Clarifying debates about drug decriminalization

There are few terms that muddle drug policy conversations as much as “decriminalization,” especially in North America. The term is routinely used to describe very different policies—from removing criminal penalties for possession to effectively eliminating enforcement altogether—making it harder to evaluate evidence and have coherent policy discussions. This essay aims to reduce confusion about what decriminalization means and offer insights that will hopefully improve future policy debates.

Let’s start with some context and clarifications.

Many drug policy researchers, the International Narcotics Control Board, and the European Union Drugs Agency define decriminalization as a legal change that makes possession or use of small amounts of an illegal substance for personal use a noncriminal offense. That does not make possession legal or require police to ignore these violations. Decriminalization usually changes the penalty to a fine (like a traffic ticket) and/or referral to services (e.g., substance use disorder treatment).

Unlike legalization, which is typically used to describe changes that make possession, use, and some forms of supply legal, prohibition is still in effect with decriminalization.

Decriminalization is not new in the United States. States started decriminalizing cannabis possession in the 1970s, but the issue received renewed attention after Oregon passed Measure 110 (M-110) in 2020. One part of M-110 decriminalized possession and public consumption of controlled substances, and it was subsequently rolled back in 2024.

Outside the United States, some jurisdictions have decriminalized the possession of drugs beyond cannabis for decades.

Understanding decriminalization

Much of the confusion surrounding decriminalization stems from two issues: misuse of the term itself and the tendency to bundle decriminalization with other policy changes.

A few examples of how the term has been used too broadly in the North American context:

• Using decriminalization to describe reducing enforcement priorities. In the discourse about changing laws for certain offenses related to psychedelics, local policy changes in the United States that make enforcement a low or the lowest priority for law enforcement (more accurately referred to as “deprioritization”) have been incorrectly characterized as decriminalization by some advocates, media outlets, and researchers.
• Using decriminalization to describe eliminating any enforcement risk. British Columbia’s three-year “decriminalization” pilot program for opioids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA—which ended in January 2026—wasn’t decriminalization in the sense that possession was changed from a criminal to a civil offense.¹ Adults possessing small amounts of these drugs in certain settings were not arrested, charged, fined, or subjected to confiscation. Consumption was allowed in private residences, in some places offering services to people who use drugs, and in “places unhoused individuals are legally sheltering (indoor and outdoor locations).”

This British Columbia pilot was technically not decriminalization, deprioritization, or legalization of possession/consumption.² But one thing is clear: Eliminating any enforcement risk for possession and public consumption is very different from simply reducing possession from a criminal to a civil offense.

• Using decriminalization to describe allowing some form of legal supply. Both Oregon and Colorado have legalized the supply of psilocybin for supervised use in state-licensed facilities, and Colorado has gone further and allowed adults to cultivate, possess, use, and share psilocybin and some other plant-based psychedelics. These supply changes have been referred to as decriminalization by many sources, ranging from a government agency to a high-profile peer-reviewed journal.

• Using decriminalization to describe removing any penalties. Section 3 of the U.S. federal Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which would have removed cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act—meaning possession, production, processing, and marketing would no longer be illegal under federal law (and better described as “descheduling”)—was titled “Decriminalization of Cannabis.” The first sentence of the MORE Act’s official summary was “This bill decriminalizes marijuana,” which was then repeated by some advocates and media outlets.

The fact that decriminalization is sometimes implemented alongside other policy changes creates additional complexities, especially for researchers.

The classic example is Portugal, which implemented a long list of reforms in 2001 to combat a growing problem with HIV/AIDS, especially among people who injected drugs. Decriminalization was only one part of the strategy. Individuals caught with small amounts of drugs were referred to a committee that determined noncriminal responses, while the government adopted nearly a dozen other strategies that included expanding primary prevention and access to treatment programs, extending harm reduction measures, closing down open-air drug scenes, reinforcing the fight against drug trafficking and money laundering, and doubling public investment in the drugs field. A common—and sometimes intended—error is to attribute all the effects of this broader reform package solely to decriminalization, which was but one part of it.

Likewise, Oregon’s Measure 110 (reportedly modeled on Portugal’s approach) went beyond decriminalizing possession and consumption. It also infused money into services for people who use drugs (although this didn’t really take effect until a year or longer after decriminalization started) and reduced possession of larger quantities from a felony to a misdemeanor—a change more accurately described as “defelonization.” There was also an Oregon appellate court decision in 2021, which coincided with M-110’s implementation, that made it harder to convict those possessing large quantities of drugs, baggies, etc. for sales.

