Advantages and Disadvantages of Soft Drugs Legalisation at State Level

Introduction

The issue of the free circulation of drugs has always caused a lot of debate in society due to the ambiguity of their impact on society and individuals. When considering the conflicting arguments in support or opposition to drug legalisation, the problem always arises of determining not only the legal or economic feasibility but also the social moral and ethical aspects of the relevant legalisation, since the use of drugs is perceived differently existing cultures and societies of individual states, as well as by modern medical doctrine. Buchwald addressed the issue of distinguishing between drugs based on their chemical properties and therapeutic effects, highlighting some aspects of the division of drugs into “soft” and “hard” drugs.¹ The historical background and legal basis for the classification of narcotic drugs by their severity are highlighted by de Quadros Rigoni in a study on the peculiarities of the Dutch policy on these issues.² His work draws attention to one of legalization’s main benefits—establishing regulated settings to lessen harm—while simultaneously highlighting a drawback: possible stigmatization or outside pressure from other jurisdictions with more stringent laws. Sheikhan et al.³ discussed the problem of widespread cannabis advertising among young people, given the lack of age restrictions for viewing it and the problem of popularising this soft drug in open sources. Jorgensen and Wells⁴ advocate for the legalisation of soft drugs, emphasizing their belief that marijuana use does not inherently lead to the consumption of harder substances. They contend that there is no solid link between cannabis usage and more potent narcotics, but they also point out the drawbacks of making cannabis use illegal. Their data indicates that the move to stronger drugs is more significantly influenced by environmental factors, genetic susceptibility, and the age at which drug use began. The same opinion regarding the lack of a proven relationship between soft and hard drug use is shared by Nöel and Wang,⁵ and Williams.⁶

The international drug control conventions provide states with some flexibility in determining actions to deal with drugs, depending on the extent of the consequences of such actions and individual circumstances concerning possible alternatives to conviction and punishment of violators of the established rules of circulation.⁷ Ukraine is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs,⁸ according to which the parties shall take the legislative and administrative measures necessary to comply with the provisions of the said Convention to limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution and trade in narcotic drugs. The United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances⁹ was adopted to implement the prohibition and control of the circulation of narcotic substances, against the abuse of which the international efforts of most UN member states are directed. In addition to these fundamental documents in the field of combating drug trafficking, the United Nations adopted the Convention against Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances,¹⁰ which establishes the criminal nature of their manufacture, storage and sale. Currently, the growing role of international drug conventions is becoming increasingly important given the development of the illegal sector of the economy producing new types of drugs and the variety of ways they are sold. These legal acts contain conditions and mechanisms for restricting the illegal use of narcotic substances, as well as provide for the activities of international monitoring bodies and the international control system. Reducing the use of drugs exclusively for medical and scientific purposes is the main goal of the regulation enshrined in international conventions.¹¹ Given the existing developments in the field of state regulation of drug trafficking and the absence of prior legalisation of drugs in Ukraine, the research novelty lies in the analysis of the current international experience with a view to its further use in the development of new national legislation on drug trafficking to predict and avoid possible negative consequences of allowing the use of soft drugs for recreational purposes.

To assess the possible consequences of legalising drug usage, it is necessary to address their nature and legal distinction in the current norms, based on which they are classified as soft drugs. Identifying the criteria for distinguishing drugs that are safe or safe for human health from other drugs is a prerequisite for understanding the possible risks of their use within a country. At the same time, an important prerequisite for an objective understanding of the shortcomings of the introduction of legal drug trafficking among the civilian population is to understand the essence of the concept of “legalisation” in the context of the given research topic and to outline its features in comparison with decriminalisation, which characterises the form of abolition of punishment for the production, distribution and possession of drugs. The nature of liability for certain offences in a certain way indicates the Ukrainian legislator’s attitude to certain types of unlawful acts, which reflects the State policy in the field of preventing the spread of the negative effect of illegal drug-related activities on public relations in the field of protection of public health as an object of encroachment.

