essay on decriminalization of drugs

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

student opinion

Should the United States Decriminalize the Possession of Drugs?

Several states have voted to reform their drug laws in response to the opioid epidemic and as a way to address high rates of drug-related incarceration. What do you think of this, and other, solutions?

By Nicole Daniels and Natalie Proulx

Students in U.S. high schools can get free digital access to The New York Times until Sept. 1, 2021.

Attitudes around drugs have changed considerably over the past few decades. Voters’ approval of drug-related initiatives in several states in the Nov. 3 election made that clear:

New Jersey, South Dakota, Montana and Arizona joined 11 other states that had already legalized recreational marijuana. Mississippi and South Dakota made medical marijuana legal, bringing the total to 35. The citizens of Washington, D.C., voted to decriminalize psilocybin, the organic compound active in psychedelic mushrooms. Oregon voters approved two drug-related initiatives. One decriminalized possession of small amounts of illegal drugs including heroin, cocaine and methamphetamines. (It did not make it legal to sell the drugs.) Another measure authorized the creation of a state program to license providers of psilocybin.

What is your reaction to these measures? Do you think more states — or even the entire country — should decriminalize marijuana? What about other drugs?

In “ This Election, a Divided America Stands United on One Topic ,” Jonah Engel Bromwich writes about the growing support to decriminalize drugs in the United States:

Election night represented a significant victory for three forces pushing for drug reform for different but interlocking reasons. There is the increasingly powerful cannabis industry. There are state governments struggling with budget shortfalls, hungry to fill coffers in the midst of a pandemic. And then there are the reform advocates, who for decades have been saying that imprisonment, federal mandatory minimum sentences and prohibitive cash bail for drug charges ruin lives and communities, particularly those of Black Americans. Decriminalization is popular, in part, because Americans believe that too many people are in jails and prisons, and also because Americans personally affected by the country’s continuing opioid crisis have been persuaded to see drugs as a public health issue.

Then, Mr. Bromwich explores the history of the “war on drugs”:

President Nixon started the war on drugs but it grew increasingly draconian during the Reagan administration. Nancy Reagan’s top priority was the antidrug campaign, which she pushed aggressively as her husband signed a series of punitive measures into law — measures shaped in part by Joseph R. Biden Jr., then a senator. “We want you to help us create an outspoken intolerance for drug use,” Mrs. Reagan said in 1986. “For the sake of our children, I implore each of you to be unyielding and inflexible in your opposition to drugs.” America’s airwaves were flooded with antidrug initiatives. An ad campaign that starred a man frying an egg and claiming “this is your brain on drugs” was introduced in 1987 and aired incessantly. Numerous animal mascots took up the cause of warning children about drugs and safety, including Daren the Lion, who educated children on drugs and bullying, and McGruff the Crime Dog, who taught children to open their hearts and minds to authority figures. In 1986 Congress passed a law mandating severe prison sentences for users of crack, who were disproportionately Black . In 1989, with prison rates rising, 64 percent of Americans surveyed said that drug abuse was the most serious problem facing the United States. The focus on crack meant that when pot returned to the headlines in the 1990s, it received comparatively cozy publicity . In 1996, California voters passed a measure allowing for the use of medical marijuana. Two years later, medical marijuana initiatives were approved by voters in four more states.

Students, read the entire article, then tell us:

Do you think marijuana should be legal in the United States? Do you think the country should decriminalize the possession of small amounts of other drugs, like heroin, cocaine and methamphetamines, as Oregon did this election cycle? Why or why not?

What do you think might be the potential dangers of decriminalization? Do you think it will increase the number of people abusing drugs? Will it downplay the threat that drugs pose, especially to children? Could it pose safety risks, like traffic accidents and violence ? Which of these dangers would you be most worried about and why?

What do you think might be the benefits of decriminalization? Do you think it will encourage people to get treatment for addiction ? Will it reduce drug violence, or keep more nonviolent people out of prison? Will it allow the government to regulate drugs, as it does alcohol and tobacco? Could it reduce government spending, stimulate the economy and create jobs ? Which of these benefits would be most important to you and why?

In your opinion, do the benefits of decriminalization of drugs outweigh the risks? Why or why not?

How do you feel about drug use in your community and state? Do you know if there is a concern about addiction or overdose in your region? Do you think decriminalization would benefit your community?

Jay Z: 'The War on Drugs Is an Epic Fail'

Why are white men poised to get rich doing the same thing african-americans have been going to prison for.

TRANSCRIPT In 1986, when I was coming of age, Ronald Reagan doubled down on the War on Drugs that had been started by Richard Nixon in 1971. Drugs were bad, fried your brain. And drug dealers were monsters, the sole reason neighborhoods and major cities were failing. No one wanted to talk about Reaganomics and the ending of social safety nets, the defunding of schools, and the loss of jobs in cities across America. Young men like me who hustled became the sole villain and drug addicts lacked moral fortitude. And in the 1990s, incarceration rates in the U.S. blew up. Today we imprison more people than any other country in the world. China, Russia, Iran, Cuba—all countries we consider autocratic and repressive. Yeah, more than them. Judges’ hands were tied by “tough on crime” laws and they were forced to hand out mandatory life sentences for simple possession and low-level drug sales. My home state of New York started this with Rockefeller Laws. Then the Feds made distinctions between people who sold powder cocaine and crack cocaine—even though they were the same drug. Only difference is how you take it. And even though White people used and sold crack more than Black people, somehow it was Black people who went to prison. The media ignored actual data. To this day, crack is still talked about as a Black problem. The NYPD raided our Brooklyn neighborhoods while Manhattan bankers openly used coke with impunity. The War on Drugs exploded the U.S. prison population, disproportionately locking away Black and Latinos. Our prison population grew more than 900%. When the War on Drugs began in 1971, our prison population was 200,000, today it is over 2 million. Long after the crack era ended, we continued our war on drugs. There were more than 1.5 million drug arrests in 2014, more than 80% were for possession only. Almost half were for marijuana. People are finally talking about treating an addiction to harder drugs as a health crisis, but there’s no compassionate language about drug dealers. Unless of course we’re talking about places like Colorado, whose state economy got a huge boost by the above ground marijuana industry. A few states south in Louisiana, they’re still handing out mandatory sentences to people who sell weed. Despite a booming and celebrated 50 billion legal marijuana industry, most states still disproportionately hand out mandatory sentences to Black and Latinos with drug cases. If you’re entrepreneurial and live in one of the many states that are passing legalized laws, you may still face barriers to participating in the above ground economy. Venture capitalists migrate to these states to open multi-billion dollar operations, but former felons can’t open a dispensary. Lots of times those felonies were drug charges, caught by poor people who sold drugs for a living, but are now prohibited from participating in one of the fastest growing economies. Got it? In states like New York, where holding marijuana is no longer grounds for arrest, police issue possession citations in Black and Latino neighborhoods at a far higher rate than other neighborhoods. Kids in Crown Heights are constantly stopped and ticketed for trees. Kids at dorms in Columbia, where rates of marijuana use are equal to or worse than those in the hood, are never targeted or ticketed. Rates of drug use are as high as they were when Nixon declared this so-called war in 1971. Forty-five years later, it’s time to rethink our policies and laws. The War on Drugs is an epic fail.

