and cause enhanced self-confidence and
aggression. This, predictably culminates in high-speed collisions, shootouts in parking
lots, and destroyed immune systems. Other drugs[such as] LSD can trigger lasting
psychosis.8 While I seriously doubt the frequency of drug-induced high-speed collisions
or parking lot shootouts, I do understand that drugs can severely harm ones body. But

6Husak,

Douglas, Four Points about Drug Decriminalization, Criminal Justice Ethics 22.1,
2003, 28.
7

Ibid., 23

8Sher,

George, On the Decriminalization of Drugs, Criminal Justice Ethics 22.1, 2003, 30.

Omiotek 6
the point of decriminalization is not to increase drug use, and I have shown that it
decreases drug use. Decriminalization allows for people to seek treatment for their
addictions without the fear of prosecution, and can save them from wasting their life in
prison.
A second argument is the protective argument. It goes that just as drugs can
harm the user, there is in fact the possibility of harming others. Examples given for this
view are the harm done to fetuses by drug-addicted mothers, or the neglect and abuse
of children by their drug-addicted parents.9 Again, this argument holds weight but it fails
to mention that many legal drugs can also cause these harms to others. Everyone
knows the depressing concept of an alcoholic father getting so drunk that he beats his
wife or children. The protective argument cannot properly justify the criminalization of
drugs for these reasons and not include alcohol or tobacco on their list, it would not
make for a sound argument. In addition, this argument wrongly assumes that drug users
are all severe addicts. A heroin addict may have a hard time abstaining during
pregnancy, but this would not likely be the case for non-physically addictive drugs such
as marijuana.
A further idea is the perfectionist argument, which reads that people agree it
would be bad to live your life in an intoxicated, distorted view of reality, unable to hold a
chain of reasoning. It would be wrong to waste your life, living passively without striving
to achieve goals, and disregard the needs and interests of those who rely on you, due
to caring more about seeking the repetition of pleasure instead.10 Drug users may

9Ibid.,
10

30-31

Ibid., 31

Omiotek 7
choose to live their entire lives in a drug-induced fantasy, but that is extremely unlikely.
The mind-altering effects of psychoactive drugs vary in their durations, but most are
short periods of being high, after which the individual will return to a normal state. It
would be ridiculous to imagine that decriminalizing drugs would create a drug zombie
epidemic, because something like that would already be possible with todays illegal
drug status, yet it does not occur. Furthermore, the use of softer drugs such as cannabis
do not need to be considered a waste of life, and the claim that drugs kill motivation are
clear propaganda. As I already stated, cannabis use can be directly compared to
alcohol use, where one can use a low to moderate amount to further enjoy a
recreational time with friends, not consume ones entire existence.
A final similar argument is that drugs should not be decriminalized because of the
nature of their use. Some view drugs as an inauthentic experience, which reward the
user with pleasure without their honest earning of such pleasure. Others see it as an
escape from real life.11 This is a flawed view, because the use of drugs can be
compared to legal and socially accepted activities of a similar nature. When one visits a
movie theatre, they pay a fee to watch a film and receive some form of pleasure from it.
People often go to the movies to escape from real life for a couple of hours. Is this
considered an inauthentic experience? Of course not. So why would it be wrong to pay
a fee to use a drug which allows you to get away from the working world and enjoy a
few hours of pleasure? This argument cannot be held as valid unless one were to agree
that activities such as buying new music to receive pleasure from the songs should be
outlawed.

11

Wolff, Jonathan, Ethics and Public Policy, London: Routledge, 2011, 73.

Omiotek 8
I have stated the reasons for my view that drugs should be decriminalized for
personal use, and I have responded to the main critiques of the decriminalization theory.
It is a clear case that personal use of drugs does not harm others, at least no more than
currently legal substances already do. Decriminalization allows for the state to maintain
that drugs are not good and that if one is addicted, they can freely reach out for
treatment without fear of a criminal record. This approach also allows for a gentler
transition in to full legalization of some or all drugs if it is determined that it would
provide a further benefit to society than decriminalization. With a lack of evidence for the
criminalization of drugs, decriminalization is the most sensible policy.

Omiotek 9
Bibliography
Babor, Thomas , et al., Drug Policy and the Public Good: A Summary of the Book,
Addiction 105.7, 2010.
Greenwald, Glenn. Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and
Successful Drug Policies, Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2009.
Husak, Douglas, Four Points about Drug Decriminalization, Criminal Justice Ethics
22.1, 2003.
Kleiman, Mark, Jonathan Caulkins, and Angela Hawken, Drugs and Drug Policy: What
Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Sher, George, On the Decriminalization of Drugs, Criminal Justice Ethics 22.1, 2003.
Wolff, Jonathan, Ethics and Public Policy, London: Routledge, 2011.