The national legislation of Ukraine does not provide for provisions that would allow the use of narcotic substances for purposes other than medical, scientific or industrial. Ukrainian administrative and criminal regulations contain an express prohibition on the manufacture, storage and distribution of drugs of any kind.¹² Economic activity within the permitted purposes of using narcotic substances is regulated.¹³ Given the peculiarities of Ukrainian regulations on drug trafficking, Ukraine has stricter legal sanctions than those in the European Union, Canada and certain administrative-territorial units of the United States. In this regard, the issue of drug legalisation should be preceded by substantive legal research and the development of sound recommendations on mitigating or abolishing penalties for violations of the current conditions of drug trafficking.

The purpose of this study was to perform a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of legalising soft drugs at the state level, with an assessment of the possible risks associated with the introduction of permits for their recreational use.

Materials and Methods

The methodological tools for the study of this article are represented by a substantive analysis of the existing provisions that directly or indirectly indicate the advantages or disadvantages of legalising soft drugs at the state level. To obtain reliable results, the primary issue of consideration during the study was the search for relevant theoretical and practical information on drugs that can be distinguished from others and classified as “soft drugs.” The comparison method was used to identify several features inherent in this type of illicit substance, to identify the specifics of legal control over drug trafficking in different states and within the framework of supranational regulation, and to highlight statistics on the nature of the limits of permitted trafficking in other countries. Employing deduction, based on the foreign experience of legislative and law enforcement bodies, the main recommendations regarding the conditions for the possible legalisation of soft drugs in Ukraine were outlined. In determining the sources of the distinction between the main types of drugs, the historical method of scientific research was used to substantiate the legal basis for the commonly used division into “soft” and “hard” drugs, which was first reflected in Dutch legislation. This makes it particularly important to study the regulation of drug trafficking in the Netherlands, given the flexible current policy of this state towards recreational cannabis use. By specifying the main problems associated with drug trafficking in other countries (USA, Canada, the Netherlands), it was possible to model the best options for legalising soft drugs, considering the current situation in Ukraine.

The main material was based on the publications of several researchers who paid special attention to the issue of the legalisation of drugs or comprehensively covered the key features of the impact of drugs on society in terms of possible legal, medical or social consequences. The study was carried out in two stages, during which theoretical and practical data were reviewed and analysed in a sequential manner, which made it possible to substantiate the connection between the arguments about the expediency or inappropriateness of allowing the free use of soft drugs for recreational purposes and the state of such phenomena as the crime situation (crime rate), drug addiction and other relevant consequences.

The first stage is characterised by a comprehensive analysis of previously collected sources and includes a systematisation of theses on the peculiarities of the classification of drugs, control over their storage and use, and the impact of these processes on the development of crime. The study, based on the available information, employed generalisation in the form of graphic diagrams demonstrating the change in the limits of drug authorisation depending on the country, as well as fluctuations in the local crime rate in the context of free drug possession (on the example of the Netherlands). The study carried out at this stage identified current problems that make it impossible to fully foresee all the possible consequences of the state’s legalisation of soft drugs. At the same time, the main recommendations for possible legalisation are given in the following discussion and reflected in the conclusions.

In the second stage, all aspects of drug legalisation were systematised and summarised in the light of international experience. The results presented in the final part of the paper include a description of the identified positive and negative factors, based on which partial restrictions on drug trafficking are proposed in the event of their legalisation in a state that currently has strict rules on the handling of narcotic substances (on the example of Ukraine). The results of this study were achieved based on legal analysis and using the forecasting method, which makes the work suitable for future use in conducting research in the field of legislative regulation of drug trafficking.

Results and Discussion

Based on the results of analysing the advantages and disadvantages of legalizing soft drugs in Ukraine, it has been identified several key categories essential for understanding the implications of legalization and state control over drug trafficking. It is crucial to stress that, from a legal perspective, legalization is not a standardized idea. It invariably entails the Ukrainian legislator’s decision to partially repeal earlier bans. To put it another way, the relationship here is represented in activities that involve enacting new regulations and, if applicable, repealing existing ones.