In a 2016 Op-Doc, “ The War on Drugs Is an Epic Fail ,” Jay-Z explores the question, “Why are white men poised to get rich doing the same thing African-Americans have been going to prison for?” The featured article also addresses this same issue:

Even as public opinion has changed, law enforcement still aggressively polices the possession of drugs — even legal drugs — by Black people, who, according to an American Civil Liberties Union report released earlier this year, are more than 3.5 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than white people. As of March of this year, 20 percent of the more than two million incarcerated people in the United States were imprisoned because of drug offenses. Many of those people have not been convicted of any crime, and are held in local jails after arrest.

How should state and local governments attempt to address this racial disparity? Should they reduce drug-related sentences, or even acquit those previously convicted? Should people previously convicted of drug offenses be allowed to participate in the now-legal drug business in many states?

About Student Opinion

• Find all our Student Opinion questions in this column . • Have an idea for a Student Opinion question? Tell us about it . • Learn more about how to use our free daily writing prompts for remote learning .

Students 13 and older in the United States and the United Kingdom, and 16 and older elsewhere, are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

Nicole Daniels joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2019 after working in museum education, curriculum writing and bilingual education. More about Nicole Daniels

Natalie Proulx joined The Learning Network as a staff editor in 2017 after working as an English language arts teacher and curriculum writer. More about Natalie Proulx

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Decriminalization of Drugs — Decriminalizing Drugs: the Social and Cultural Implications

Decriminalizing Drugs: The Social and Cultural Implications

• Categories: Decriminalization of Drugs

About this sample

Words: 632 |

Published: Jan 25, 2024

Words: 632 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, history of drug criminalization, social implications of decriminalizing drugs, cultural implications of decriminalizing drugs, shifting the conversation around addiction and substance abuse.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1222 words

6 pages / 2615 words

3 pages / 1370 words

1 pages / 618 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Decriminalization of Drugs

In conclusion, the potential impacts of decriminalizing all drugs on public health and safety are significant. By reducing stigma, increasing access to treatment, and shifting the focus from punishment to harm reduction, [...]

The State and federal government spend a lot of funds on running prisons, jails, and parole for drug-related charges. Decriminalization of drugs would reduce the number of arrests made on drugs and related charges; law [...]

As a college student, one of the most pressing issues facing society today is the debate surrounding the decriminalization of drugs. This essay will seek to explore the economic implications of decriminalizing drugs, including [...]

The European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR) is an international treaty which was drafted in 1950 in order to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms within Europe. Many countries signed up to this convention including [...]

The Central African Republic (CAR) continues to work towards the capacity of the government in regards to human trafficking. Various aspects such as violent conflict, extreme poverty, strong demand for labor in the informal [...]

In 1946 the World HealthOrganisation (WHO) defined health as a ‘state of complete physical, mental and social well-being. This definition integrates the main concepts of health and identifies that health can be viewed [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Decriminalizing drug use is a necessary step, but it won’t end the opioid overdose crisis

Assistant Professor in the School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University

Disclosure statement

Alissa Greer receives funding from Simon Fraser University and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Dr. Greer is an assistant professor in the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University, a research affiliate at the Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, and a senior associate at Bunyaad Public Affairs.

Simon Fraser University provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA.

Simon Fraser University provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR.

View all partners

Media, policy-makers, advocates and the public claim that decriminalization will make drug use safer and save lives . But can it?

Decriminalization has been somewhat of a policy buzzword in recent years, with ample media coverage . It comes with both public and government support.

A 2020 survey of more than 5,000 Canadians showed that the majority (59 per cent) favour the decriminalization of drugs . The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has also publicly supported decriminalization, along with British Columbia’s chief public health officer .

Such support has also come with action. This year, the City of Vancouver submitted an application to Health Canada for an exemption from Canada’s Controlled Drugs and Substances Act — a policy reform referred to as the Vancouver Model of decriminalization .

An alternative response

In the simplest terms, decriminalization is an alternative response to criminal penalties for simple possession. The most recent data shows there were over 48,000 drug-related offences in Canada in 2019, most of which were for possession for personal use.

The criminalization of drugs results in significant health, social and economic harms , particularly to those who are homeless, experiencing mental health issues, racialized or Indigenous. By eliminating a criminalized response to drug possession, drug policy reform efforts can minimize the contact between people who use drugs and the criminal justice system, and may increase their connection to health and social systems .

However, alongside recognition of the ineffectiveness of criminalization and support for an alternative model, we need to be realistic with our expectations of what decriminalization can do.

Decriminalization versus regulation

Decriminalization does not mean that people can buy cocaine and heroin at the store as they would alcohol and tobacco. Only legal regulation can do that. Legal regulation, which drug policy advocates endorse , includes rules to control who can access what drug and when, as opposed to a free market or full legalization.

An example of legalization is Canada’s Cannabis Act , which provides a legal framework to control the production, sale and possession of cannabis.

Unlike legal frameworks applied to the supply of drugs, decriminalization does not promote a “safer supply” of drugs. The overdose crisis is driven by an unpredictable, illegal drug supply that is marked with adulterants, contaminants and other substances . Decriminalization won’t directly impact this supply of drugs, they will continue to be made in unregulated ways and places.

The illegal drug market will continue to be criminalized, unpredictable and precarious, and people will continue to be unsure of what’s in their drugs (in lieu of better drug checking services or how potent they are. Under a decriminalized model, the overdose risk will inevitably remain high.

That said, decriminalization is still a necessary step in addressing the crisis.

The benefits of decriminalization

Decriminalization changes the way we think about drugs. Drug use will no longer be treated as a criminal issue, but instead a health and social one . This means that instead of addressing drugs through handcuffs, the focus will be on the root causes of drug use, including inequities rooted in housing and health care.

Decriminalization saves governments money. A large proportion of the justice system — police, courts, prisons — are occupied with drug-related crimes . As seen in other decriminalized jurisdictions such as Portugal , it can reduce the demands and costs to this system.

Considering the demonstrated need for addiction and mental health resources, the money saved could be well spent elsewhere, such as community-led responses, health care, housing and social programs.

Decriminalization positively impacts people’s lives. Especially for those targeted by drug law enforcement, namely poor, homeless and racialized people who use drugs, decriminalization can have a positive impact .

For example, eliminating criminal records related to drug possession offences promotes opportunities for people to access employment and housing. Interactions between people who use drugs and police can also be reduced or, better yet, won’t happen at all.

Decriminalization reduces stigma. Negative views towards drugs and people who use them is a major factor in the overdose crisis . By reshaping the way our family, friends and the medical profession think about drugs, drug use can be talked about more openly and honestly.

