In public drug policy conversations, decriminalization has too often been framed as a catch-all solution to drug-related issues, from overdose and stigma to health care access and public drug use. It’s easy to see why—especially in the heat of campaigns pushing for long-overdue reform—but overpromising can be dangerous.
While decriminalization is rightly celebrated as a progressive improvement to punitive drug laws, the global reality is messy: a patchwork of partial reforms, mixed results and models being measured against goals they were never designed to meet.
“We’ve developed this idea that decriminalization is some kind of magic bullet,” Professor Alison Ritter, AO, director of the Drug Policy Modelling Program at the University of New South Wales, told Filter. “It will reduce arrests—we can be confident about that. There is evidence to support it. But will it reduce overdose rates? Honestly, I don’t think it would.”
At the International Conference on Health and Hepatitis in Substance Users (INHSU) in October 2024, Ritter presented data from various decriminalization models, evaluating their impact across four areas: arrests, overdose, stigma and health care access.
Her conclusion: Decriminalization consistently reduces arrests and incarceration for people who use drugs, but its impact on other harms is less clear. Ritter’s message? It’s time to get real about what decrim can and can’t do.
It turns out, other advocates and experts are in agreement.
“We now have decriminalization in 59 jurisdictions in 39 countries, and the momentum is growing. But the actual policies vary a lot, with some much less effective and fair than others.”
Part of the problem lies in how the word “decriminalization” is used.
“In the US, a common misconception is confusing decriminalization with legalization,” Kellen Russoniello, director of public health at the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), told Filter. “People think it means you can walk into a store and buy drugs without consequences. But decriminalization is about removing criminal penalties for possession—not creating a regulated market.”
That challenge isn’t US-specific. To add to the confusion, decrim means very different things in different places: the removal of criminal charges, or their mere reduction; administrative fines instead of criminal penalties; mandatory diversion programs; police discretion; possession thresholds at different levels.
Sometimes it only covers specific drugs, such as cannabis or psychedelics. Sometimes it includes significant health care and social provision, but often not. And only sometimes does it come alongside legalization.
“We now have drug decriminalization in 59 jurisdictions in 39 countries, and the momentum towards this approach is growing,” Jamie Bridge, deputy director of the International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC), told Filter. “But the actual policies themselves vary a lot, with some much less effective and less fair than others.”
“The toxic drug supply is not going to be addressed by decriminalization. If that’s what we’re really talking about, then we need to talk about models of safer supply.”
The wooliness of decriminalization as an umbrella term can quickly lead to misconceptions about policies’ expected impacts.
“For example, the toxic drug supply is not something that’s going to be addressed by decriminalization,” Russoniello said. “If that’s what we’re really talking about, then we need to talk about models of safer supply.”
What decriminalization can achieve—if the model is appropriately designed—includes reducing arrests, keeping people out of the criminal-legal system, and linking people to much-needed health care services. But badly designed policies and misguided public expectations can foster poor outcomes and political opposition.
To cut through the noise, IDPC created its Gold Standard of Decriminalization. The framework outlines six key pillars:
1. Don’t punish. Remove all sanctions for drug use and related activities, for all substances.
2. Support. Promote voluntary access to systems of care and support.
3. Community engagement. Meaningfully involve people who use drugs in design and monitoring.
4. Redress. Expunge previous convictions and develop reparations for affected communities.
5. Compliance. Comprehensively train authorities to ensure implementation and adherence.
6. Health & rights. Redirect resources away from punitive systems towards rights-affirming services.
As Russoniello noted, “fines and fees are something that disproportionately impacts low-income populations,” making it a vital element to address alongside other forms of punishment.
Sadly, no country is currently meeting IDPC’s Gold Standard in its entirety, Bridge noted, but some do come close.
“Alongside the removal of fines and sanctions, decriminalization should apply to all drugs, it should meaningfully involve the affected communities, and it should also address those previously convicted and impacted by criminalization in the past,” Bridge summarized. “Crucially, decriminalization should also be accompanied by proper training and monitoring for authorities to ensure it is done right, as well as by funding and support for voluntary health and social services to help people where needed.”
Sadly, no country is currently meeting IDPC’s Gold Standard in its entirety, Bridge noted, but some do come close.
One strong example he cited is Uruguay, where there are no sanctions, not even administrative ones, for people caught in possession of small amounts of any drug for personal use. And of course, you can’t talk about decrim without mentioning Portugal’s widely-discussed model.
The country removed criminal penalties for all drugs back in 2001, with reinvested funds from policing going to health and social supports, which drastically reduced arrests and did initially improve outcomes in other areas.
However, as Ritter pointed out, “In Portugal, early reforms were linked to health improvements, but these were largely driven by mandatory referrals to treatment—a model that is now widely unsupported. And while the country’s overdose rates initially dropped, they’ve since climbed, although they remain below the EU average.”
