Re:Mexico's Supreme Court has decriminalised the private use...
by eurasiantiger on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @02:40AM
(#27672609)
Decriminalization is a back door for criminal enterprises. They would still control supply, which means they would control quality, variety, price and availability.
Do we want to give monopoly on those powers to organized crime? Just look at the Netherlands: on the surface everything looks fine, but then there are murders of politicians…
Re:Mexico's Supreme Court has decriminalised the private use...
by rantwasp on Tuesday June 29, 2021 @02:04AM
(#27672368)
you got it.
decriminalization == it’s still illegal, but you won’t get prosecuted for it (this deincentivizes law enforcement from pursuing it)
legalization == it’s legal and now you can buy it and consume it.
Am I wrong here? When I see people saying, "Legalize all drugs," I interpret it to mean, "make it so anyone can sell drugs and pay taxes on them" which seems pretty extreme to me. But "decriminalize all drugs" makes a lot more sense in this context. To be clear, it seems logical to me that we stop arresting people for using drugs, but it doesn't seem reasonable to go a step further and allow retail sales of opioids. (Again, it's complicated by the catchall term 'drugs', where retail pot sales are much less problematic than the example of opioids.)
Edit: Recognizing that exceedingly few people are likely to wake up one day and say, "I think I'll try heroin," maybe there's less of a difference between these two terms than I imagine? If legalization means regulations on the quality/purity of the product, for example, then 'sanctioning' retail sales would provide a benefit that 'decriminalization' wouldn't have.