Several factors hinder the analysis of this issue. These include the lack of consensus on the meaning of the term decriminalization, the lack of systematic data on the effects of these law reforms, and personal bias. Policies on marijuana have been designed to achieve two sometimes contradictory goals: to minimize health and safety hazards associated with use and to minimize the social costs and adverse individual consequences that result from efforts to control use. The available data indicate that decriminalization has had little impacts on rates of use. The decreased use of marijuana, particularly among young people, appears to be more strongly connected with changing perceptions of health risks rather than any changes in the drug's legal status. The benefits of decriminalization have consisted mainly of savings in the costs of enforcement and prosecution of marijuana offenses. However, decriminalization has not eliminated all the social costs associated with marijuana policy, because possession of marijuana is still against the law. Overall, decriminalization laws were much less radical than their name implies and appear to have succeeded in reducing the costs without increasing the health and safety hazards associated with use. Notes and 23 references