Legalisation as a legal phenomenon is the process of conferring legitimacy on certain actions that were not previously regulated by legal mechanisms.¹⁴ In contrast to decriminalisation, legalisation means that they are allowed to be committed, and the relevant rights are enshrined in the provisions of existing legal acts to make them legal. Decriminalisation, in turn, is accompanied by a reduction of the penalty to the administrative or civil level and provides for the cancellation of negative consequences in the form of a criminal sanction.^15,16 The punishment, as a rule, is transferred to the plane of administrative or other milder liability but is not completely excluded, although it does not lead to a criminal record.^17,18

Among the member states of the United Nations, there is a growing phenomenon of abuse of gaps in international legal acts in the field of drug trafficking and the use of the terms “legalisation” and “decriminalisation” in their misunderstanding to achieve certain economic effects, since these concepts are not enshrined in the drug conventions. In such cases, it is necessary to distinguish between the state policy aimed at the complete abolition of criminal penalties for personal use of drugs, which is essentially decriminalisation, and the legalisation of usage (use or possession) of internationally controlled substances for purposes other than medical or scientific purposes, and the absence of any type of negative legal consequences. At the same time, the legalisation of drugs is often accompanied by the commercialisation of their trafficking in violation of international conventions. This should be addressed when developing and implementing the state licensing policy on narcotic substances.⁷

The most widespread drugs in Ukraine and abroad are cannabis, opiates, their analogues, amphetamine, methamphetamine, ecstasy and other similar substances of natural and synthetic origin.¹⁹ At the same time, there is no official definition of “soft drugs” in Ukrainian legislation, so it is possible to classify the above substances as a conditionally defined category only based on their chemical properties and impact on physiological processes in the human body but without a formal legal classification with a corresponding name. To determine which substances can be conditionally classified as “soft” drugs, it is necessary to turn to the medical aspect and the existing legal distinction.

Narcotic substances, such as medicines, are chemical compounds that undergo metabolism after producing a therapeutic effect.²⁰ The intensity of this phenomenon determines the division of substances in medicine into the so-called “soft” and “heavy” categories based on their ability to cause physical dependence and harm to society.¹ The division into these groups, which most people associate with drugs, was enshrined at the state level in the Netherlands in 1976 with the introduction of relevant amendments to the Opium Act.² Typically, drugs fall into one of two categories: “soft” or “heavy.” Cannabis products (marijuana and hashish) and sedatives and sleeping medicines (Valium, Seresta) fall under the first group. Substances like heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, and ecstasy fall under the second category. Based on the impacts and possible harm connected to each category, this classification represents a regulated differentiation.

In Ukraine, there is a system of classification of narcotic substances into types, which are also allocated to separate lists according to approved tables.²¹ From their content, it becomes clear that the grouping system is different from the Dutch model: the prefix “soft” does not appear in Ukrainian drug legislation, and cannabis products are classified as particularly dangerous drugs, the trafficking of which is prohibited. Unlike the Netherlands, where the use and possession of soft drugs in small quantities is not prosecuted under certain conditions, Ukrainian administrative or criminal regulations punish possession depending on the classification of the offence, which is influenced by the amount of the prohibited substance. However, the absence of liability in the Netherlands is due to a special principle that is not formally related to the concept of legalisation and consists of the tolerance of actions that are not permissible under the law under certain conditions, which is partial decriminalisation. The refusal to prosecute for offences related to soft drugs is due to the achievement of a high social goal, which is to ensure public order and much more severe punishment in the case of hard drug offences.^22,23 This explains the possibility of the existence of Dutch coffeeshops (“type of cannabis retail outlet”), which are subject to several requirements and restrictions on licensing, location, advertising, types and volumes of drug products, etc.²¹

The most widely used drug globally is cannabis.²⁴ This case study can be used to explore the differences in approaches to regulating the circulation of soft drugs in different countries. In 2021, Ukraine took some steps towards legalising medical cannabis. The Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine considered a Law of Ukraine No. 3528-IX “On Amendments to Certain Laws of Ukraine on State Regulation of the Circulation of Plants of the Genus Cannabis for Medical, Industrial Purposes, Scientific and Scientific-Technical Activities to Create Conditions for Expanding Patients Access to the Necessary Treatment”²⁵ that would have legalised medical cannabis for patients in need of treatment with cannabis-based medicines. The adoption of this law is particularly important due to the critical need for the use of medical cannabis by the military personnel who were seriously injured, lost limbs, or suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder during Russia’s large-scale military invasion of Ukraine. There- with, the production of cannabis for recreational purposes is still prohibited. The draft law amends the Law of Ukraine No. 60/95-VR “On Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances and Precursors.”²⁶

