Why You Should Be Pro-Drug Decriminalization Even if You are ‘Anti-Drug’
By: Thomas Brown
Tags: Culture, Drugs, Activism, Government, Politics

Claim: Drug decriminalization will lead to more people doing drugs, which is bad.

This is a commonly held belief. The assumption here is that the criminality of drug possession acts as a barrier to its use. Without that barrier, more people will start taking drugs as there is no legal consequence for doing so. This argument relies on the main underlying principle of crime and punishment; punish someone for doing something and they will be less likely to do it.

Response: Firstly, we already live in societies that actively advocate for people to do drugs. The pharmaceutical industry worldwide grossed $1.25 trillion USD in 2018. As a consequence of this reliance on the mass consumption of prescription drugs, these companies played a massive role in generating the opioid epidemic that decriminalization is in part trying to address. In 2017, “an estimated 1.7 million people in the United States suffered from substance use disorders related to prescription opioid pain relievers, and 652,000 suffered from a heroin use disorder (not mutually exclusive).”

Drug Stats for Portugal (1999 vs 2017) Sourced: Statista.com

But directly in response to the claim, simply put, there is no verifiable relationship between drug decriminalization and increased drug use. In one of the most popular examples of nationwide drug decriminalization, Portugal has since seen reduced drug usage in key demographics, such as in 15 to 24-year-olds. Following an explosion of heroin in the 1990s, the country decided to decriminalize the possession of all illicit drugs in 2001. Accompanied by other measures as well, such as drug dissuasion programmes, countries like Portugal and Czech Republic (another country with personal drug possession decriminalized) show that drug use rates can fall, or at worst stay the same, following the policy shift.

But drug use isn’t the only concern in this debate, however, and not the only measure of success for drug decriminalization…

Claim: I don’t want to have my tax dollar spent addressing the bad decisions of other people

This is a very common argument among people who might believe in an individual’s right to make their own choices, but don’t want to be impacted by other people’s decisions in any way. As a moral position, this is fairly understandable. This perspective makes even more sense when you consider that the National Institute of Drug Abuse estimated that drug abuse costs Americans around $740 billion USD annually.

Response: This number is clearly staggering. However, what would it look like if decriminalization took away the need for over-policing and allowed for the subsidization of programmes which could get people the help they need? This question has already been asked and answered in Alberta, Canada, resulting in a decision to wave fees for treatment addiction programmes. The Provincial government stated that for every $1 CAD put into these subsidies, $12 would be saved. While covering the $40 CAD a day fee clearly lifts a major barrier for those with lower incomes who want to access the programme, it also provides a greater economic benefit as through treating their addiction, the costs incurred of policing and further medical treatments are saved down the line.

Now, this is not an argument for decriminalization in of itself, however, what decriminalization would also do is remove barriers for people accessing these programmes thereby increasing the likelihood that they will seek help. Furthermore, there will be savings made in policing as well, as they are no longer spending time and resources pursuing and charging people for possession.

In the UK, an independent fact-checker found that relieving the Police Force of having to manage cannabis-related crimes alone would save the taxpayer around £600 million. In the US, according to a report published by the CATO Institute, the cost of policing low-level drug offenses came to around $4.28 billion in 2010, a number which would be radically reduced were the possession of small quantities of illicit drugs decriminalized.

Understanding these statistics, it should be no surprise that in some cases the Police themselves are calling for change. In 2018 the Canadian Association for Chiefs of Police President, Adam Palmer, came out urging Federal lawmakers to decriminalize the possession of small quantities of drugs. As he stated:

“”Arresting individuals for simple possession of illicit drugs has proven to be ineffective. It does not save lives.”

But just because it is decriminalized, it doesn’t mean all our drug-related problems are going away right? Isn’t there a chance that with newfound breathing room some criminals will become emboldened by the change? Well, let’s explore that idea…

Claim: Decriminalization will result in higher crime rates

Similar to the logic that with fewer barriers there would be increased drug usage, there is also a belief that with reduced policing crime rates would also go up. Some argue that this results from former drug-related criminals resorting to other forms of crime to sustain their income, and others claim that with possession being decriminalized criminals will exploit this lack of policing and increase their activities.

Response: On this specific point, much can be said about the importance of legalization as well as decriminalization. For anyone interested in this, I would encourage you to review the drug seizure stats coming from the US-Mexico border — however, that extends beyond the focus of this article. To cut a long story short, legalized marijuana led to far fewer cases of drug smuggling and related crime, versus during periods where increased policing and wall building were attempted.

But specifically in regards to decriminalization, evidence shows that the prohibition of drugs can actually increase crime rates, not decrease them. A study out of Boston University explains this trend occurs for a number of reasons, such as:

Drug possession taking police away from managing other types of crime

Criminalization leads to higher drug prices, which will lead to users engaging in criminal activity in pursuit of more funds

Drug users are less likely to pursue official dispute resolution channels for help. So, for instance, if a drug user was robbed, they are more likely to take matters into their own hands which will likely result in further criminal activity and/or violence

One study looking at the effects of crime in US-Mexico border towns with medical marijuana laws (MMLs) found that towns with MMLs in place experienced on average a 12.5% reduction in violent crimes. The reduction is experienced as Cartels and other gangs are less able to compete with the legitimate competition in the US. As the report concludes, going further than what was put in place through legislation like Measure 110 in Oregon, might be necessary — particularly in regions where crime rates are a major concern:

Our results indicate that decriminalization of the production and distribution of drugs may lead to a reduction in violence in markets where organized drug criminals meet licit competition.

Additionally, in a Canada focused study, it was found that violent crimes are more likely to occur under the influence of alcohol, rather than both alcohol and drugs, or drugs alone. Yet alcohol — an already legal drug — is widely accepted and embraced as a societal norm. There is no serious debate as to whether alcohol should be criminalized in order to dissuade people from committing violent crimes.

So, you might want to ask yourself, why is the inverse true with drugs?