In a landmark decision for the future of criminal incarceration, the Supreme Court recently ruled that California must reduce its prison population by some 46,000 inmates within two years.

Logically speaking, nonviolent offenders should top the list of to-be-released prisoners.

And what group of criminals is chock-full of nonviolent offenders? Those with drug charges for intent to distribute, manufacture and sell.

Granted, drugs can be detrimental to a person’s health, but the dangers of drugs and the freedom to choose self-harm is another argument entirely.

The point here is that, due to the Supreme Court’s ruling on overcrowding and infringement on human rights by the prison system, drug laws warrant reconsideration. Re-evaluating them could prempt prison overcrowding problems like the one the Court recently ruled on.

As of 2001, 20.4 percent of all adults serving time in state penitentiaries were drug law violators. Ten years later, folks are still using drugs. There’s little indication that this trend will stop.

Since the California ruling is likely to set up a chain of human rights violations for inmates across the country, the overcrowding issue might become something every state will have to evaluate.

Why not remove some of those nonviolent inmates incarcerated because of drug charges by getting the government to finally and fully re-evaluate whether some drugs — if any at all — should be illegal or should be understood in the same way as alcohol?