Reducing stigma can also encourage people who use drugs to talk to their doctors about prescription-based therapies. At the very least, it will help bring drug use out from isolation, where fatal overdoses tend to be the highest .

Decriminalization encourages people to call 911 at the scene of an overdose. Fear of police is currently a barrier to this. Although people cannot be charged with simple possession at the scene of a drug overdose under drug-related Good Samaritan laws , fear of the police is still a deterrent . Legislation that decriminalizes drug possession can reassure people that they will not face criminal penalties. And police will no longer need to respond to calls about overdoses.

Decriminalization is harm reduction. Although some people fear that decriminalization may increase or encourage drug use, this concern is simply not supported by evidence. We know from dozens of countries, states and cities that have decriminalized drugs that use does not significantly increase . In some places, it has actually decreased .

Decriminalization also lowers overdose and disease rates, while increasing people’s access to social services and health care. In this way, a decriminalization model is a basic harm reduction approach, mitigating the harms experienced by people who use drugs by eliminating or minimizing the source of those harms: criminalization.

A critical step

Overall, the notion of decriminalization is not a panacea or a standalone solution to the harms of drug prohibition — but it is a critical step in the right direction. It will have a positive impact on the lives of so many people who are harmed daily from criminalization.

However, in recognizing the limitations of decriminalization models , governments and other stakeholders can refocus efforts on what does directly impact the overdose crisis: a safer supply. Decriminalization must be paired with greater access to safer pharmaceutical alternatives to the toxic and illegal drug market.

That’s what will save lives.

Caitlin Shane, staff lawyer at Pivot Legal Society, co-authored this article.

• Harm reduction
• Opioid crisis
• Health Canada
• Illegal drugs
• Decriminalization

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 181,100 academics and researchers from 4,924 institutions.

Register now

Decriminalization of Drugs Essay

• 4 Works Cited

For many years, a real push has been looming on the idea of legalizing now illegal drugs. This has become a hot debate throughout nations all over the world, from all walks of life. The dispute over the idea of decriminalizing illegal drugs is and will continue on as an ongoing conflict. In 2001, Drug decriminalization in all drugs, including cocaine and heroin , became a nationwide law in Portugal (Greenwald). Ethan Nadelman, essayist of “Think again: Drugs,” states his side of the story on the continuing criminalization of hard drugs, in which he stand to oppose. Whether it is for the good of human rights or not, decriminalizing drugs may be a good head start for a new beginning. Ethan Nadelman first states that the “Global War on Drugs …show more content…

Furthermore, Drug control is relevant to disease control. By this, I mean, since the usage of illegal drugs could bring an addict one step closer to an incurable disease, it has been brought to my attention that drug control and disease control have similarities of preventing one another. As you can see, Global War on Drugs may be far from winning to become executed. It’s hard to say that the population of the Earth would agree to such action, but the fact that it saves lives may help them reconsider. After all, drug addicts have brains; therefore, if they want to live life to the fullest, first step they should take would be to refute the continued criminalization of hard drugs. Another dispute over Nadelman’s writing is his comment on a strategic plan to reduce the demand for drugs. Nadelman thinks that reducing the demand for illegal drugs is impossible. Sure, there has never been a “drug-free society,” and more drugs are being found every year, but that does not mean there is zero possibility. In February 1998, former U.S. president Bill Clinton set a goal to cut national drug demand in half by the year of 2007 (“Reducing Demand for Drugs”). In order to commence the development of effective drug demand reduction, rapid evaluation of the nature and scope of drug abuse problem could be conducted in particular country or region. In addition, The Obama administration’s new drug strategy aims at

War on Drugs in America Essay

In the essay “America’s Unjust Drug War” by Michael Huemer, Huemer discusses the facts and opinions around the subject on whether or not the recreational use of drugs should be banned by law. Huemer believes that the American government should not prohibit the use of drugs. He brings up the point on drugs and how they harm the users and the people in the user’s life; he proves that the prohibition on drugs in unjust. Huemer believes that drug prohibition is an injustice to Americans’ natural rights and questions why people can persucute those who do drugs.

Drug Use And Drug Related Public Health Concerns Essay

Countries all over the world are dealing with a rise of drug use and drug-related public health concerns. Many nations adopt vaguely similar methods of battling the “War on Drugs”, from strict border control to harsh criminal punishments for drug-related offenders, violent or not. Even with these efforts put in place, many places are not seeing the desired results. Drug use is mainly treated like a crime, and that may be the problem. Countries that have concerns with rising drug use among their citizens should follow Portugal in decriminalizing the possession and use of small quantities of all illicit drugs.

The Modern War On Drugs

In the past forty years, the United States has spent over $2.5 trillion dollars funding enforcement and prevention in the fight against drug use in America (Suddath). Despite the efforts made towards cracking down on drug smugglers, growers, and suppliers, statistics show that addiction rates have remained unchanged and the number of people using illegal drugs is increasing daily (Sledge). Regardless of attempts to stem the supply of drugs, the measure and quality of drugs goes up while the price goes down (Koebler). Now with the world’s highest incarceration rates and greatest illegal drug consumption (Sledge), the United States proves that the “war on drugs” is a war that is not being won.

Abstinence vs. Harm Reduction

Western countries struggle with the control of drug abuse. America, for example, has been failing with eliminating or reducing the chronic issues of drug abuse and crimes associated with drugs. America’s goal around these problems consistently has been complete

Mass Incarceration War On Drugs

Drugs have been a problem in the country for a long time. Issues with drugs even existed in ancient times. However, through the War on Drugs, the media created a panic about the issue, making citizens believe drug abuse was an exponentially growing new epidemic in the United States. Although the War on Drugs was declared in 1982 and was intended to reduce the rates of drug abuse in the US, America’s drug problem increased dramatically over the next years (Bagley, 1988).

Richard Nixon War On Drugs

Some people believe the drug war is too harsh and needs a new system for stopping the transportation and recreational use of drugs(becker and Murphy C.1). While the current government's method has more of a no tolerance view that most find to be the only way to stop these crimes(becker and murphy C.1).

Persuasive Essay On Decriminalization Of Drugs

We should decriminalize drugs in the U.S. instead of legalizing them. Decriminalization refers to the lessening of criminal penalties of certain acts. According to De Marneffe, “… the legalization of drugs … [is] the removal of criminal penalties for the manufacture, sale, and possession of large quantities of recretational drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine” (346).

