4 ms·

Why is 'decrminalise' in quotes? Is it b/c it's only partially decriminalized, or is it crappy journalism?

anigbrowl 11y ago
Because they are quoting the minister, whose remarks form the only basis for the story. No legislation or formal rules have been published yet, so there's no objective basis for describing the proposal. The use of quotation marks is entirely appropriate and not crappy at all.
- degenerate 11y ago
  The crappy part is how the journal author tacked "for personal use" onto the title to make it sound like a move to condone hard drug use, when in fact the movement is just the opposite - to help addicts get clean instead of giving them criminal records. So it's crappy journalism, but for a different reason.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    Not that the former is objectionable. We are all too willing to forgive hard drugs as long as you give them the proper branding, i.e. pharmaceuticals. And of course for good reason. I would go as far as to say that the decriminalization and widespread medical administering of say, ibogaine, would do far more to fight the war on drugs than the actual War on Drugs itself.
  - anigbrowl 11y ago
    You might want to look into the operational realities for Dutch cannabis 'coffee shops'. I haven't lived there for ~15 years and don't know how it goes now, bu back then there would be multiple deliveries per day to a busy shop so as to stay compliant with the letter of the law about the (very generous) quantities that could be possessed at any given time. This is an important distinction since Ireland has no plans to decriminalize sale or distribution... ...but somehow I suspect that if this is what you had meant, you'd have said so the first time. I think you will be happier if you give up trying to parse headlines so closely, given that they're the literary equivalent of of candy.
  - bmelton 11y ago
    More likely, "for personal use" means that they've intimated that only a small amount of marijuana will be forgiven in the decriminalization process. We have the same caveat in Maryland, which decriminalizes "personal use amounts". "Personal use" in our case is "up to 10 grams" of marijuana, and anything above that would be considered "for distribution", which is still criminal, and of course still retains the full weight of law previously associated. On top of that, it's worth pointing out the obvious -- decriminalization is not legalization -- it's still "against the law", and is punishable (in Maryland) by fines that raise progressively each time you're caught. Moreover, while the material good itself might be decriminalized, no such decriminalization applies to paraphernalia. To that end, 9 grams of marijuana are mere citations, but a trace amount of marijuana in a pipe is still a criminal offense.
justincormack 11y ago
well selling is illegal, so its not legal per se.
- gearoidoc 11y ago
  If they're being specific on 'profiting' then in theory dealers could 'donate' their stashes to addicts and write it off against the tax man :D
  - corin_ 11y ago
    Every (afaik) country currently classifies distribution as that word is defined - giving drugs to a friend for free is just as illegal as selling them to a stranger for profit. Possibly treated more leniently, I don't know, but not legally different.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Because they are quoting the minister, whose remarks form the only basis for the story. No legislation or formal rules have been published yet, so there's no objective basis for describing the proposal. The use of quotation marks is entirely appropriate and not crappy at all.

degenerate 11y ago
The crappy part is how the journal author tacked "for personal use" onto the title to make it sound like a move to condone hard drug use, when in fact the movement is just the opposite - to help addicts get clean instead of giving them criminal records. So it's crappy journalism, but for a different reason.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  Not that the former is objectionable. We are all too willing to forgive hard drugs as long as you give them the proper branding, i.e. pharmaceuticals. And of course for good reason. I would go as far as to say that the decriminalization and widespread medical administering of say, ibogaine, would do far more to fight the war on drugs than the actual War on Drugs itself.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  You might want to look into the operational realities for Dutch cannabis 'coffee shops'. I haven't lived there for ~15 years and don't know how it goes now, bu back then there would be multiple deliveries per day to a busy shop so as to stay compliant with the letter of the law about the (very generous) quantities that could be possessed at any given time. This is an important distinction since Ireland has no plans to decriminalize sale or distribution... ...but somehow I suspect that if this is what you had meant, you'd have said so the first time. I think you will be happier if you give up trying to parse headlines so closely, given that they're the literary equivalent of of candy.
- bmelton 11y ago
  More likely, "for personal use" means that they've intimated that only a small amount of marijuana will be forgiven in the decriminalization process. We have the same caveat in Maryland, which decriminalizes "personal use amounts". "Personal use" in our case is "up to 10 grams" of marijuana, and anything above that would be considered "for distribution", which is still criminal, and of course still retains the full weight of law previously associated. On top of that, it's worth pointing out the obvious -- decriminalization is not legalization -- it's still "against the law", and is punishable (in Maryland) by fines that raise progressively each time you're caught. Moreover, while the material good itself might be decriminalized, no such decriminalization applies to paraphernalia. To that end, 9 grams of marijuana are mere citations, but a trace amount of marijuana in a pipe is still a criminal offense.

justincormack 11y ago

well selling is illegal, so its not legal per se.

gearoidoc 11y ago
If they're being specific on 'profiting' then in theory dealers could 'donate' their stashes to addicts and write it off against the tax man :D
- corin_ 11y ago
  Every (afaik) country currently classifies distribution as that word is defined - giving drugs to a friend for free is just as illegal as selling them to a stranger for profit. Possibly treated more leniently, I don't know, but not legally different.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]