10 July 2025
With drug decriminalisation gaining traction globally, it’s more important than ever to understand what meaningful reform truly looks like. The International Drug Policy Consortium (IDPC) has developed a ‘Gold Standard‘ framework to guide countries toward more effective, equitable, and health-centred policies. We spoke with Jamie Bridge, Deputy Director at IDPC, about what prompted the framework, where current models are falling short, and what governments can do to get decriminalisation right—from removing sanctions to investing in health, social support, and the voices of people most impacted.
This article follows our recent interview with Alison Ritter, Drug law reform: Why decriminalisation isn’t a magic bullet (but we need it anyway). It’s part of a mini-series exploring drug decriminalisation in the lead-up to INHSU 2025 in Cape Town, where the topic will be a key focus in our day 1 plenary.
Q: What is the ‘Gold Standard of Decriminalisation’ and what prompted IDPC to develop this framework?
A: We now have drug decriminalisation in 59 jurisdictions in 39 countries, and the momentum towards this approach is growing. But the actual policies themselves vary a lot, with some much less effective and less fair than others. This is why we outlined our Gold Standard. Based on what we have seen and learned over the past decades, these are the combined elements that can have the biggest impacts.
There should be no sanctions for drug use and related activities, it should apply to all drugs, it should meaningfully involve the affected communities, and it should also address those previously convicted and impacted by criminalisation in the past. Crucially, decriminalisation should also be accompanied by proper training and monitoring for authorities to ensure it is done right, as well as by funding and support for voluntary health and social services to help people where needed.
Q: How often are governments falling short of that standard, and what are the most common mistakes you’re seeing globally that are leading to this?
A: Honestly, I don’t think any of the existing models tick every box in the Gold Standard yet – but some definitely come close. One of the biggest mistakes we see is believing that decriminalisation alone can fix a myriad of problems related to structural inequality and an unrelated drug market. It is an essential part of the solution, but not the whole solution.
To be truly impactful, decriminalisation should be accompanied by a serious investment in health and harm reduction services, as well as other supportive social policies around housing, employment and reintegration. Decriminalisation in the context of an unregulated and poisoned drug supply cannot fulfil its potential to reduce overdoses. If decriminalisation is set up with those expectations, it becomes too easy for those opposed to reform to say it has failed. But we know that, when done well, it can have such a transformative impact on the lives of people.
Q: In your monitoring of global trends, which countries or jurisdictions are getting closest to the ‘gold standard’—and what are they doing differently?
A: The Portugal model is perhaps one of the oldest and most discussed – they decriminalised back in 2001. They did this for all drugs, and they also redirected funds from criminal justice and into health and social services, which helped achieve their great results. In Uruguay, for example, there are no sanctions–not even administrative ones – for those caught in possession of small amounts of any drug for personal use. In many countries, decriminalisation also extends to the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal use.
Q: What can others learn from those examples (good and bad)?
A: One key lesson is the need to place decriminalisation within a context of other progressive and human policy decisions – in terms of harm reduction services, social policy, housing, reparation, etc. Another key lesson for me is the importance of speaking to, and learning from, the people most impacted by criminalisation – what would work best for them, what would have the biggest impact on their lives, what does ‘personal use’ really look like? These things shouldn’t be discussed and decided in closed rooms without their voices. If a decriminalisation model is badly designed – for example, if the legal definitions of how much is ‘personal use’ versus ‘drug supply’ – then it cannot fulfil its potential.
Q: Many countries are introducing partial decrim measures—threshold limits, diversion schemes, or police discretion. How does IDPC view these approaches, and do you see them as stepping stones or barriers to genuine reform?
A: It is tempting to think that any step in this direction is a good thing and something to be welcomed. And that is true much of the time. But some steps being proposed can be seen as ‘prohibition 2.0’ – an attempt to resist proper reforms by marketing “new” ideas designed to maintain an ultimately oppressive drug control system.
Take the case of drug courts or police “deflection”, for example. We would argue that health decisions should not be made for people by law enforcement, and we would be against any programmes which mandate or coerce (often abstinence-based) treatment with a threat of punishment if you “fail”. But some moves can definitely be positive stepping stones, such as the recent legal reforms and depenalisation measures in Ghana.
Q: For countries looking to implement decriminalisation, what are the non-negotiables IDPC believes must be in place to avoid repeating past mistakes?
A: Accompanying decriminalisation with the funding and scale-up of harm reduction and evidence-based treatment services is essential in our eyes. It is a golden opportunity to cement such support into law, and this is when you will see the best impacts on health and social outcomes.
For us, decriminalisation should also be something that benefits all people – it should not be restricted, for example, only to those being arrested for the first time, or those with no previous criminal justice history, or those using one drug but not another. Finally, a decriminalisation model that continues to impose sanctions for people who use drugs falls short of our Gold Standard and ultimately will not be as impactful in reducing stigma and removing barriers to health and other services.