Essay SHOULD WE FAVOR DRUG LEGALIZATION

      In the article “Drug Policy and the Intellectuals,” William J. Bennentt, chides intellectuals who believe drugs should be legalize. Bennett challenges his audience , by attacking intellectuals. However Bennett tries to win over his audience of intellectuals in two ways: by calling upon their talents and by attacking on the arguments of intellectuals who favor legalizing drugs. .He shows an understanding of others’ viewpoints by addressing points of opposition several times during the article. Bennett demonstrates knowledge of the subject by supporting

Persuasive Essay On Drug Decriminalization

Just Say No.” This phrase was uttered in 1982 by Nancy Reagan, the first lady of the United States, in response to a schoolgirl’s question of what she should do if offered drugs (Weinraub A5). These words became the slogan for a nationwide substance abuse prevention program that followed the then recently enacted drug policies intended to discourage the manufacture, sale, and use of illicit drugs in the United States. These zero tolerance policies carried harsh penalties and strict enforcement for all drug related offenses. Almost four decades later, these policies are still in effect, as is their focus on criminalization as a means to reduce the availability and usage of drugs. Their ineffectiveness is evidenced by the facts that drug use rates have remained steady over the past four decades and incarceration rates have exponentially rose during that same period. I believe that a new course of action should be taken, and a bold new drug policy should be enacted. Decriminalization would result in a substantial decrease of the prison population, relieve the unnecessary burden that has been placed on our criminal justice system, shift the paradigm from drug enforcement to drug treatment, reduce the health risk of HIV, AIDS, and heroin related deaths; and provide unprecedented benefits from the regulation of the manufacturing and sales of substances that are currently illegal.

Legalization of Drugs Argument Essay

Man, as a creature, is inherently bored. Since the dawn of time, it has been the

Legalizing Drugs Essay

Drug legalization is an enduring question that presently faces our scholars. This issue embraces two positions: drugs should not be legalized and drugs should be legalized. These two positions contain an array of angles that supports each issue. This brief of the issues enables one to consider the strengths and weakness of each argument, become aware of the grounds of disagreement and agreement and ultimately form an opinion based upon the positions stated within the articles. In the article “Against the Legalization of Drugs”, by James Q. Wilson, the current status of drugs is supported. Wilson believes if a drug such as heroin were legalized there would be no financial or medical reason to avoid heroin usage;

decriminalize drugs Essay

One the many controversies in our country today, regards the prohibition of illegal narcotics. Deemed unhealthy, hazardous, and even fatal by the authorities that be; the U.S. government has declared to wage a “war on drugs.” It has been roughly fifteen years since this initiative has begun, and each year the government shuffles more money into the unjust cause of drug prohibition. Even after all of this, the problem of drugs that the government sees still exists. The prohibition of drugs is a constitutional anomaly. There are many aspects and sides to look at the issue from, but the glaring inefficiency current laws exude is that any human should have the right to ingest anything he or she desires. The antagonist on the other end

Essay On Decriminalization Of Narcotics

In the past few decades the issue of narcotics and its distribution has become increasingly alarming. While Luxembourg is not a major hub for illicit narcotics distribution, isolated incidents related to narcotics do occur, and we recognize the need to impose sanctions to keep the issue of narcotics under control. National surveys conducted in Luxembourg have shown that the prevalent use of all common illicit drugs have shown a decline in the past decade, with the notable exception of cocaine, which has shown an increase, and cannabis still being the most used illicit drug among young people, making that a concern to us. The majority of illicit substances consumed in Luxembourg originate from the Netherlands, Belgium and Morocco, supplying mainly cannabis and synthetic drugs, and Luxembourg is hoping to coordinate with nations internationally to help reduce that.

The War On Drugs A Human Rights Violation?

A multibillion dollar industry, with a consumer population of about 125 to 203 million people; the drug industry affects lives of all racial, ethnic, economic , social background, including participants in the drug industry, addicts, teenagers, parents, families, and officers of the law. Many people have encountered an experience with drugs and or drug education; the shared experience regarding the discussion of this topic or illegal experience brings importance to this current issue and validates the proposal for change. How much change, what change and how long will the change take place. Although this issue has many perspectives and opinions on how the war on drugs could be “won”, I will focus on two perspectives: drug criminalization and drug legalization. In a Human Rights lens, I will discuss the limitations and strengths of both methods. In the opinion of some and with hindsight the status quo regarding drugs requires reform in order to reverse the unintended consequences of drug prohibition. In the opinion of others criminalizing participants in the drug trade should be penalized under the law.

It’s easy to lose track of the chaos that happens in the world on a day to day basis when your main priority is deciding what to eat for lunch tomorrow, or even dreading your next shift; yet we can turn on the news and hear about the most recent overdose and not even blink an eye. The blatant disregard for drug addicts today is at an ultimate high. In the past two years alone, more people have died from opiate addiction than they have in the entire Vietnam War. The fact that drug users are seen as lower class members of society as only aided in the increase of addiction and death, killing more Americans than HIV/AIDS did at its peak. Though the epidemic did not occur overnight, it has recently become one of America’s biggest health confrontations. Although there is no absolute solution, in order to decelerate the prevailing wave of usage and overdose/death, decriminalization in correlation to government funded programs could give ease to the definition of the word “epidemic”.

Related Topics

• Drug addiction

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.10(9); 2020

Original research

Impact evaluations of drug decriminalisation and legal regulation on drug use, health and social harms: a systematic review, ayden i scheim.

1 Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

2 Centre on Drug Policy Evaluation, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Nazlee Maghsoudi

3 Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Zack Marshall

4 Social Work, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Siobhan Churchill

5 Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

Carolyn Ziegler

6 Library Services, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

7 Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA

Associated Data

bmjopen-2019-035148supp001.pdf

bmjopen-2019-035148supp002.pdf

bmjopen-2019-035148supp003.pdf

To review the metrics and findings of studies evaluating effects of drug decriminalisation or legal regulation on drug availability, use or related health and social harms globally.

Systematic review with narrative synthesis.

Data sources

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science and six additional databases for publications from 1 January 1970 through 4 October 2018.

Inclusion criteria

Peer-reviewed articles or published abstracts in any language with quantitative data on drug availability, use or related health and social harms collected before and after implementation of de jure drug decriminalisation or legal regulation.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts and articles for inclusion. Extraction and quality appraisal (modified Downs and Black checklist) were performed by one reviewer and checked by a second, with discrepancies resolved by a third. We coded study-level outcome measures into metric groupings and categorised the estimated direction of association between the legal change and outcomes of interest.

We screened 4860 titles and 221 full-texts and included 114 articles. Most (n=104, 91.2%) were from the USA, evaluated cannabis reform (n=109, 95.6%) and focussed on legal regulation (n=96, 84.2%). 224 study outcome measures were categorised into 32 metrics, most commonly prevalence (39.5% of studies), frequency (14.0%) or perceived harmfulness (10.5%) of use of the decriminalised or regulated drug; or use of tobacco, alcohol or other drugs (12.3%). Across all substance use metrics, legal reform was most often not associated with changes in use.

Conclusions

Studies evaluating drug decriminalisation and legal regulation are concentrated in the USA and on cannabis legalisation. Despite the range of outcomes potentially impacted by drug law reform, extant research is narrowly focussed, with a particular emphasis on the prevalence of use. Metrics in drug law reform evaluations require improved alignment with relevant health and social outcomes.