The list of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and precursors is ap- proved by the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 770 “On Approval of the List of Narcotic Drugs, Psychotropic Substances and Precursors.”¹³ According to this Resolution, drugs are classified according to their degree of danger into four tables. The first table includes the most dangerous substances, the circulation of which is completely prohibited (Table 1). The second table includes substances whose circulation is restricted but permitted for medical purposes as prescribed by a doctor, in scientific research and veterinary medicine (Table 2). The law also requires the Cabinet of Ministers to move non-medical cannabis from the first table to the second table, which contains less dangerous substances. This creates a certain contradiction: non-medical cannabis moves from the first table to the second, while medical cannabis stays in the first table, with a separate fourth list created for it.

Table 1. Particularly dangerous narcotic drugs, the circulation of which is prohibited

Table 2. Narcotics and plants, the circulation of which is restricted

The adopted law stipulates that cannabis for medical purposes in Ukraine can only be grown indoors, i.e., in greenhouses or hotbeds, and not in open fields. A special licence is required for cultivation. Each plant must be assigned a unique number, and the Cabinet of Ministers must create an “electronic accounting system” for plants that will track their transportation and processing. Notably, a person who smuggles across the customs border a narcotic drug purchased for their personal use under a doctor’s prescription and in permissible quantities is exempt from criminal liability.

In terms of the content of national legislation, Ukraine has rather strict provisions in terms of punishment for both offences involving the presence of a hard drug substance and those involving less dangerous (in the opinion of a Dutch legislator) “soft” drugs.^27,28 Article 44 of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences²⁹ and Articles 307 and 309 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine³⁰ define the following illegal actions with narcotic substances that entail liability: production, acquisition, storage, transportation, and transfer. Production is defined exclusively as a criminal act. Therewith, the distinction between the corpus delicti is determined based on the presence or absence of sale as a purpose, and the provisions of all the above-mentioned codes do not impose liability for consumption. For example, in case of possession for personal use and without the intent to sell cannabis in the amount of 5 to 500 grams, one may receive up to 5 years of imprisonment.³¹ Prior to reaching the minimum five-gram threshold for criminal punishment, administrative liability may also be imposed, but not stricter than arrest for 15 days.²⁷

With the adoption of the Law of Ukraine No. 3528-IX,25 the following amendments were made to the Criminal Code of Ukraine.³⁰ Amendments to Article 310 decriminalised the cultivation of cannabis for medical and scientific purposes, provided that an applicable licence is granted. The cultivation of cannabis without a licence or in violation of the terms of the licence continues to be a criminal offence. Amendments to Article 320 define a separate procedure for the circulation of cannabis-based medicines, including control over their production, storage, and transportation. Violations of these rules, including the illegal production, possession, transportation, or sale of cannabis-based products, continue to be criminalised. These changes are aimed at creating a legal framework to regulate the cultivation and use of cannabis for medical and scientific purposes, while ensuring control over its circulation and preventing abuse.

In 2024, several important legal developments in the legalisation of soft drugs took place around the world. Thus, the United States continues to see significant advances in cannabis legalisation. Currently, 38 states have legal- ised the medical use of cannabis, while 24 states and Washington, D.C., have authorised its recreational use. The federal decriminalisation of cannabis is

expected to be a key topic, in part due to the possible exemption of cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act.³¹ In 2023, the state of Colorado, USA, took a major step towards legalising soft drugs, including psychedelics. Following the passage of Proposition 122,³² the state began to introduce regulated access to certain psychedelic substances for medicinal purposes. Proposition 122 mandates the establishment of “wellness centres” where adults over the age of 21 can access “natural medicines” such as psilocybin and psilocin for person- al use or therapy. The law also allows the cultivation and processing of these substances at home for personal use. The use, possession, transportation, and cultivation of “natural medicines” for personal use has been decriminalised, greatly reducing the level of criminal liability for consumers. By the end of 2024, a full regulatory framework is expected to be in place to govern access to these substances, including licensing of centres and setting standards for “facilitators”—professionals who will assist in the therapy process. The legalisation of psychedelics in Colorado is part of a broader movement in the US that recognises the potential of these substances to treat mental disorders such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and anxiety. Colorado’s experience could serve as a model for other states and countries considering legalising psychedelics for medical or recreational purposes.