Decriminalization and drug use

Theoretically, the effect of decriminalization on drug consumption is ambiguous. Deterrence depends more on the swiftness and certainty of a sanction than on its severity, so reducing the severity of penalties alone may not necessarily lead to a substantive increase in use. In fact, if the police react to the lower penalty or the reduced effort it takes them to address possession offenses—it’s generally easier to write a ticket and enter it in a database than to book someone at the police station—by increasing the probability of detection, drug use may decline through deterrence and/or referrals to substance use disorder treatment and other services. Alternatively, if police see the reduced penalties as a signal that they should not enforce drug possession laws, this could further reduce the expected sanction and increase use. Stigma further complicates the picture. If decriminalization reduces the social stigma around drug use, it could reduce disincentives for using; however, the reduction in stigma may make it easier for people to talk about their drug problems and possibly seek help to reduce their use.

Empirically, the available evidence suggests that decriminalization does not have much of an effect on use. But there is an important caveat here: the bulk of the most rigorous research focuses on cannabis, and in many of these places, cannabis was not heavily punished before decriminalization. 

Decriminalization can reduce criminal justice costs and the burden of having a criminal record. In the United States, where those with drug arrests and convictions can face additional collateral consequences beyond what is typically associated with a criminal record—including access to some government services and programs in some places—decriminalization can have a meaningful impact for some individuals (and their families).

Considerations for decriminalization

Those considering or implementing decriminalization confront many decisions: Is it just for possession or does it include public consumption? Which drugs? What is the quantity threshold for possession to count as personal use? Does decriminalization only apply to a first or second offense?

While Oregon has reversed course (as well as British Columbia, though what took place was not decriminalization), decriminalization will likely continue to be a part of drug policy conversations in some parts of North America. I highlight four topics that I hope will feature in these discussions.

First, decriminalization does not require permitting public consumption. Even in Oregon, there are laws restricting public consumption of alcohol and cannabis. Some of the backlash in Oregon (and in British Columbia) was due to people openly using fentanyl and methamphetamine in parks, sidewalks, and other public spaces that negatively affected those living and working in these communities. Admittedly, there are major challenges when dealing with a large, unhoused population who confront barriers to using in private, but decriminalization should not be equated with permitting open-air drug use. And as this gets discussed, let’s be clear: not everyone who is unhoused is using drugs, and not everyone using in public is unhoused.

Second, decriminalization can coexist with police enforcement of drug laws. Decriminalization only changes the penalties for illegal conduct, not whether that conduct is illegal. In Oregon, those caught with controlled substances after decriminalization went into effect in February 2021 were subject to a fine (of no more than $100), and it could be waived if the individual underwent a health assessment (they did not have to accept or receive services). Because the physical assessment infrastructure was not in place when decriminalization went into effect, a telephone hotline was used instead. However, the vast majority of these violations did not result in payments, court appearances, or calls to the hotline. Early on, it was reported that some police agencies decided not to enforce possession laws because there were no consequences.

It does not have to be this way. For example, decriminalization could have started after the assessment centers were up and running. There is also a need to educate law enforcement about what is expected of them if possession is decriminalized and, just as important, engage with them about implementation challenges and opportunities.

Third, decriminalization need not undercut drug treatment courts. A drug treatment court requires defendants to participate in drug treatment with (typically) strong judicial oversight, often in lieu of incarceration. If possession is no longer a criminal offense that can lead to a meaningful sanction, this can reduce incentives for defendants to participate in drug courts. One option is to focus scarce drug court services on those with substance use disorders who are arrested or convicted of victimizing someone (e.g., theft, robbery, assault). That said, drug courts often exclude individuals who are arrested for a violent crime. While some studies suggest they can be beneficial for those arrested for a violent offense (and the community), the evidence base evaluating drug courts for this population is neither large nor strong. This is a ripe area for rigorous research.

Fourth, decriminalization does not need to be permanent. Jurisdictions could implement pilot programs or impose sunset clauses that would roll back decriminalization after a certain period unless a new law is passed. Thinking about the criteria—and methods—that will be used to study a decriminalization effort should be a part of any serious policy discussion.

In conclusion, as someone who has worked in the drug policy space for decades, I’ve been frustrated by how the term decriminalization is sometimes confused and misused by advocates, the media, policymakers, and some other researchers. Let’s either get on the same page with what decriminalization means or not use the term at all.