Regardless of the model—Gold Standard or otherwise—it is crucial to measure its impact against the goals it was actually designed to achieve, both to evaluate and if necessary adjust the local policy, and also to serve as an example from which other jurisdictions can learn.
“What we’ve seen in North America are examples where the promise of decriminalization was not realized.”
Two examples of decrim Filter has covered extensively are British Columbia and Oregon, where reforms were followed by political backlash and rollback.
In 2020, Oregon voters approved Measure 110, which decriminalized possession of small quantities of all drugs for personal use. After it took effect in early 2021, arrests for drug possession plummeted. As the new law also directed, hundreds of millions of dollars in cannabis tax revenue were channeled into services including substance use disorder treatment and harm reduction support.
“These did not have a stable source of funding in the state prior to Measure 110 passing,” explained Russoniello, whose organization, DPA (including through its advocacy arm, Drug Policy Action), was instrumental in the successful Measure 110 campaign.
But implementation was messy. Police weren’t trained. The public didn’t fully understand the changes. Services were often slow to roll out. And when the overdose crisis didn’t improve immediately, critics pointed fingers.
As Oregon’s overdose crisis continued—driven by an adulterated drug supply that remained unregulated—the law was scapegoated both for that and for broader issues, from homelessness to public safety, despite evidence it wasn’t the cause.
“Oregon has one of the highest rates of unsheltered homelessness in the country,” Russoniello said. “Decriminalization is not going to solve those bigger issues.”
In September 2024, drug possession in Oregon was criminalized once again.
In BC, meanwhile, advocates criticized the decriminalization model even before it took effect in January 2023. They pointed to how people who use drugs hadn’t had enough say in designing the policy, resulting in personal possession thresholds being set too low, the notion of people receiving health referrals from police officers, and the inclusion of only a limited list of drugs, among other issues.
After political pressure, the BC government practically ended its decriminalization pilot in May 2024, by re-criminalizing low-level possession in public spaces.
“What we’ve seen in North America are examples where the promise of decriminalization was not realized,” Ritter said. “There’s a lot of reasons for that, but part of it was being compared to the very high expectations that had been given to it.”
Globally, other recent U-turns on decriminalization have included Thailand.
“To be truly impactful, decrim should be accompanied by a serious investment in health and harm reduction services, as well as other supportive social policies.”
So how can such outcomes be avoided in future? Experts have a few suggestions. The first is to stop overpromising on what decrim can deliver.
“We’ve all been guilty of overstating the evidence,” Ritter said. “When advocates, researchers and community members push too hard on the promise of decrim, and the results don’t match the hype, we set ourselves up for backlash.”
Another imperative is making sure that the model of decriminalization is being evaluated and measured according to its own context and objectives.
“When we evaluate these models, we have to be clear about what was actually implemented,” Ritter said. “If a model still involves criminal justice responses—like fines or mandatory treatment—it shouldn’t be held up as true decriminalization, then dismissed as a failure when it doesn’t deliver everything we hoped for.”
It’s therefore vital to advocate for decrim as just one piece of the puzzle, and as part of a journey towards something better. It isn’t legal regulation, and it isn’t a cure for a wide range of social issues.
“One of the biggest mistakes we see is believing that decriminalization alone can fix a myriad of problems related to structural inequality and an unrelated drug market,” Bridge said. “It is an essential part of the solution but not the whole solution. To be truly impactful, decrim should be accompanied by a serious investment in health and harm reduction services, as well as other supportive social policies around housing, employment and reintegration.”
“Decriminalization is not a silver bullet. But it can be a powerful tool in the broader push for health, dignity and justice for people who use drugs.”
Despite the challenges and limitations of decrim, the good news is that even small advances can still change lives.
In Malaysia, where Ritter is currently advising on policy reform, the landscape is dominated by “grave concerns around methamphetamine,” she explained, and even a partial reduction in criminal penalties could have a significant impact.
A comparable example is Ghana, where recent reforms have reclassified drug use as a public health issue. Under the new law, prison sentences for personal possession have been replaced with fines.
While that doesn’t meet the Gold Standard of no sanctions, Bridge called it “a step in the right direction”—a sentiment Ritter echoed when assessing individual decrim policies: “Context is everything.”
Done right, decriminalization can reduce arrests, shrink prison populations and connect people to care. Done poorly, it risks doing none of those things—and even dragging the drug policy reform movement backwards.
“Decriminalization is not a silver bullet,” Ritter concluded. “But it can be a powerful tool in the broader push for health, dignity and justice for people who use drugs.”
Photograph (cropped) via Picryl/Public Domain
The Influence Foundation, which operates Filter, previously received a restricted grant from DPA. Filter‘s Editorial Independence Policy applies.
Show Comments