In Europe, Germany specifically, took an important step towards legalising cannabis for recreational use in 2024, which could substantially change the legal landscape not only in this country but also in the European Union. In April 2023, the German government unveiled a plan to legalise cannabis, one of the most progressive steps among the major EU economies.³³ The plan proposes to allow the possession of up to 25 grams of cannabis for personal use and the cultivation of up to three plants per household. Consumption will be permitted in private premises and in certain clubs with special licences. The main goals of this initiative are to reduce the shadow drug market and control the quality of the product, which will help prevent its sale to minors.³⁴ The government also aims to reduce the criminalisation of cannabis users, which could improve social justice in the country. It is expected that the process of finalising the legislation will be completed in 2024, after which its implementation will begin. Notably, this process will be gradual, with ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the impact on society, the economy, and public health.

In 2023, Thailand became the first country in Asia to legalise cannabis. This event caused a strong resonance as the region is known for its strict drug laws. Legalisation was partly aimed at stimulating the country’s economy by developing a new industry and attracting tourists. In Thailand, cannabis legalisation has undergone several stages. Initially, in 2018, the country permitted the use of cannabis for medical purposes. However, in 2023, the legislation was expanded to allow home cultivation of cannabis for personal and recreational use.³⁵ To grow and sell cannabis in Thailand legally, one must obtain a licence from the government, which enables the state to control the quality of the product and prevent it from reaching minors.³⁶ The legalisation of cannabis has also become an essential factor in the development of a new industry focused on exporting products and attracting investment. The sector is expected to bring considerable revenues to the country’s economy, creating new jobs and raising living standards.

Legalisation has provoked a variety of reactions. Proponents believe it will contribute to medical research and economic growth, while critics have expressed concern about the possible increase in drug abuse and social problems associated with uncontrolled cannabis use. Below is a chart with a list of countries that have decriminalised cannabis possession within the limits set by local regulations (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Decriminalisation of cannabis possession, 2023.

The data shows the heterogeneity and independence of each state’s approaches to determining the limits of permitted use of the drug, which indicates a different degree of decriminalisation.

The legalisation of soft drug use in its legal sense can be seen in the case of Uruguay, Canada, South Africa and Georgia, where recreational cannabis use is allowed. The legalisation of recreational cannabis in Canada took place with the entry into force of the Cannabis Act of Canada.³⁸ According to Art. 7 of the Cannabis Act of Canada,38 its purpose is to protect the health of young people, reduce profits from the illicit trade in soft drugs, reduce the burden on the justice system, control the quality of raw materials and inform society about the health risks of cannabis use. From the Canadian legislator’s perspective, legalisation is seen as a reasonable social and health policy. However, the potential danger of promoting cannabis use among young people due to the lack of age restrictions on marketing in this area is a concern. Compliance with the rules for covering soft drugs is also important in terms of reaching an audience not only within the country but also addressing the presence of users with access to social media outside the country.³

Uruguay was the first country to officially legalise the use of soft drugs. The Law of Uruguay No. 19.172 “Marijuana and Its Derivative”³⁹ regulates the production, marketing and use of cannabis, and provides for measures to disseminate information and education to prevent its use. According to Art. 2 of this document, the state has assumed control over the regulation of the import, export, planting, cultivation, harvesting, production, acquisition in any capacity, storage, marketing and distribution of cannabis and its derivatives or hemp, where appropriate, through legally authorised institutions.

In South Africa, a Constitutional Court⁴⁰ decision allowed the use of cannabis for personal recreational purposes. According to the requirements of the case law, in 2020, the South African legislator introduced the Cannabis for Private Purposes Bill,⁴¹ which is currently the subject of public discussion and is aimed at finalising its content in terms of regulating commercial activities with recreational cannabis, conducting transactions with it for religious and cultural purposes by members of relevant organisations, as well as to consolidate the provisions on respect for adults’ privacy in terms of the use of cannabis for medical purposes.⁴²

The actual legalisation of cannabis uses in Georgia (with the exception of public and workplaces) occurred with the adoption of several decisions by the Constitutional Court of Georgia, which declared unconstitutional the provisions on prosecution for the use of soft drugs:

