Decriminalisation of drug use is an alternative policy that various experts from health, legal and enforcement experts uphold, including stakeholders in non-government organisations (NGOs), due to the ineffectiveness of enforcement strategies against illicit drug use, which has created extreme health and financial consequences towards the public and government [1-5]. According to Rosmarin & Eastwood [6], since the early 1970s, many countries have moved into decriminalisation policies. Decriminalisation of drugs can be implemented through two models (de jure and de facto decriminalisation) [4-6] . De jure decriminalisation can be implemented by eradicating criminal penalties, replacing criminal penalties with civil penalties, or substituting criminal penalties with administrative penalties. In contrast, de facto decriminalisation can be implemented through non-enforcement of the law and referral of drug users to education/treatment/rehabilitation instead of court prosecution [7] .

Decriminalisation reduces legal penalties by changing or diverting criminal and civil penalties into rehabilitation, treatment, or education [8-10]. This decriminalisation policy only applies to personal drug use and possession violations, not to the sale supply or trafficking of drugs [11]. According to Rosmarin & Eastwood [6], many decriminalisation policies are practised by different countries which have differences in the variables. These variables are threshold quantities that are used to differentiate between drug trafficking and personal possession, different forms of penalties, functions of law enforcement agencies, judiciary system, medical and non-medical professionals, and the role of harm reduction programmes [6,12,13]. Eventually, all these variables influence the outcomes of the decriminalisation of drugs policy (Ibid).

According to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), there are at least 67 countries that consider drug use or consumption and/or possession of drugs for personal use as a criminal offence, while almost 16 countries such as Czechia, the Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland its’ a non-criminal offence or not an offence [14]. Further, many Western countries have legalised cannabis for medical and non-medical use, while in Canada, Thailand, and Uruguay, the commercial sale of recreational cannabis is legal [4]. Except in Thailand, in Southeast Asia, there is no evidence of decriminalisation of drug offences. Still, in those countries, the prohibitionist approach was softened to a harm reduction model which focused on the evidence-based methods for treatment, rehabilitation, and aftercare services of drug users [15]. In Malaysia, this move was initiated in 2019 by the government to remove criminal penalties from various laws against drug possession for personal use. This move can reduce the country’s prison population, overcome human rights violations, government’s expenditure on prisons and prisoners, and importantly criminal justice system of the country can be utilised effectively [16-20].

Further, decriminalisation of drug use can divert the drug abusers from suppression strategies such as arrest, detention, and forced treatment to effective, voluntary, comprehensive, and evidence-community based drug treatment and support services involving medical (pharmacological treatment) and psychosocial (psychological and social intervention) approach. Rusdi et al. [21] mentioned that this alternative approach would be the game-changer in managing the drug addiction problem in Malaysia. Otherwise, drug addiction will remain a social problem within our community forever as a silent virus that will be a more significant threat to the nation's future.

Jesseman & Payer [22] mention that decriminalisation of drug use is not a standalone approach. Multiple decriminalisation options can be combined and tailored based on the implementation challenges and the country’s social, economic, cultural, cultural and religious characteristics. As mentioned, Malaysia has only recently shown positive signs toward decriminalising the drug use policy. Thus, exploration is needed on this topic from the involved parties because the outcomes can be used to implement a proper decriminalisation policy and prepare the criminal justice and healthcare system for decriminalising drug use policy in Malaysia.

However, given the current literature, studies exploring the perspective of the public or law enforcement officers, health professionals, or drug users towards decriminalising drug use policy in Malaysia are limited. Only a recent study by Dapari et al. [23] in Malaysia studied the acceptance of decriminalisation of medical marijuana among adults. Thus, this study aimed to explore the perceptions of drug rehabilitation officers and relapsed drug users towards decriminalising drug use that can be implemented in Malaysia.

A qualitative research method was utilsed by employing a semi-structured face-to-face in-depth interview technique. Generally, the study locations were within Penang state, namely the districts of central Seberang Perai, north Seberang Perai, northeast Penang Island, south Seberang Perai, and southwest Penang Island. Penang state was chosen as the research location due to the researcher’s mobility and the research time frame. The data was collected from February 2022 to September 2022.

