We should think through both of those.

Take punishment. As a deterrent and or motivator to avoid future problems, punishment makes sense.

...except when it doesn't. Take someone who would be doing fine had they got got themselves into a bad place using drugs.

Just being in that bad place and coming to acceptance on it is significant.

Punishing them isn't a corrective action though. It's more like a cost, more harm to avoid doing some other harm at best. And, when it has implications, like being unable to return to that pre-drug life because of the conviction, inability to work, etc...

Corrective actions, in my view, should be the outcome.

Punishment or not, the people in trouble need help. Trouble with this side of things is they won't always accept it, and or are not in any degree of acceptance about the trouble.

In both cases, we can pour a lot of resources, money and time into all this and leave a person worse off, and maybe with fewer options for recovery and a move back into just being an ordinary person living a reasonable life.

To me, avoiding those expensive outcomes is a very solid argument for decriminalization.

There still can be punishment post criminalization too. It's just not going to be spending years in a cage. Maybe it's worth some additional thought.

We could then still punish and potentially eliminate the bad outcomes, maybe break even or even save on costs, and more people have more options more of the time.

Reaching acceptance can take multiple cycles. Use, get in a bad place, use, bad, use... If, along the way, people maintain options, have hope, and or opportunity to accept and have real reasons, their own reasons to change, more would, more of the time without falling further away from that return to normal.

I am saying we would benefit from rethinking what punishment actually is, or what it could be, and how corrective actions could mean more opportunity for people to improve.

As it is now, punishment is often harsh, and it has it's own negative impact, distancing people away from a return to normal, making it harder for them to get past a bad time, out of bad habits.

Doesn't have to be that way.

And corrective actions, once the stigma of criminality is farther off the table, could expand into more and better opportunity for people to get out of a bad place more quickly, or with lower impact to their community, family.

Lastly, judgement.

This is perhaps the biggest gain with decriminalization. I am not saying we should not judge people for bad calls, living poorly. It sucks for them and people around them.

But, consider how it could go, using racism as an example, because it's easier for me to illustrate with:

Path A: "You sir, are a racist!"

Path B: "That comes across as racist to others, is that what you intended?"

Right out of the gate, acceptance means facing, owning, and recognizing the truth of the direct personal judgment; namely, being a racist.

That's a huge friction point! People won't do it and they have a ton of reasons for not doing it. Big problem space, and personally difficult.

We have a barrier between the undesirable behavior and someone making better choices, and it's there before we even get to the better choices part!

On path B, it's different. They aren't being called a racist, not being labeled, judged as a person. It's more about what they did and how it impacts others, or is perceived.

There still is a barrier, but it's a different sort. The door is open for things like:

"yeah, bad call, let's not go there"

At the very least, they can hear that feedback, express their intent isn't to be a racist, and then simply choose to make different choices in the future. Low friction.

Decriminalization is more like Path B. Lower friction, less judgement, people have options to improve, having to accept can be more on their terms, and if they do want to own up to the trouble, they could get help without so many ugly implications.