• imprisonment for the acquisition and possession of dried marijuana for personal use was declared unconstitutional in 2015 (in the case of substances up to 70 grams);⁴³
• criminal liability for the use of cannabis was abolished, and in 2017, the provision requiring a doctor’s prescription was removed;⁴⁴
• the administrative sanction for the use of marijuana without a doctor’s prescription or a prescription was cancelled in 2018;⁴⁵
• in 2020, the criminal penalty of imprisonment for 5 to 8 years for the illegal acquisition and storage of drugs in amounts unsuitable for consumption was also cancelled.⁴⁶

Analysing the prospects for legalising the use of soft drugs in Ukraine, it is possible to predict the emergence of issues and violations in the regulation of advertising activities related to the dissemination of information regarding the properties of currently prohibited substances. At the same time, in the case of legalisation, the regulatory framework should cover an exhaustive list of permitted actions for the advertising of drugs or completely prohibit their public commercial offer.

Official data indicate a very high level of drug use among Ukrainian youth and a low age threshold for the first use of illicit drugs (90% of drug users in Ukraine are under 25 years old, the average age of first use is between 13 and 15 years old). The social and economic problems in the country that contribute to this include a decline in the quality of life, economic instability, unemployment, an increase in the overall crime rate and alcoholism in families.^19,47

The experience of the Netherlands shows that most cannabis users are in the 15-34 age group, similar to cocaine, amphetamines and methylenedioxymethamphetamine users.⁴⁸ The most recent data on reported drug-related crimes in Amsterdam (2010–2022) are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Statistics of registered drug-related crimes for 2010-2022 in the city of Amsterdam (the Netherlands)

The legalisation of soft drugs in the Netherlands did not improve the situation, as the overall level of drug addicts did not decrease.⁵⁰ According to the figures for previous periods, from 2008-2017, the number of prescription opioid users doubled from 4109 to 7489 people per 100,000 population, especially due to the increase in the number of oxycodone users (from 574 to 2568 people per 100,000 population during the period). Deaths from opioid dependence, compared to similar figures in 2008-2014, have increased as of 2017 (65 deaths were recorded, when previously only 21 deaths per 100,000 people were recorded).⁵¹ According to the most recent data as of 2024, the total number of fatalities from drug use of all types also increased in the Netherlands between 2006 and 2021, as can be seen in the following graph (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Total number of drug-related deaths in the Netherlands from 2006 to 2021.

The effect was positive in that it simplified control of the population that uses drugs, but the total number of users (including adolescents) increased slightly. According to the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics,⁵³ since 2014, the use of cannabis among people aged 12 and older has increased by 3.5% as of 2021, and other drugs (amphetamine, ecstasy, cocaine, heroin, methadone, etc.) by 1.6%. According to the survey, almost a quarter of the population over the age of 15 (23.4%) reported having witnessed drug use or trafficking in their neighbourhood.⁵⁴ Given the above, legalisation in Ukraine may lead to additional popularisation of soft drugs, given the existing availability and the prospect of introducing advertising mechanisms that will help attract a new audience among young people. Under such conditions, the risk of a certain percentage of users turning to harder drugs will increase.

Research suggests that the correlation between marijuana use and the transition to harder drugs is not fully proven. On the contrary, the prohibition of soft drugs is possibly a cause for replacing them with harder drugs. Therefore, the state policy of criminalising cannabis use, according to this point of view, causes the opposite effect.⁴ Despite the existence of these associations with the use of drugs with different effects on the body, there is no convincing evidence that soft drugs are “transient.”⁵ At the same time, researchers note that a combination of genetic and environmental factors increases the likelihood of a risk of further transition to hard drugs, especially if drug use begins in adolescence.^4,6 From a medical point of view, systematic drug use causes poisoning of the body, which leads to dependence and exhaustion. Abstinence from drug use leads to a severe psychophysiological state, so reducing the age of drug users is a significant problem that requires active counteraction at both the national and international levels.^55,56

