But now we’re just playing semantics.

For most intents and purposes, the difference between legal and fully decriminalized is not significant.

The parent’s point is that there are many parties with an interest in drugs being criminalized, which explains why the world has not copied Portugal’s decriminalization model.

Its very significant to me

“Decriminalized” is the same level as when literal snake oil salesmen were going around fairs in the 1880s selling unknown substances that killed you

“Legal” is when the quality is regulated and analyzed for a specific purpose and consumers know what they are buying and sellers face consequences for violating that

> For most intents and purposes, the difference between legal and fully decriminalized is not significant.

Parent talked about profit, but in Portugal the production, distribution and sale are still a crime, and therefore the people profiting from those activities are still the same.

The profit is in enforcing the law. Defense contractors and prison guard unions don't make any money when something is nominally illegal but nobody is actually spending any money trying to stop it.

Which only applies to America and not the rest of the progressive democracies which tend to lack these actors.

So why not in Germany, the UK, France, Sweden, Italy? Why just Portugal? That is the question.

Less US-centric thinking!

It applies to other countries proportional to the extent that they have a bureaucratic apparatus to fight a "war on drugs" employing manpower and technology to arrest people and put them in prison.

Which is to say, there is a bias everywhere in favor of the status quo.