The question was whether personal drug use should move from police and courts to the NHS; Yes won comfortably. Yet the most-respected Yes argument looked beyond possession itself, urging an overhaul of justice for people who steal to feed addiction: “take away prison” and “mandate rehabilitation”.
Yes voters also argued that criminalising users wastes police effort and leaves the market to organised crime. One called the war on drugs unwinnable; another said criminalisation “encourages two tier policing”. The case was for treating users differently from suppliers, though the question’s NHS framing drew a qualification: one Yes voter said it was “badly worded” and stressed harm reduction and enforcement against dealers.
The most-respected No arguments made the counter-case in terms of limits and consequences: one warned that “a blanket decriminalisation would be disastrous”; another insisted that possession should still carry consequences, even while addiction warrants treatment. Other No voters questioned whether an underfunded NHS could take on the work, while Yes voters left that capacity question largely unresolved.
The debate was not simply treatment against punishment: both sides invoked treatment, but disagreed over whether criminal consequences should remain for personal use. The No case also warned against normalisation; a Yes voter answered that prohibition “creates opportunities for organised crime”. In the end, the divide was over whether keeping users within criminal law prevents harm—or helps perpetuate it.
42 Opinions
I would go further and overhaul justice system to take away prison for offenders who have stolen to feed the addiction and instead mandate rehabilitation.
No. Stop normalising illegal drug use and pretending every offender is merely a patient. Addiction warrants treatment; deliberate possession and use still warrant consequences. Crack down hard on the supply chain dealers, organised gangs and any supposedly legitimate businesses proven to be fronts for drug distribution, including vape shops where evidence supports. Seize criminal assets, shut premises and prosecute suppliers. Treatment for addiction; punishment for crime.
A sensible balance between treatment and criminalisation is always needed, but a blanket decriminalisation would be disastrous
Can't believe this has a majority to be honest. I thought it was an obvious no
Eh .. neither yes not no. But in it's current underfunded state, we can't dump this on the NHS. We need to either dump this issue on the criminal justice system or the NHS AND fund them for having this issue dumped on them... Which is it going to be?
Start cold turkey, tough love etc. Drug agencies making things worse been around for years look at Scotland!! Stop daily doses at chemist pointless starter for later drugs.
YES This policy combined with very harsh punishment for importers of drugs, turned Portugal from a country with one of the worst drugs problems in Europe into one with the least problems!
We have problems with drugs as it is and some drugs are too dangerous to let them roam free among society.
The NHS can't be expected to deal with the chain of evidence for confiscated drugs, phones, compelled blood testing, and other evidence of criminal activity.
You can’t decriminalise one without the other…makes no sense. Either society discourages drug use or accepts it. Personally I think easing access and use of drugs would be harmful to society, increasing mental health issues, criminality and anti-social behaviour and so should be banned. The current approach where police effectively ignore personal drug use just feeds the drug market and strengthens organised criminal gangs.