Given the practice of police in the United States of America, after the legalisation of soft drugs in some administrative units of the country, there are trends of widespread introduction of cannabis to young people. This is combined with the reluctance of law enforcement agencies to consider offences in this regard due to age-related peculiarities and attempts to apply educational influence at the level of educational institutions instead of initiating court proceedings involving a minor offender. Police and prosecutors in the United States pay less attention to offences involving soft drugs, which leads to a decrease in their total number due to the so-called “deprioritisation.” This results in no impact of cannabis legalisation on the number of recorded drug trafficking and related offences. However, in practice, cannabis legalisation has had an impact on road safety, as law enforcement officials claim that there has been an increase in the number of cases of driving under the influence of drugs among American drivers.^57,58 The Dutch police have also noted a significant increase in the number of cases of driving under the influence of drugs: while in 2017, there were 1,834 cases of these offences, in 2021, more than 13,000 police reports were filed. In the first two months of 2022, 2,650 drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of drugs, which indicates an upward trend in these offences.⁵⁹

From a financial point of view, the effect of regulating the circulation of soft drugs at the state level as a result of the implementation of modern licensing mechanisms may prove to be economically feasible. Replenishment of the budget through revenues from the legal drug trade will help improve the crime situation. Criminal prosecution of marijuana sales reduces demand for marijuana, which leads to higher prices, which leads to increased financing of the illegal drug trade in terms of drug proceeds.⁶⁰ Tax revenues from drug trafficking can be used to develop socially important areas that are essential for the development of society but are not attractive in terms of public spending on their support (education, rehabilitation, etc.).⁶¹ This is the principle behind the system of saving and earning money from marijuana sales in states where legalisation is in place.^62,63

Considering the aspects of the possible legalisation of soft drugs at the state level, opponents of the easing of prohibitions emphasise the negative consequences in the form of an increase in the number of cases of teenage drug addiction, an increase in the overall crime rate and an increase in the number of road accidents. Such warnings seem understandable in the context of the commercialisation of the soft drug market, but there is currently no sufficient evidence of the relationship between decriminalisation and consumption, crime and road safety. Given the absence of uniform rules at the international level for determining the limits of the free use of soft drugs for recreational purposes, all the arguments in favour and against their legalisation or decriminalisation show a variety of approaches to this issue without a commonly accepted one for most countries.

Conclusions

Based on the study’s findings, it has been identified the salient characteristics that set “legalization” and “decriminalization” apart, highlighting their significance in establishing the legal framework that regulates the use of soft substances. There is presently no “soft drug” category in Ukrainian law. Rather, national regulations categorize medications that are substantially less toxic in other nations as extremely dangerous and forbid their distribution. It would be wise to progressively introduce the use of soft drugs with a probationary term to monitor results and resolve unforeseen repercussions, given the traditionally unfavorable attitude towards drug use that is ingrained in Ukrainian legislation.

A well-thought-out soft drug tax policy might reduce the illegal drug trade and greatly increase the state budget. However, enacting laws to combat drug trafficking must also include steps to stop drug use among teenagers from spreading, like stringent advertising limits and a prohibition on drivers using cannabis to reduce the danger of traffic accidents.

Dutch law is the source of the widely accepted definition of soft drugs. Ukraine can learn a lot from the varied approaches to cannabis legalization taken by the Netherlands, Germany, USA, and Thailand. For instance, in order to curb criminal markets and protect public safety, Germany intends to legalize cannabis for recreational use in 2024 under stringent regulatory guidelines. In order to safeguard the public’s health, Colorado legalized cannabis in 2012 and established strong quality control and licensing procedures. Thailand’s 2023 cannabis laws prioritize medical use and product quality, lowering trafficking dangers and promoting economic growth. Law No. 3528-IX, which was just passed in Ukraine, legalizes cannabis for medical use but prohibits its recreational use while the Cabinet of Ministers considers additional rules.

But given the present harsh punishments for drug-related offenses in Ukraine and the ease of access to drugs, there are worries that legalizing cannabis for recreational use won’t have a big social impact. Instead, similar to problems like underage drinking, it might encourage the emergence of a new drug-dependent community, especially among teenagers. A number of legislative changes are required in order to properly discuss legalizing soft drugs for recreational use in Ukraine. These should mandate educational efforts to educate youth about the dangers of drug use during adolescence while attempting to strike a balance between public health and economic interests.