There were two groups of research population in this present study. The two groups were drug rehabilitation officers (R-DRO) from the National Anti-Drug Agency (NADA) in Penang state and relapsed drug users (R-RDU) going through drug treatment and rehabilitation under NADA in each district of Penang state. The drug rehabilitation officers were selected as one of the research population due to their significant role in the decriminalisation of the drug use policy, especially their support in the treatment and rehabilitation of drug users. In contrast, the relapsed drug users were selected because they are the targetted individuals for the mentioned policy. In total 15 drug rehabilitation officers and 15 relapsed drug users were interviewed. Their experiences were used to acquire an in-depth understanding of the decriminalisation of drug use policy. Their insights are significant to the growing knowledge of decriminalising drug use policy in Malaysia.

The sampling procedure of this current study is a non-probability sampling procedure, which is purposive sampling. Interviews were conducted face to face, where every respondent was interviewed individually at different times. The drug rehabilitation officers were approached through the NADA, and the interview session was finalised based on their availability and willingness to share their experiences. At the same time, the relapsed clients were recruited when attending their treatment and rehabilitation programs at the NADA district offices. The respondents' participation was voluntary without involving any monetary gains.

Each respondent read through and filled in the Participation Information Sheet and Participation Consent Form before participating in the mentioned study to be aware of their rights. Participants were informed that their identities and responses were kept anonymous and secret to achieve the integrity of responses. The qualitative probing techniques aided the interview sessions in microscopically exploring in-depth information from the respondents.

The researchers obtained ethical approval (JEPeM USM Code: SM/JEPeM/21040293) from Human Research Ethics Committee USM. Approval is needed to carry out this research ethically and follow the codes of ethical conduct of Universiti Sains Malaysia. Before the study, data collection approval was obtained from the NADA (Ref No: AADK.100-12/1/6 Jld.2 (16)) so that data collection could be done at the NADA district offices.

In this qualitative study, a face-to-face individual interview guide was used, which contained both open and closed questions. Both groups had separate interview guides, which differed slightly due to their role and experience in the mentioned research area. The researchers developed both interview guides, and the content was validated by the relevant social work and criminal justice experts.

The researchers have also introduced several best practice methods to ensure the rigour and trustworthiness of the current study results. Various researchers (e.g., [24-27]) in the field of qualitative research have noted that qualitative research has often been criticised for lack of rigour, transparency and justification of the data collection and analysis methods used, which calls into question the integrity of the findings. The current researchers used the three criteria (credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability) for qualitative rigour.

To maintain credibility, the researchers first checked the individual transcripts. Then the data was collected and organised using spreadsheets in MS Excel. As supported by Guba & Lincoln [28], this method led to rapid recognition and interpretation of the data. As suggested by various researchers [29,30], the researchers also used verbatim quotes in reporting the results, which contributed to the transparency of the analysis process. Secondly, the transferability was applied by the researchers by collecting data from two different groups (drug rehabilitation officers and relapsed drug users). Third, to ensure dependability, the researchers provided a detailed description of the research methods in this section. Finally, confirmability was achieved by the researchers by providing quotes from the data rather than quantifying the results. The limitations of the study were also addressed by the researchers.

Thematic analysis was utilised to identify and analyse themes and subthemes. In this study, the researchers utilised the most widely used method of thematic analysis outlined by Guba & Lincoln [28]. According to Guba & Lincoln [28], the thematic analysis method consists of six steps. Since this study is exploratory and there is a lack of local literature on drug decriminalisation policy in Malaysia, the researchers adopted an inductive approach to thematic analysis. The six steps are familiarising with the entire data set, creating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and creating the final analysis and description of the results.

