Viewpoints in the Drug Decriminalization Debate

The United States currently approaches the drug problem within society with a criminal justice drug policy of prohibition. The objective behind such a policy is that those who use or distribute drugs will be severely punished. In essence criminal law is punishing immoral behavior. There are, however, several options available that target the war on drugs from a perspective other than prohibition.

If drugs were decriminalized, drug laws would still be intact, but non-violent addicts convicted of possession would receive treatment as opposed to a prison sentence. Addicts would be treated as diseased as opposed to criminals. Currently, treatment is only available to approximately 15% of addicts in the United States. Under decriminalization possession becomes an infraction as opposed to a felony. Dealer and violent addicts, however, would still face jail time. This course of action would not only decrease the overcrowded prison population, but it would also make drugs available to addicts from clinics, thereby reducing the demand for drug dealers.

There are two approaches to be considered if decriminalization were to occur. The first is the harm-reduction (public health) approach. The goal is to minimize social problems as well as health problems. Anything that reduces any risks to the user or society is beneficial. Under a harm-reduction policy, substances that are currently illegal would be placed under restrictions similar to alcohol and tobacco. Because the state would be regulating the production and distribution of drugs, the black market would disappear. Advocates of the harm-reduction policy also believe that no one should be denied health care based on behavioral reasons, such as a history of drug abuse. Supporters also promote programs such as methadone clinics, DanceSafe, and efforts to increase designated drivers because all these programs minimize the risks of harming one’s self.

The rights-based approach is the other perspective on the decriminalization debate. Advocates of the rights-based approach believe that the rights of an individual adult should be guaranteed out of respect to one’s moral values and rights. Essentially, a person has the right to put whatever he/she wants into his/her body in private places (i.e. in the comfort of one’s home). As long as it does not cause harm to another, the individual has the moral right to do whatever he/she wants to his/her body. Since drug use is a victimless crime, people should not be punished or prohibited for such behavior. Another argument supporting the rights-based approach is that it is one’s moral imperative to experiment with drugs. This ties into the belief that certain chemicals, mainly hallucinogens, produce an altered state that forces one outside the normal boundaries of human existence. One consumes drugs, therefore, in the name of human evolution. The rights-based approach also acknowledges people’s religious right to use mind-altering substances in a ritualistic fashion.