The word "drug" has achieved a negative connotation, and can be used effectively to terminate important conversations.
Assuming one has bought into the meme "all drugs are bad", as soon as a substance is called a drug, it need not be considered on its merits anymore. It's something bad, to be avoided and criminalized, case closed.
Instead, it helps to think of any compound that humans may eat, inject, smoke, or inhale, as merely a "substance".
From that perspective, it becomes meaningful to compare substances according to their risks and benefits, for example:
In our view, individuals should have the full freedom to use any substances they may see fit, regardless whether these substances may bring negative consequences if used excessively, or in other ways, improperly.
Consider that as a society, we do not place limits on how much alcohol an individual may own, even though drinking alcohol certainly has negative consequences, and at relatively small and affordable dosages becomes lethal.
Instead, we have chosen to regulate and tax the sale of alcohol, and to criminalize only behaviors that may be threatening to others - such as operating machinery or driving while under the influence, for which individuals bear the responsibility.
From the same perspective, it does not make any sense to have personal usage of substances criminalized, therefore, possession of any substances for personal use cannot and should not be criminalized either.
Could you guess which of these substances causes the most deaths per year in the United States?
Please take a moment to think about it, then click here to see the answer.
Frequently, what one person may perceive as a benefit could be a scourge to someone else. Also, even when benefits are proven, it may take decades for the political system to codify these these benefits appropriately.
For example, substances like LSD, Cannabis, or Psilocybin -- for which there are scores of papers showing their benefits for otherwise intractable conditions, lack of addictive properties, and no known lethal dose -- are still listed as Schedule 1 on the Federal level. That is, they are considered "drugs with no currently accepted medical use" and "a high potential for abuse"
We believe that the normal state is for adults to be free, and for freedoms to be removed only when those freedoms may endanger others. Therefore, we also believe that possession for personal use should be decriminalized even for substances without documented or proven medical or any other benefits.
Of course - many substances can be highly addictive and dangerous, with even small doses leading to overdose and death.
However, if a person has issues with substance abuse, that should not be treated as a criminal problem, but a medical one.
The point about decriminalization is not to promote substance abuse, but rather to remove the criminal element from the possession of substances, provided they are for personal use.
Based on the history of legalization of cannabis, we could expect an moderate increase in usage of certain substances.
However, a number of the currently controlled substances -- Ibogaine, Ketamine, or Psilocybin -- reduce the addiction to opioids, tobacco, heroin, and many other addictions.
Therefore, we should expect that in the long run substance usage will go down, especially in substances that are addictive and have negative health impacts.