Strengths and limitations of this study

• This is the first study to review all literature on the health and social impacts of decriminalisation or legal regulation of drugs.
• We systematically searched 10 databases over a 38-year period, without language restrictions.
• The review was limited to study designs appropriate for evaluating interventions, nevertheless, most included studies used relatively weak evaluation designs.
• Included outcomes were heterogeneous and not quantitatively synthesised.
• Heterogeneity in the details and implementation of decriminalisation or legal regulation policies was not considered in this review.

Introduction

An estimated 271 million people used an internationally scheduled (‘illicit’) drug in 2017, corresponding to 5.5% of the global population aged 15 to 64. 1 Despite decades of investment, policies aimed at reducing supply and demand have demonstrated limited effectiveness. 2 3 Moreover, prohibitive and punitive drug policies have had counterproductive effects by contributing to HIV and hepatitis C transmission, 4 5 fatal overdose, 6 mass incarceration and other human rights violations 7 8 and drug market violence. 9 As a result, there have been growing calls for drug law reform 10–12 and in 2019, the United Nations Chief Executives Board endorsed decriminalisation of drug use and possession. 13 Against this backdrop, as of 2017 approximately 23 countries had implemented de jure decriminalisation or legal regulation of one or more previously illegal drugs. 14–16

A wide range of health and social outcomes are affected by psychoactive drug production, sales and use, and thus are potentially impacted by drug law reform. Nutt and colleagues have categorised these as physical harms (eg, drug-related morbidity and mortality to users, injury to non-users), psychological harms (eg, dependence) and social harms (eg, loss of tangibles, environmental damage). 17 18 Concomitantly, a diverse and sometimes competing set of goals motivate drug policy development, including ameliorating the poor health and social marginalisation experienced by people who use drugs problematically, shifting patterns of use to less harmful products or modes of administration, curtailing illegal markets and drug-related crime and reducing the economic burden of drug-related harms. 19

Given ongoing interest by states in drug law reform, as well as the recent position statement by the United Nations Chief Executives Board endorsing drug decriminalisation, 13 a comprehensive understanding of their impacts to date is required. However, the scientific literature has not been well-characterised, and thus the state of the evidence related to these heterogeneous policy targets remains largely unclear. Systematic reviews, including two meta-analyses, are narrowly focussed on adolescent cannabis use. Dirisu et al found no conclusive evidence that cannabis legalisation for medical or recreational purposes increases cannabis use by young people. 20 In the two meta-analyses, Sarvet et al found that the implementation of medical cannabis policies in the USA did not lead to increases in the prevalence of past-month cannabis use among adolescents 21 and Melchior et al found a small increase in use following recreational legalisation that was reported only among lower-quality studies. 22

Given increasing interest in quantifying the impact of drug law reform, as well as a lack of systematic assessment of outcomes beyond adolescent cannabis use to date, we conducted a systematic review of original peer-reviewed research evaluating the impacts of (a) legal regulation and (b) drug decriminalisation on drug availability, use or related health and social harms. Our primary aim is to characterise studies with respect to metrics and indicators used. The secondary aim is to summarise the findings and methodological quality of studies to date.

Consistent with our aim of synthesising evidence on the impacts of decriminalisation and legal regulation across the spectrum of potential health and social effects, we conducted a systematic review using narrative synthesis 23 without meta-analysis. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed in preparing this manuscript. 24 The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017079681) and can be found online at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=79681 .

Search strategy and selection criteria

The review team developed, piloted and refined the search strategy in consultation with a research librarian and content experts. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, PAIS Index, Policy File Index and Sociological Abstracts for publications from 1 January 1970 through 4 October 2018. We used MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms and keywords related to (a) scheduled psychoactive drugs, (b) legal regulation or decriminalisation policies and (c) quantitative study designs. Search terms specific to health and social outcomes were not employed so that the search would capture the broad range of outcomes of interest. See online supplemental appendix A for the final MEDLINE search strategy. For conference abstracts, we contacted authors for additional information on study methods and to identify subsequent relevant publications.

Supplementary data

We included peer-reviewed journal articles or conference abstracts reporting on original quantitative studies that collected data both before and after the implementation of drug decriminalisation or legal regulation. We did not consider as original research studies that reproduced secondary data without conducting original statistical analyses of the data. We defined decriminalisation as the removal of criminal penalties for drug use and/or possession (allowing for civil or administrative sanctions) and legal regulation as the development of a legal regulatory framework for the use, production and sale of formerly illegal psychoactive drugs. Studies were excluded if they evaluated de facto (eg, changes in enforcement practices) rather than de jure decriminalisation or legal regulation (changes to the law). This exclusion applied to studies analysing changes in outcomes following the US Justice Department 2009 memo deprioritising prosecution of cannabis-related offences legal under state medical cannabis laws. Eligible studies included outcome measures pertaining to drug availability, use or related health and social harms. We used the schema developed by Nutt and colleagues to conceptualise health and social harms, including those to users (physical, psychological and social) and to others (injury or social harm). 18

Both observational studies and randomised controlled trials were eligible in principle, but no trials were identified. There were no geographical or language restrictions; titles, abstracts and full-texts were translated on an as-needed basis for screening and data extraction. We excluded cross-sectional studies (unless they were repeated) and studies lacking pre-implementation and post-implementation data collection because such designs are inappropriate for evaluating intervention effects.

Data analysis

Screening and data extraction were conducted in DistillerSR (Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Ontario). We began with title-only screening to identify potentially relevant titles. Two reviewers screened each title. Unless both reviewers independently decided a title should be excluded, it was advanced to the next stage. Next, two reviewers independently screened each potentially eligible abstract. Inter-rater reliability was good (weighted Kappa at the question level=0.75). At this stage, we retrieved full-text copies of all remaining references, which were screened independently by two reviewers. Disagreements on inclusion were resolved through discussion with the first author. Finally, one reviewer extracted data from each included publication using a standardised, pre-piloted form and performed quality appraisal. A second reviewer double-checked data extraction and quality appraisal for every publication, and the first author resolved any discrepancies.

The data extraction form included information on study characteristics (author, title, year, geographical location), type of legal change studied and drug(s) impacted, details and timing of the legal change (eg, medical vs recreational cannabis regulation), study design, sampling approach, sample characteristics (size, age range, proportion female) and quantitative estimates of association. We coded each study-level outcome measure into one metric grouping, using 24 pre-specified categories and a free-text field (see figure 1 for full list). Examples of metrics include: prevalence of use of the decriminalised or regulated drug, overdose or poisoning and non-drug crime.

Metrics examined by included studies. excl., excluding.

