By: The Legalization and Regulation Committee of the Psychedelic Bar Association
Are you inspired to help your state or city take big steps forward to promote safe, legal access to psychedelic transformation and healing— but feeling a little fuzzy about all the jargon and legalese involved in reform?
In this post, we’ll explain three common concepts in reform efforts: legalization, decriminalization, and deprioritization. We’ll also discuss typical exceptions for different types of psychedelics.
TL;DR
Legalization makes an activity fully legal but regulated (like alcohol), decriminalization removes criminal penalties for some activities (e.g. possession of small quantities of substances), and deprioritization involves reducing law enforcement efforts and funding for the arrest and prosecution of specific activities. The foregoing may be limited to certain types of psychedelic substances from certain sources to promote conservation and honor indigenous spiritual traditions.
- Legalization
Legalization permits the use, sale, and possession of a substance—but may still impose some limits on those activities.
For example, it’s legal to buy alcohol if you are at least 21 years old, but illegal to buy alcohol if you are under that age. There are generally no criminal or civil penalties for simply possessing alcohol if you are old enough to drink. However, there are still some limits on what you can do outside the privacy of your own home—you may not be allowed to carry an open container of alcohol in public, or drive a car if you have too much alcohol in your bloodstream. Suppliers may be required to obtain licenses to sell substances (as is the case with cannabis or alcohol). Some types of prescription drugs are legal but can only be prescribed in limited quantities to promote safety and avoid abuse.
In other words, “legalization” signifies a lawful supply through regulated commercial use or personal use, exempt from criminal prosecution or fines as long as you stay within legal limits.
State legalization measures for psychedelics vary significantly in whether they allow use for personal reasons or only for medical or therapeutic purposes. Importantly, substances that are “legalized” by states often remain illegal at the federal level. For example, a person who uses psilocybin (magic mushrooms) at a service center in Oregon could still face criminal charges from federal prosecutors.
- Decriminalization
Decriminalization removes criminal penalties for an activity, even though it remains illegal.
The consequences for the activity shift from criminal charges to civil fines or administrative sanctions, emphasizing harm reduction over punishment. Decriminalization may also introduce alternatives to the criminal justice system, such as diversion programs or treatment options. This approach emphasizes public health and seeks to minimize the negative consequences of drug use by focusing on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Often, decriminalization measures remove criminal penalties only for possession of small quantities of a substance. The production and sale of the substance still could be punished with criminal penalties, as would possession of large quantities of the substance (possessing large quantities may suggest a person’s true intention is to engage in sale, rather than just personal use).
From 2019 to 2023, over a dozen cities passed decriminalization measures. Some take the form of ordinances, which carry the full force of law, while others are resolutions, which are non-binding expressions of values and intentions.
- Deprioritization
Deprioritization reduces law enforcement efforts and funding related to the arrest for and criminal prosecution of an activity, even though it remains illegal.
This component of drug policy reform aims to deemphasize and scale back law enforcement involvement. This may include reducing funds allocated to law enforcement and to prosecutors for low-level drug offenses, so that they redirect their attention and resources to other work— such as targeting more dangerous crimes.
- Recap: What are the key differences between legalization, decriminalization, and deprioritization?
These terms are not synonymous. Legalization makes an activity fully legal and subject to regulation, with specified limits on use, sale, and possession. In contrast, decriminalization removes criminal penalties, treating the activity as a civil offense or minor violation, although the substance remains generally prohibited. The law may still allow police to confiscate it, and there is no structure in place to provide a legal, regulated supply. Deprioritization involves reducing law enforcement efforts and funding associated with the arrest and criminal prosecution of certain activities. It maintains the technical illegality of the actions but signifies a shift in drug policy emphasis toward harm reduction and decreased law enforcement involvement. Whichever option a state or city chooses, there is no impact on the legal status, penalties, or enforcement at the federal level.
- Typical exceptions
Any of the above reforms may vary in what substances they cover.
Within the psychedelic community there is support for expanding access to a wide range of substances. At one end of the spectrum, some drug policy advocates support decriminalizing all drugs to combat racial disparities in criminal prosecution or out of a belief that addiction should be treated as a public health issue instead of through the criminal justice system. Other efforts focus only on psychedelics because “classic psychedelics” (tryptamines such as psilocybin, LSD, DMT, and mescaline) have very low risks of addiction and may actually help people overcome addictions to alcohol, opioids, or other drugs.
Some bills focus narrowly on “naturally occurring” psychedelics (e.g. psilocybin mushrooms and ayahuasca) while excluding “synthetic” psychedelics made in chemistry labs (e.g. MDMA and LSD). That distinction is sometimes made for philosophical reasons (e.g. a belief in an “unalienable human right to develop our own relationship with nature”) or may be part of a strategy to gain broader public acceptance.
Decriminalization bills also now typically exclude peyote, because of conservation issues: peyote grows slowly, over-development is encroaching on its habitat in Mexico and Texas, and liberalizing reforms could jeopardize access by Native Americans who have long-standing spiritual practices centered around peyote that are federally protected. Similarly, excluding DMT derived from the Sonoran Desert Toad may also be appropriate to ensure conservation and prevent animal abuse.
Conclusion
Understanding the nuances of drug policy is crucial for informed public discourse and policymaking. Although legalization, decriminalization, and deprioritization may seem similar at first glance, their implications for individuals and communities vary considerably. By grasping the distinctions between these approaches, we can engage in more meaningful discussions about shaping effective and equitable drug policies that prioritize public health, liberty, and well-being without harming ecosystems or indigenous communities.