3 ms·

I am totally in favor of dtciminalisation. No jail, no active police force looking for it. Cost becomes close to 0. Problem solved. If a policeman finds someone

by IMTDb 10y ago

I am totally in favor of dtciminalisation. No jail, no active police force looking for it. Cost becomes close to 0. Problem solved. If a policeman finds someone actively selling on the street, take the stuff, write a ticket, and you are good to go. I believe there is a massive difference between making something legal, and making it illegal, even if not penalized. You make it sound as if there is no possible ground between (a) fully legal consume as much as you want, get it easily virtually everywhere or (b) invest millions of dollars to puts hundreds of people in jail.

metaphorm 10y ago
there's lots of middle-ground. regulation of potentially harmful substances for adult use is a middle ground that is more legal than decriminalization, and produces better outcomes in my opinion. decriminalization leaves control of the substance in the hands of black market vendors who are ultimately connected with black market producers. the social harm of organized crime related to black market producers is a major issue that is solved by legalization and not by decriminalization. additionally, there is the argument for liberty. why should a police officer be allowed to confiscate something you own, if your society basically agrees that its ok for you to have it? decriminalization is an incoherent policy. why would anyone support a policy that basically says "we think this is bad but we can't be bothered to do anything about it". if its not bad enough to do anything about then why is it illegal? legalization allows for quality control of product, inspection of businesses, collection of tax revenues, and social normalization so informed responsible use by adults can take place. in my opinion, there is no good argument for decriminalization besides the weak "it's better than militant prohibition". any of the goods that come from decriminalization are also present in regulated legalization, and then there are significant additional goods from legalization that cannot be achieved by decriminalization alone.

by IMTDb 10y ago

metaphorm 10y ago

there's lots of middle-ground. regulation of potentially harmful substances for adult use is a middle ground that is more legal than decriminalization, and produces better outcomes in my opinion. decriminalization leaves control of the substance in the hands of black market vendors who are ultimately connected with black market producers. the social harm of organized crime related to black market producers is a major issue that is solved by legalization and not by decriminalization. additionally, there is the argument for liberty. why should a police officer be allowed to confiscate something you own, if your society basically agrees that its ok for you to have it? decriminalization is an incoherent policy. why would anyone support a policy that basically says "we think this is bad but we can't be bothered to do anything about it". if its not bad enough to do anything about then why is it illegal? legalization allows for quality control of product, inspection of businesses, collection of tax revenues, and social normalization so informed responsible use by adults can take place. in my opinion, there is no good argument for decriminalization besides the weak "it's better than militant prohibition". any of the goods that come from decriminalization are also present in regulated legalization, and then there are significant additional goods from legalization that cannot be achieved by decriminalization alone.