We also categorised the estimated direction of association of the legal change on outcome measure(s) of interest (beneficial, harmful, mixed or null). These associations were coded at the outcome (not study) level and classified as beneficial if a statistically significant increase in a positive outcome (eg, educational attainment) or decrease in a negative outcome (eg, substance use disorder) was attributed to implementation of decriminalisation or legal regulation, and vice versa for harmful associations. The association was categorised as mixed if associations were both harmful and beneficial across participant subgroups, exposure definitions (eg, loosely vs tightly regulated medical cannabis access) or timeframes. Although any use of cannabis and other psychoactive drugs need not be problematic at the individual level, we categorised drug use as a negative outcome given that population-level increases in use may correspond to increases in negative consequences; we thought that this cautious approach to categorisation was appropriate given that such increases are generally conceptualised as negative within the scientific literature. For outcomes that are not unambiguously negative or positive, the coding approach was predetermined taking a societal perspective. For example, increased healthcare utilisation (eg, hospital visits due to cannabis use) was coded as negative because of the increased burden placed on healthcare systems. The association was categorised as null if no statistically significant changes following implementation of drug decriminalisation or legal regulation were detected. We set statistical significance at a= 0.05, including in cases where authors used more liberal criteria.

Quality assessment at the study level was conducted for each full-length article using a modified version of the Downs and Black checklist 25 for observational studies ( online supplemental appendix B ), which assesses internal validity (bias), external validity and reporting. Each study could receive up to 18 points, with higher scores indicating more methodologically rigorous studies. Conference abstracts were not subjected to quality assessment due to limited methodological details.

Patient and public involvement

This systematic review of existing studies did not include patient or public involvement.

Study characteristics

As shown in the PRISMA flow diagram ( figure 2 ), we screened 4860 titles and abstracts and 213 full-texts, with 114 articles meeting inclusion criteria ( online supplemental appendix C ). Key reasons for exclusion at the full-text screening stage were that the article did not report on original quantitative research (n=59) or did not evaluate decriminalisation or legal regulation as defined herein (n=23). Details of each included study are presented in online supplemental table 1 . Included studies had final publication dates from 1976 to 2019; 44.7% (n=51) were first published in 2017 to 2018, 43.9% (n=50) were published in 2014 to 2016 and 11.4% (n=13) were published before 2014.

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram.

Characteristics of included studies are described in table 1 , both overall and stratified by whether they evaluated decriminalisation (n=19) or legalisation (n=96) policies (one study evaluated both policies). Most studies (n=104, 91.2%) were from the USA and examined impacts of liberalising cannabis laws (n=109, 95.6%). Countries represented in non-US studies included Australia, Belgium, China, Czech Republic, Mexico and Portugal. The most common study designs were repeated cross-sectional (n=74, 64.9%) or controlled before-and-after (n=26, 22.8%) studies and the majority of studies (n=87, 76.3%) used population-based sampling methods. Figure 3 illustrates the geographical distribution of studies among countries where national or subnational governments had decriminalised or legally regulated one or more drugs by 2017.

Characteristics of studies evaluating drug decriminalisation or legal regulation, 1970 to 2018

*Combined total exceeds number of studies because some evaluated both decriminalisation and legal regulation.

†One global study and one multi-country European study including Belgium and Portugal.

Number of included studies from countries that implemented decriminalisation or legal regulation by 2017. Note: Policy changes were classified, following the review inclusion criteria, based on the implementation of a change to national or subnational law to decriminalise drug use and/or possession or to legalise at least one class of drugs. We did not evaluate the extent to which legal changes were reflected in policing and criminal justice practice. Implementation of cannabis legalisation for medical purposes only is not reflected in this map.

Study quality

Quality assessment was performed for the 93 full-length articles included in the review, excluding 21 conference abstracts ( online supplemental table 1 ). Scores ranged from 7 to 18 of 18 possible points, with a mean of 14.4 (SD=2.56). Quality scores were similar comparing US to non-US-based studies ( X =14.4 and 13.7, respectively, p=0.386) but higher for studies evaluating legal regulation ( X =14.8) versus decriminalisation ( X =12.8) (p=0.003). Study quality differed significantly (p<0.001) by the direction of the association with the outcome of interest, with higher quality scores among studies estimating mixed ( X =15.4) or beneficial ( X =15.2) versus null ( X =14.2) or harmful ( X =13.1) effects of legal change on the outcome of interest. Study quality did not appear to increase over time (eg, X =14.0 in 2014 and 14.4 in 2018).

Study outcome measures and metrics

Across 114 studies we extracted 224 outcome measures, which were coded into 32 metrics ( figure 1 ). The most common metric employed by studies was the prevalence of use of the decriminalised or legally regulated drug, which was examined in 39.5% of studies (n=45) and represented 22.3% of outcome measures (n=50). Of these studies, 13 (28.9%; 8 full-length articles and 5 abstracts) did not report any other metric 26–38 and an additional 6 studies (13.3%) reported on the prevalence of use in addition to a single drug-related perception metric (either harmfulness or availability). 39–44 The second most common metric was the frequency of use of the decriminalised or legally regulated drug (14.0% of studies, n=16) and the third was the prevalence or frequency of use of tobacco, alcohol or drugs that remained illegal (12.3% of studies, n=14). The fourth most commonly employed metric was any change in the perceived health harmfulness of using the decriminalised or regulated drug (10.5% of studies, n=12), which was assessed among adolescents or young adults in all studies except for one that assessed this metric among parents. 45

All other metrics were assessed in <10% of included studies. Health service utilisation was evaluated in 7.9% of studies (n=9) using 12 outcome measures, primarily related to emergency department visits and/or hospitalisations. Prescribed (primarily opioid) drug use and perceived availability of the decriminalised or legally regulated drug were reported in 7.0% of studies each (n=8). Overdose or poisoning by the decriminalised or regulated drug, and by other drugs (predominantly opioids), were examined in 5.3% (n=6) and 6.1% of studies (n=7), respectively. Driving while under the influence or with detectable concentrations of the decriminalised or regulated drug (cannabis) was examined in seven studies (6.1%) inclusive of eight outcome measures. Notably, one study assessed self-reported impaired driving, 46 while others assessed the proportion of fatally injured drivers screening cannabis-positive or the overall prevalence of driving with detectable tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations in blood. Remaining metrics were measured in less than 5% of studies ( figure 1 ). Some pre-specified metrics were not represented in any of the articles, including infectious disease incidence (eg, HIV, hepatitis C), environmental impacts (eg, drug production waste, discarded needles) and labour market participation.

