Journal of Historical Research, Law and Policy 3115-7505 3 Serial Number 11 2025 09 15 Criminal Policy of Iran and the United Kingdom Regarding the Offense of Drug Use Criminal Policy of Iran and the United Kingdom Regarding the Offense of Drug Use 1 16 10.61838/jhrlp.65 EN Journal Article 2025 05 20 <p>This study conducts a comparative analysis of the criminal policy of Iran and the United Kingdom concerning the use of narcotic drugs, and explains the logic behind integrating punishment with health-oriented interventions. The research follows a descriptive–analytical approach and relies on primary legal sources, sentencing guidelines, and executive documents. For comparison, the study employs a three-dimensional matrix—legislative, judicial, and executive—against four policy criteria: proportionality, deterrent effectiveness, alignment with public health, and enforceability. The findings indicate that Iran criminalizes “use/addiction” but Articles 15 and 16 of the Anti-Narcotics Law provide treatment-oriented pathways for exemption or suspension of prosecution, thereby facilitating the legal exit of the user from the criminal cycle. In the United Kingdom, “use” per se is not criminalized, and criminal policy exerts its practical effect through the criminalization of “possession” under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the focus on production and supply under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. Sentencing is calibrated through binding guidelines of the Sentencing Council, and treatment-oriented community orders offer an alternative to short-term imprisonment. The executive analysis reveals that Iran, in order to enhance the effectiveness of its response to drug use, requires standardization of criminal decision-making, continuity of treatment from prison to community, and integration of health–justice data systems. Conversely, the United Kingdom—through its “From Harm to Hope” strategy, mandatory treatment requirements in community orders, and expanded access to naloxone—presents a more coherent model. Accordingly, the article recommends developing criteria-based sentencing guidelines, institutionalizing diversion from prosecution conditional on treatment, implementing the “Take-Home Naloxone” protocol, and establishing online dashboards for monitoring coverage and outcomes as key policy implications.</p> https://jhrlp.com/index.php/jhrlp/article/download/65/59