By decriminalizing drug possession in the UK, there would be reduced harm, improved public health, and policing would be less discriminatory.

The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Justice recently released statistics revealing that thousands of people receive criminal records annually for drug possession. Among them, over 10,000 individuals face immediate custodial sentences. The current approach to criminalizing drug possession not only squanders financial resources—funds that are poured into arrests, prosecutions, and convictions—but also neglects the opportunity to invest in cost-effective, evidence-based treatment for substance use disorders and housing solutions for those in need.

Portugal’s model offers a stark contrast. There, social inclusion of drug users has been pivotal in decriminalizing personal possession, reducing prison overcrowding, increasing engagement with treatment programs, and significantly lowering drug-related deaths and HIV transmissions. The United Nations has endorsed decriminalization as a strategy to enable drug users to access essential health services.

However, the situation in Middlesbrough serves as a cautionary tale. The closure of the Heroin Assisted Treatment service due to funding cuts has left patients vulnerable to relapse, forcing them back into the illicit market and the grip of criminalization. Critics, particularly conservatives, may argue that decriminalization could lead to increased drug use. Yet this claim warrants scrutiny. Effective deterrence must be swift and certain, but it does not necessarily need to be severe.

In practice, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service decide how to enforce drug laws. They can choose to pursue arrest and prosecution or opt for alternatives. A first offense might be met with no sanction, while repeated offenses could trigger criminal penalties. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, penalties range from conditional discharges to a maximum prison sentence of seven years. However, to substantiate the effectiveness of these sanctions as deterrents, comprehensive longitudinal and cross-sectional studies are urgently needed.

The harms associated with drugs such as benzodiazepines, cocaine, alcohol, and opiates are well-documented. All carry significant risks of overdose. Yet, evidence that criminalization reduces drug use remains elusive. On the contrary, criminalization may exacerbate the situation by creating a stigma that deters drug users from seeking health treatment. Therefore, it is not that criminalization has been beneficial, nor that decriminalization would be harmful.

Decriminalization efforts should begin with the repeal of subsections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Further amendments should include Section 23(2), removing police powers to search people or vehicles and to seize substances on the grounds of suspected possession. Additionally, references to Section 5(2) in Schedule 4 of the Act, which currently prescribes punishments for possession offenses, should be eliminated. Lastly, multiple references to sections 5(1) and 5(2) should be removed from the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001.

These revisions would not equate to the legalization of drugs. The proposed changes are limited to the offense of “simple possession,” excluding intent to supply and other related offenses, which would remain under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The key distinction of this amendment lies in differentiating between those who possess drugs for personal use and those who supply them, without focusing on the quantity or quality of the drugs.

While decriminalization of drugs like heroin and cocaine could alleviate several harms for users, cannabis presents its own set of challenges. It requires distinct regulation to reduce harm not only for users but also for those who have faced excessive policing due to its prohibition, particularly Black and brown communities.

The Court of Appeal has acknowledged that rights to freedom and privacy, as protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and codified in UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998, are relevant in these discussions. In the case of Regina v. Paul Simon Taylor, the defendant claimed that cannabis use was for religious purposes and thus protected under Articles 9(1) and 8(1). However, the Court ruled against him, citing Articles 8(2) and 9(2), which allow the state to limit these rights to protect public health and safety.

Meanwhile, incarceration appears to intensify the discrimination against drug users, perpetuating inherent violence and oppression fueled by criminalization. Shifting towards civil sanctions, treatment, and education could help dismantle institutionalized racist policing practices.

Ultimately, the debate over drug laws should be grounded in human rights, which must take precedence over religious and moral arguments regarding drug use.