Studies outside the US

Of the 10 studies conducted outside the USA, 6 focussed on cannabis decriminalisation. All three studies from Australia examined the prevalence of cannabis use post-decriminalisation, 31 34 47 while one also measured perceived cannabis availability. 47 Following cannabis decriminalisation, one European multi-country study including Belgium and Portugal examined the prevalence of cannabis use and uptake of cannabis-related addictions treatment 48 and one Czech study considered the age of first cannabis use. 49 An international study using United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime data from 102 countries compared availability, as reflected by cannabis seizures and plant eradication, in countries that had decriminalised cannabis versus those that had not. 50 Three non-US studies evaluated decriminalisation of all psychoactive drugs. Two studies from Portugal examined healthcare and non-healthcare costs and psychoactive drug prices, respectively. 51 52 One study from Mexico examined drug-related criminal justice involvement (arrests) and (violent) crimes. 53 Finally, a study of historic opium legalisation in China (1801 to 1902) measured the price and availability (quantity of exports) of opium before and after legalisation. 54

Impacts of decriminalisation and legal regulation

Results of individual studies are provided in online supplemental table 1 . Online supplemental table 2 tallies findings and average quality scores for each of the metrics; here we summarise findings for metrics examined in more than 5% of studies, in descending order based on the number of datapoints. Across all three substance use metrics (prevalence of use, frequency of use and use of other alcohol or drugs), drug law reform was most often not associated with use (with null findings for 48.0% to 52.4% of outcome measures falling under these metrics). With respect to change in perceived harmfulness of the decriminalised or regulated drug, mixed results were found in half of cases, with heterogeneity detected on the basis of age, gender and state. 39 43 55–57 For example, legal regulation of cannabis for medical use was associated with greater perceived harmfulness of cannabis among eighth graders but not older students in an analysis of US Monitoring the Future data 39 while a study employing US National Survey on Drug Use and Health data found greater perceived harmfulness of cannabis among young adults aged 18 to 25 but not adolescents aged 12 to 17. 57

Among nine studies that employed health service utilisation metrics, harmful effects were reported for 6 of 12 outcome measures, with increases in emergency department visits and/or hospitalisations attributed to decriminalisation or legal regulation. 58–63 However, all but one of those studies 58 assessed change over time in one jurisdiction, without a control group. Further, two studies that also examined changes in acute care use for non-cannabis drugs found reductions in those visits or admissions following cannabis decriminalisation or legal regulation. 60 64 In contrast, six of nine prescription drug use associations were beneficial, with reductions observed in rates of opioid 65–69 and other drug prescribing 70 71 attributed to legal regulation of cannabis for medical use; outcomes in this category came from studies of higher average quality ( X =16.3). Perceived availability of the decriminalised or regulated drug appeared largely unaffected by decriminalisation (null associations for five of nine outcome measures) but two studies indicated increased perceived availability of cannabis among Colorado, US, adolescents following legal regulation for adult use 72 and among adults in US states with legal regulation for medical use. 44 Across the subset of seven outcome measures for overdose or poisoning by the decriminalised or regulated drug (cannabis), in all cases an increase in calls to poison control centres or unintentional paediatric exposures was reported. 59 73–77 However, studies assessing the impacts of cannabis regulation on overdose or poisoning by drugs other than cannabis concluded that the effects were either beneficial (four outcome measures 64 76 78 79 ) or mixed/null (three outcome measures 80–82 ). Driving with detectable concentrations of THC was most often found to increase following decriminalisation or legal regulation (five of eight outcome measures; 83–87 ), but these studies were of lower average quality ( X =12.0).

Impacts of decriminalisation

Of the 19 studies evaluating impacts of decriminalisation, six measured the prevalence of use of the decriminalised drug with eight unique outcome measures. No association was detected for all but three outcomes; following cannabis decriminalisation lifetime use increased among adults in South Australia, 31 while past-month use increased among 12 th graders but not younger students in California, 56 relative to the rest of the country in both cases. After peyote use for ceremonial purposes was decriminalised in the USA in 1994, self-reported use increased among American Indians. 88 Three studies evaluated relationships between decriminalisation and drug-related criminal justice involvement in Mexico and the USA. One high-quality study found that decriminalisation positively influenced criminal justice involvement: in five US states, arrests for cannabis possession decreased among youth and adults. 89 When possession of small amounts of cannabis was decriminalised in the 1970s in Nebraska, however, the mean monthly number of arrests did not change, while cannabis-related prosecutions increased among youth. 90 In Tijuana, Mexico, decriminalisation of all drugs had no apparent impact on the number of drug possession arrests. 53 Two historical and one recent study measured healthcare utilisation. US states that decriminalised cannabis in the 1970s saw greater emergency department visits related to cannabis, but decreased visits related to other drugs. 60 In Colorado, US, decriminalisation was associated with increased emergency department visits for cyclic vomiting. 62 Addiction treatment utilisation, healthcare and non-healthcare costs, driving after use, price of drugs, availability of drugs, frequency of use, attitudes towards use and perceived harmfulness were each evaluated in only one or two studies of decriminalisation.

This systematic review identified 114 peer-reviewed publications and conference abstracts evaluating the impacts of drug decriminalisation or legal regulation from 1970 to 2018. Within this search period, 88.6% were published in 2014 or later. This rapid growth in scholarship was driven by the implementation and subsequent evaluation of cannabis legalisation in a number of US states beginning in 2012, and knowledge production will surely continue to accelerate as longer-term data become available and as other jurisdictions (eg, Canada and Uruguay) analyse the effects of recently implemented cannabis legalisation. Indeed, a first study on the impacts of cannabis legalisation on adolescent use in Uruguay was published in May 2020 (finding no impact on risk of use 91 ). The present study provides an overview of the emerging literature based on our systematic review and suggests three key patterns.

First, peer-reviewed longitudinal evaluations of drug decriminalisation and legal regulation are overwhelmingly geographically concentrated in the US and focussed on cannabis legalisation. Importantly, the lack of non-US studies evaluating legal regulation of cannabis for medical use may reflect the more tightly controlled nature of medical cannabis regulation in other countries, and thus the more limited potential for population-level effects. It is notable that decriminalisation in the absence of legal regulation was evaluated in only 18 studies (15.8%), despite being far more common globally than legal regulation. These gaps may hamper evidence-based drug law reform in countries that are less well-developed, that play a substantial role in drug production and transit or that have different baseline levels of substance (mis)use as compared with the US.

Second, prevalence of use was the predominant metric used to assess the impact of drug law reform, despite its limited clinical significance (eg, much cannabis use is non-problematic) and limited responsiveness to drug policy. This is because ecological analyses have indicated little relationship between drug policies and prevalence of use, 52 as have studies assessing within-state change in use related to legal regulation. 21 These findings are supported by the preponderance of evidence synthesised in this review, although some variation is evident in relation to the specific provisions of legal reforms (eg, liberal vs tightly regulated medical markets 92 ). Impacts of legal cannabis regulation on prevalence and frequency of use continue to be evaluated, with recent data suggesting small increases among adults, but not youth. 93 Drug policies may be more able to influence the types of drugs that people use, drug-related risk behaviours and modes of drug consumption. 94 Metrics to assess these outcomes, however, were lacking in the reviewed literature. For example, only one study (0.8%) investigated whether legal regulation of cannabis was associated with changes in the mode of cannabis consumption. 72 Although the prevalence of use was often measured alongside more clinically or socially significant metrics (eg, prevalence of substance use disorders, educational outcomes among young adults), 42.2% of studies assessing substance use prevalence included that metric alone or in combination with a single drug-related attitude metric.

