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.

Several fallacies of prohibition lead people to support the alternative of decriminalization. Firstly, illicit drugs are still available and, in fact, have become cheaper, more potent, and easily accessible. Secondly, the illegal status of intravenous drugs, such as heroin, produces a short supply of needles, leading to the spread of HIV/Aids and Hepatitis C. Money spent on health costs to treat such diseases drains society as well as taxpayers’ wallets. Finally, the stigma attached to addicts, especially those with convictions, decreases one’s chances for education and employment.

Supporters of decriminalization have many other reasons why the current policy of prohibition is not working. One reason is the forbidden fruit factor. Quite simply, people want what they cannot have. That which is prohibited becomes an excuse for rebellion. The allure of wanting what you cannot have romanticizes drug use. The romantic notion glorifies drug dealers, who show off their expensive jewelry and designer clothing. Teenagers especially want to emulate this lifestyle and abandon legitimate jobs in search of quick cash. The entire lifestyle of drug use becomes glorified.

Another argument is the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal. Alcohol and tobacco account for approximately 20% of all yearly deaths in the United States alone. Marijuana, on the other hand, has no record in its entire history of death. While people have options to seek help for alcoholism and quitting smoking, it is difficult for users of illicit drugs to seek help because of the stigma surrounding illegal drugs. The addict is immoral and criminal, and therefore unworthy of medical attention.

A third factor is the amount of impurities currently found in illegal drugs. Many illegal drugs are cut with another substance in order for the dealer to increase his/her profit. This in turn increases the opportunities for unexpected effects as well as overdoses. If legalized, addiction would become a public health issue, and drugs could be controlled for purity and dosage. The government would enforce quality control.

Finally, the inability to conduct medical research on certain chemicals creates a strong argument for decriminalization. The illegality of recreational drugs consequently makes it illegal to pursue medical research on such substances. Schedule I drugs, such as marijuana, ecstasy, and LSD, have no medical value. Many drugs are thrown into this category before there is even a chance to do research. In fact, before made illegal, studies have shown ecstasy to be beneficial in treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

In conclusion, many factors are at play in the decriminalization debate. Although there are two existing viewpoints on how to approach the problem, one thing is clear: the criminal justice approach only demoralizes people. It makes it difficult for addicts to ask for help. It punishes the casual user with extreme mandatory minimum sentences. It overcrowds prisons with non-violent offenders. Although decriminalization has its benefits, it is still unfortunately not considered a serious alternative to prohibition within the United States by many individuals.