Drug decriminalization lowers or eliminates illegal drug use, possession, and distribution penalties. Drugs are neither authorized nor unregulated simply because they have been decriminalized. In its place, drug use, and possession are dealt with as public health issues instead of crimes. This may entail transferring drug users to treatment facilities rather than locking them up, lowering or removing the obligatory minimum punishments for drug-related offenses, and concentrating law enforcement resources on drug traffickers rather than specific drug users. The argument put up by many proponents of drug decriminalization is that doing so will lessen the negative consequences of the war on drugs, such as mass incarceration, racial imbalances in the criminal justice system, and the continuation of drug-related violence. Opponents counter that decriminalization would encourage drug usage and addiction (Félix and Portugal, p44).
California enacted Propositions 47 and 64 in 2014, changing some nonviolent drug offenses from felonies to misdemeanors and legalizing the use and sale of marijuana for recreational purposes in 2016. Due to these legal reforms, California is a more desirable location for visitors and drug users looking to sample marijuana. Although drug tourism is not new, some experts believe decriminalizing drugs may make it more common. Drug tourism has probably been affected in some way overall by California’s liberalization of drugs, especially concerning marijuana. However, the degree of this effect and the long-term effects of drug decriminalization on California’s tourism are still unknown (Walmsley, p18).
The following are some potential drawbacks of California decriminalizing marijuana and hallucinogens: Expanded accessibility and usage: The availability and use of marijuana and hallucinogens may grow when criminal penalties are lowered. This might result in increased rates of addiction and other detrimental health effects. Concerns about marijuana and hallucinogens’ potential to harm the public’s health include their potential to impair judgment when driving and to raise the likelihood of mental health problems. Decriminalizing these substances may make it more challenging to govern and control them, increasing public health issues. Increased criminal activity (Walmsley, p18): Decriminalizing marijuana and hallucinogens may increase criminal activity. As an illustration, drug cartels and other criminal groups might continue to traffic drugs illegally, resulting in violence and other criminal behavior. Workplace issues: Employers may be unsure how to react to staff members who use marijuana and hallucinogens, especially if they do so for medical reasons. Workplace safety and productivity issues could result from this. Young people may be affected: Decriminalization could convey to children and teenagers that using drugs is acceptable or beneficial. Driving While Intoxicated: Laws prohibiting driving while under the influence of drugs may become increasingly challenging to enforce as marijuana becomes legal. This might result in more collisions and fatalities from driving while under the influence of drugs (Sheppard and Lanoix, p34).
Decriminalizing marijuana and hallucinogens in California may have the following benefits: Decreased incarceration rates and the number of individuals serving time in prison for drug-related charges might dramatically decrease with decriminalization. This might lessen jail overcrowding and ease the strain on the criminal justice system. Public safety would be increased if there were fewer drug-related arrests and incarcerations. This would free up police resources to focus on more severe crimes and increase public safety. Economic advantages: Decriminalization may open up new business opportunities, such as opening authorized dispensaries for marijuana and hallucinogens. More jobs could be created, and additional tax money could be used for the state. Reduced racial disparities: The criminal justice system has large racial disparities because drug prohibitions are sometimes applied more harshly to individuals of color. Decriminalization might be able to lessen these differences and encourage more equity. Better health outcomes: Decriminalizing drugs like marijuana and hallucinogens may make them more accessible to persons who use them medically while lowering the danger of adverse health effects from consuming unregulated or tainted substances (Horowitz and Miller, p21).
The illegal drug market and criminal networks are not addressed by decriminalization. Also, there are worries that it would result in a rise in drug use; however, this is predicated on the idea that some people will be discouraged from using drugs by the current criminal sanctions. Marijuana and other narcotics will cost much less if legalized, and they will be available everywhere. There would no longer be any financial or medical justification to refrain from using drugs. The use of illegal substances contributes to a rise in crime. Better treatment, education, and research are required to reduce drug dependence and the negative impacts that drug use has on one’s health and society, rather than legalizing drugs. Drug criminalization seriously affects people’s health, communities, and economies, especially those who are homeless, struggling with mental health concerns, racialized, or Native Americans. Drug policy reform initiatives can reduce interactions between drug users and the criminal justice system while perhaps strengthening their ties to social and health institutions by doing away with a criminalized response to drug possession (Sheppard and Lanoix, p34).
According to the moral theory of utilitarianism, the ideal course of conduct is the one that maximizes overall happiness or well-being for the largest number of people. If drug decriminalization generally decreases harm and suffering for society, utilitarianism may imply that decriminalization is morally justified (Horowitz and Miller, p21).
Works Cited
Sheppard, Michel-Adrien, and Alain Lanoix. Decriminalization of Drugs. Information and Documentation Branch, Library of Parliament = Direction De L’information Et De La Documentation, Bibliothèque Du Parlement, 2018.
Evan SymonEvan V. Symon is the Senior Editor for the California Globe. Before the Globe. “California and Drug Decriminalization: A Long and Complicated Issue.” California Globe, 10 Mar. 2022, https://californiaglobe.com/fr/california-and-drug-decriminalization-a-long-and-complicated-issue/.
Walmsley, Ian. “Drugs Decriminalization.” Prohibitions and Psychoactive Substances in History, Culture, and Theory, 2019, pp. 190–208. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429289729-11.
Félix, Sónia, and Pedro Portugal. “Drug Decriminalization and the Price of Illicit Drugs.” International Journal of Drug Policy, vol. 39, 2017, pp. 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.10.014.
Horowitz, Daniel, and Joe Miller. “Decriminalization of Drugs Fueling Meth and Homelessness in California.” Restoring Liberty, Joe Miller Https://Joemiller.us/Wp-Content/Uploads/Logotext.png, 12 Feb. 2020, https://joemiller.us/2020/02/decriminalization-of-drugs-fueling-meth-and-homelessness-in-california/.
Bretteville-Jensen, Anne Line. “To Legalize or Not to Legalize? Economic Approaches to the Decriminalization of Drugs.” Drug Abuse: Prevention and Treatment, 2017, pp. 391–401. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315257341-25.
write