the phrase “You can’t legislate morality” has become a truism in American culture. The phrase refers, of course, to private behavior rather than immoral acts that impinge on the rights of others, such as robbery or murder.

Ironically, the great success of the “drys” in making prohibition so restrictive and total proved to be counterproductive, even an incentive to try the “demon drink.” Women who had never entered a bar and some whose temperance-minded sisters had tried to smash saloons with hatchets were now frequenting the illegal underground alcoholic nightclubs called speakeasies .

statistics show the rate of usage of harder drugs is much lower than the rate of use of marijuana, which suggests that most marijuana users never move on to more dangerous substances.

Opponents of decriminalization argue that legalizing marijuana would lead to a significant increase in drug use across the United States

In fact, in Colorado, where recreational marijuana was legalized in 2014, robberies decreased in Denver from 2013 to 2014.

studies have shown that marijuana is the least likely of the major illicit drugs to result in criminal activities of any kind (alcohol, on the other hand, has been implicated in a significant percent of violent crimes in the United States). Persons who are high on marijuana are unlikely to become violent.

69 percent of Americans questioned said that they thought alcohol was more was worse for health than marijuana.

In Colorado, the state brought in $423 million in tax money from legal marijuana sales in 2021 alone, while money from legal sales and marijuana-related tourism also poured into the economy. The state has sold more than $12 billion in marijuana since it became legal in 2014 and has collected more than $2 billion in taxes.

In California, which had legalized the recreational use of marijuana, reports showed that the state saved close to $30 million annually—funds that would otherwise be used to prosecute small-time marijuana offenders.

The enforcement of laws related to marijuana costs states an estimated $3.6 billion annually, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

Decriminalization refers to a reduction in or an elimination of the criminal classification or status of any activity considered a criminal offense. Decriminalization of drugs specifically refers to reducing or eliminating legal restrictions placed on the possession, distribution, and use of illicit substances, most notably marijuana .

halving the number of drug injectors with HIV and cutting crime.

Since then, overall drug use has fallen, HIV cases among drug users dropped, and overdose deaths are the second lowest in the E.U.

disproportionally

A recent survey found that 83 percent of Americans think the War on Drugs has failed and that 66 percent of voters support eliminating criminal charges for drug possession.

Since 1980, despite the significant increase in incarceration rates, studies have found no statistically significant correlation between drug imprisonment rates and the rate of drug use across most states. In fact, while around 65 percent of incarcerated individuals meet the medical criteria for drug addiction, only 11 percent receive treatment. The penalties for violating drug laws also extend far beyond imprisonment. The job market, for example, routinely discriminates against people with prior drug offenses. This leaves many without the possibility of meaningful employment. In fact, half of formerly incarcerated people are unable to find jobs in their first year after leaving prison.

Within America’s prisons, the policies have perpetuated cycles of poverty and unemployment in low-income communities

Black people are more than 3.5 times more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than their White counterparts, despite both groups using the drug at similar rates, and African Americans and Hispanics now make up more than 60 percent of the prison population.

Between 1980 and 1997, the number of people locked up for non-violent, drug-related crimes rose from 50,000 to 400,000.

Much of this legislation was racially discriminatory. For example, possession of five grams of crack cocaine, which was disproportionately consumed by African Americans, triggered an automatic five-year jail sentence, whereas 500 grams of powder cocaine, which was mostly consumed by richer, white demographics, merited the same punishment.

According to President Nixon’s domestic policy chief, John Ehrlichman, the Nixon campaign did not intend the legislation to be about drug reform itself, but was instead meant to oppress “the antiwar left and black people.” This revealed the truth about the War on Drugs: It was essentially a war on the poor and other marginalized people

The following year, in June 1971, Nixon officially declared a War on Drugs, telling Congress that drug addiction had become “a national emergency” and that drug abuse was now “public enemy number one.”

a 1969 Gallup poll found that 48 percent of respondents believed drug use was a “serious problem” in their communities, but the same survey revealed only 4 percent of American adults had tried cannabis.

et as the 1900s dawned, presidential administrations started to adopt a restrictive approach toward the recreational use of various drugs. For instance, the Smoking Opium Exclusion Act of 1909 — which targeted Chinese immigrants — banned the importation and use of opium for smoking, while in 1914, Congress passed the Harrison Act, which taxed the production and distribution of cocaine and various opiates.

Drug use has been prevalent in American society since the mid 1880s, when narcotics like morphine and laudanum were marketed to consumers as cure-all medications.

The report, by the Boston-based Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, found no link between safe injection sites and the rates of various crimes, though public drug use dropped off in some places.

OnPoint says staffers regularly foster, but don’t force, conversations about treatment, which many clients have already tried.

Collado has tried to quit drugs, stopping at times during his four decades of using, he said. Like many of people who use the consumption rooms, he lives on the streets. He and Baez look out for each other. They’ve helped one another solve problems, shared money when one was broke, and tried to make sure that neither would overdose and die alone. The room, and everything offered along with it, fill that last role now, and more. “This is my home right here,” Collado said. “This is my family.”

There have been no recorded deaths in supervised injection facilities in countries that permit them, and there’s some evidence linking them to fewer overdose deaths and ambulance calls in their neighborhoods, according to a 2021 report that compiled existing studies.

To Collado, 53, the room he uses regularly is simply “a blessing.” “They always worry about you, and they’re always taking care of you,” he says. “They make sure that you don’t die,” adds his friend Steve Baez. At 45, he’s come close a couple of times.

Jose Collado settled in at a clean white table in a sunlit room, sang a few bars and injected himself with heroin. After years of shooting up on streets and rooftops, he was in one of the first two facilities in the country where local officials are allowing illegal drug use in order to make it less deadly.

Seattle mayor Jenny Durkan confirmed in September 2018 that the city still planned to proceed with the creation of SIFs. In December of that year, the Washington Supreme Court ruled against an initiative to block public funding of the sites.

Opponents disapprove of anything that will make it easier for people to use illegal drugs. They also cite concerns about the crime and undesirable behavior that people who inject illegal drugs might engage in. Those in opposition also challenge the research provided in support of the centers, which generally consists of studies that estimate the number of overdoses and cases of communicable diseases that would be avoided and the related cost savings. Opponents argue that the studies lack acadmic rigor and don't provide strong evidence that supervised injection centers help avert deaths from overdose. (However, there is also no evidence that they lead to an increase in drug use.)

Studies conducted in support of a supervised injection site in San Francisco, California, published in 2017 estimated that a center with thirteen booths would save the community about $3.5 million a year, mostly in medical costs. It was further estimated that for every dollar spent on the center, about $2.33 would be saved by avoiding medical expenses related to overdoses and disease transmission. The numbers were based on replicating a facility like Insite, the supervised injection site in Vancouver.

The first SIF was opened in Berne, Switzerland, in June of 1986.

At these sites, drug users can bring in an illegal injectable drug of choice, sign in under any name they wish, and be given the supplies needed to administer the drug. This is done at a clean counter in a semiprivate area that may be called a supervised injection room, a health room, or a drug consumption room. Here, drug users administer the drug while being observed by a nurse. The nurse does not administer the drug and will not comment on how it is being administered unless there is a safety issue. The nurse is also equipped with naloxone , a drug that can treat overdoses of opioids and heroin . Nurses may also treat skin infections related to injections, administer first aid, and call for more advanced medical assistance if needed. Most supervised injection sites also provide social workers to help drug users who would prefer to stop using.

A supervised injection site is a place where people who use illegal drugs can bring their drugs to inject them under medical supervision. Clean injection supplies and a clean setting are provided, and medical professionals observe the injection.