Third, there was a lack of alignment between the stated policy objectives of drug law reform and the metrics used to assess its impact in the scientific literature. For instance, removal of criminal sanctions to prevent their negative sequelae is a key rationale for decriminalisation and legal regulation, 12 13 95 but only four studies (3.5%) evaluated changes in drug-related criminal justice involvement following drug law reform. Similarly. improving the physical and mental health of people who (already) use drugs is a motivation for drug policy reform but no included studies examined mental or physical health outcomes (aside from substance use disorders) in this population. As a result, there is a risk that decisions on drug policy may be informed by inappropriate metrics. Promisingly, in recent months, additional studies assessing legal regulation that employ a range of criminal justice metrics have been published. 96–98 Finally, despite ample evidence of the impact of criminalisation on infectious disease transmission and acquisition risks, 5 we found no studies evaluating the impact of decriminalisation on these outcomes.

Both the included studies and our systematic review have important strengths and limitations. To our knowledge, we conducted the first review of all global literature on decriminalisation and legal regulation and applied no language restrictions. All eligible articles identified were published in English; this may reflect a paucity of evaluation research published in other languages and/or limitations of our search strategy (eg, some non-English journals may not be indexed in the 10 databases searched). In addition, we excluded grey literature, non-original research and study designs that are not suited to evaluating policy effects (eg, cross-sectional studies), but these restrictions narrowed the geographical scope of included studies. For example, two articles on Portugal were excluded as non-original research, but nevertheless provide important insight on impacts of decriminalisation. 99 100 Despite restricting eligibility to more rigorous study designs, most included studies used relatively weaker eligible designs that are known to be vulnerable to pre-existing trends and confounding; only 22.8% and 5.3%, respectively, used controlled before-and-after or interrupted time series designs to address these threats to validity. The use of these study designs may be related to limited resources for prospective drug policy evaluations, with many studies relying on publicly available, routinely collected data. That the US is unique in the extent to which data on drug use and related harms are routinely collected helps to explain its over-representation in our review. Scoping reviews inclusive of grey literature and cross-sectional designs would be valuable for describing the full range of evaluations that have been conducted globally.

While beyond the scope of our high-level synthesis, the implementation and specific provisions of drug policies vary widely. Decriminalisation policies vary in their definitions of quantities for personal use, application of administrative penalties and the extent to which the law ‘on the books’ is reflected in policing and criminal justice practice. Indeed, in some jurisdictions with nominal decriminalisation, arrests for possession of small quantities of the decriminalised drugs remain routine. 53 Legal regulation models for cannabis are also heterogeneous. For example, policies legally regulating cannabis for medical use may or may not allow for legal dispensaries, and this provision has been shown to substantially modify the impact of legal regulation on cannabis use. 101 To the extent that individual studies employed crude exposure measures (eg, presence vs absence of a law), they may have obscured context-dependent effects of drug law liberalisation. Further, the impact of drug laws on drug use and related outcomes may be limited by a lack of public awareness of the details of local laws. 102

Our use of vote-counting in this synthesis (ie, categorising individual outcome measures as indicating beneficial, harmful, mixed/subgroup-specific or no statistically significant associations) is subject to the same limitation. Vote-counting should also be interpreted with caution in light of the heterogeneity of outcome definitions, the inherent arbitrariness of statistical significance thresholds and the key distinction between statistical and clinical significance. In addition, many included studies are evaluating the same policies (eg, cannabis legalisation in western US states), sometimes using overlapping data but drawing different conclusions based on analytical choices and timeframes. The existence of multiple datapoints for a particular outcome does not imply that the outcome has been well-studied across diverse contexts such that scientific consensus on its effects has been reached. Moreover, as illustrated by a recently published extension of the included article by Bachhuber et al , 79 multiple high-quality studies may generate results that are later revealed to be spurious as additional follow-up data become availability. Specifically, Shover et al demonstrated that the positive association reported between medical cannabis legalisation and opioid overdose mortality in 1999 to 2010 reversed direction in later years, suggesting that earlier findings of a protective effect should not be given causal interpretations. 103 This was foreshadowed in the included article by Powell et al , which found that the purportedly positive effect of medical cannabis legalisation was attenuated in 2010 to 2013. 82 This scientific back-and-forth can be expected given that most included articles are evaluating legal changes introduced rather recently, and thus are examining early impacts with limited years of follow-up. Longer-term impacts of non-medical cannabis legalisation, and how they might be influenced by increased commercialisation, are yet to be seen. 104

The findings of this review indicate a need for a broadening of the metrics used to assess the impacts of drug decriminalisation and legal regulation. Given the growing number of jurisdictions considering decriminalisation or legal regulation of psychoactive drugs, 14–16 the disproportionate emphasis on metrics assessing drug use prevalence, as well as the limited geo-cultural diversity in evaluations, are concerning. Experts have called for a more fulsome approach to evaluating drug policies in line with public health and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, with attention to the full breath of health and social domains potentially impacted, including human rights and social inclusion (eg, stigma), peace and security (eg, drug market violence), development (eg, labour market participation), drug market regulation (eg, safety of the drug supply) and clinically-significant health metrics (eg, drug-related morbidity). 105 Drawing on methods such as multi-criterion decision analysis, 19 the engagement of both scientists and policymakers in priority-setting may help to produce evidence that provides a more comprehensive understanding of the breadth of impacts that should be anticipated with drug law reform efforts. Funding will also be required to support rigorous prospective evaluations of legal reforms.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

The authors would like to thank Gelareh Ghaderi for assistance with screening and data extraction.

Twitter: @aydenisaac

Presented at: Presented at the International Society for the Study of Drug Policy (May 22, 2019) and the International Harm Reduction Conference (April 29, 2019).

Contributors: DW and AIS conceptualised and supervised the review. CZ designed and conducted the literature searches. AIS drafted the manuscript. SC, ZM and AIS conducted screening and data extraction. NM contributed to drafting the manuscript and developing figures. All authors contributed to interpretation of findings and revising the manuscript for important intellectual content.

Funding: This review was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) via the Canadian Research Initiative on Substance Misuse (SMN-139150), the MAC AIDS Foundation, and the Open Society Foundations. Ayden Scheim was supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Postdoctoral Fellowship. Nazlee Maghsoudi is supported by a CIHR Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship. Dan Werb is supported by a US National Institute on Drug Abuse Avenir Award (DP2- {"type":"entrez-nucleotide","attrs":{"text":"DA040256","term_id":"79190989","term_text":"DA040256"}} DA040256 ), a CIHR New Investigator Award, an Early Researcher Award from the Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science and the St Michael’s Hospital Foundation.

Map disclaimer: The depiction of boundaries on the map(s) in this article does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of BMJ (or any member of its group) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, jurisdiction or area or of its authorities. The map(s) are provided without any warranty of any kind, either express or implied.

Competing interests: None declared.

Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Patient consent for publication: Not required.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Data availability statement: All relevant data are contained within the article and supplementary materials.