Can i respectfully suggest then that you stop reading papers as they are filling your head with lies.
You call decrimilisation sticking ones head in the sand. The alternative is to continue with the current "war on drugs" approach, an approach that has, over the past 30 years clearly failed as drug abuse has continued to rise. I would suggest that carrying on with a proven failed policy is more akin to sticking one's head in the sand than looking at trying something different. The war on drugs has had three decades and more, how close are they to winning it. Prohibition doesn't work, it only makes using more dangerous.
Decrimilisation does make it safer, that is exactly what it does, it means that people buying drugs can know how much they are taking and take it much more safely. The decrimilisation (and the wider societal appraoch to drug use) has seen dramatic drops in problematic drug use, HIV and hepatitis infection rates, overdose deaths, drug-related crime and incarceration rates. Decrimilisation does make it safer, fact.
You are perhaps correct when you say that increased (illegal) drug abuse and an increase in crime are connected. But the important point is the illegality of it. If an addict can go and seek medical treatment for drug addiction without fear of prosecution then they don't have to rob or steal or get involved in other illegal activity.