The thematic analysis generated three themes from the raw transcripts: (1) possible outcomes of decriminalisation of drug use in the Malaysia context, (2) readiness of the public to accept the decriminalisation of drug use, and (3) readiness of government and NADA in implementing the decriminalisation of drug use. Table 1 below shows the themes and sub-themes generated from the raw data. Figure 1 below shows the micro-level thematic map focusing on highlighted themes (Table 1).

Most respondents agreed that decriminalisation could benefit existing drug users and law enforcement agencies, especially Royal Malaysian Police (RMP) and NADA. Many research papers (e.g., [4,12]) on this policy reported similar findings where long-term incarceration, criminal record, and conviction of drug possession could lock the drug users from various needs and benefits including jobs, loans, and financial and welfare assistance. According to Guba & Lincoln [28], the Labelling Theory clearly outlined that if a person is labelled as an addict once, they must have a hard time detaching themselves from those labels. It can negatively impact the drug users' social lives and mental health, their willingness to attend drug treatment and rehabilitation programmes, and induce high recidivism rates among them.

With the decriminalisation of drug use policy, individuals arrested for drug use or low-level and non-violent drug offences can be diverted from the criminal justice system and wholly engaged in public health and harm reduction programs [20]. Further, these findings from the current research support the assertion made by many policy papers (e.g., [7,11,12,15]) on the decriminalisation of drug use in which the decriminalisation could reduce the pressure on the criminal justice system by reducing the burden on the court system, time and money invested by the law enforcement agencies and law professionals on court matters, and costs of imprisonment.

Not much existing literature indicates the negative side of this policy. A recent study revealed that decriminalising minor drug offences can lead to more serious violations and career crimes. Similarly, some of the respondents from this study expressed a similar fear towards the policy. These findings contradict the existing studies (e.g., [21,23,24]). According to these studies, decriminalisation of drug use leads to a lower rate of regular or problematic drug use, reduces the lifetime prevalence rate for various age groups, and decreases drug-related deaths.

Most of the drug rehabilitation officers stated that the public still blames and tolerates people with drug addiction. Studies by Virani [3] and Greer et al. [8] showcased similar findings. These findings suggested that drug users experienced support from their families and society, but a certain proportion of the community still has negative attitudes towards such people. Despite the evidence of some fear about people who engage in drug abuse, the findings also indicated that society is ready for the acceptance and integration of drug users in society.

The policy of decriminalisation of drugs in Malaysia can lead to two possible changes. The first is that the public, including drug users, may view the said policy as an endorsement of drug use. Many studies showcased the association between drug abuse and homicide (e.g., [6,7]), sexual crimes (e.g., [21,22]), and juvenile delinquency (e.g., [12,13]). These outcomes proved the adverse effects of drug abuse which can create fear and concern among the public [13]. A research-based guide from the National Institute on Drug Abuse stated that due to fundamental neurobiological, psychological, social, and environmental factors, repeated use of addictive drugs changes brain functions, altering voluntary to compulsive drug use. These eventually influence their acceptance towards the decriminalisation of drug use policy. Secondly, this policy can remove the public stigma among drug users. Various research studies (e.g., [58-63]) indicated that stigma could disrupt the treatment seeking, choice of treatment, and treatment retention and adherence of individuals with substance abuse problems.

According to Godwin [14], budgetary implications need to be considered in depth before implementing this policy to ensure the funding is adequate to support a large number of drug users from the legal system for diversion programmes, community-based treatments, social services for the drug users, and increase the number of professional to support the drug users. Various policy papers (e.g., [7,11,12,15]) on the decriminalisation of drug use clearly outlined that modifications need to be done to policy and police practices in advance of legislation to remove or replace criminal sanctions so that measures that contradict principles of human rights, harm reduction and public health such as can be eliminated.

Relevant drug-related critical issues such as growth in the population, new types of drug abuse, psychosis effects through the misuse of new kinds of drugs, polydrug users (drug users who are taking more than one type of drugs at the same time), various types of drug users (children, youngsters, and adults), and the disproportionate influence of the technology and media social need to be addressed effectively so that the government can continuously plan and implement new drug policies for the betterment of the society.