The problem is that legalization (like alcohol) is different from decriminalization (like pot in the Netherlands) in both the effect on use and the effect on cr

The problem is that legalization (like alcohol) is different from decriminalization (like pot in the Netherlands) in both the effect on use and the effect on crime. Too often authors like this one will pick and choose the best or worst attributes of each to match their conclusion. This article cites the small or negative impact on use that decriminalization has had in Portugal and then jumps straight into how legalization (e.g. after Prohibition ended) has resulted in a drop in crime. But there is no reason to suspect that full legalization wouldn't result in a situation similar to what we have currently with alcohol. That is to say pervasive use and abuse, lavish marketing campaigns, and really awful effects on public health and safety. Not to mention regulatory capture by the industry, where even modest policy changes (like raising the federal tax on alcohol) are pretty much a non-starter. Likewise, there is little reason to suspect that decriminalization (of use and possession of small amounts) would do much to reduce drug-related crime, both by dealers and by those users who don't have a rock band or trust fund to support their habit. And you can't really tax a substance that is not legal to sell. And it does nothing to improve the safety or purity of street drugs. Basically all it does is put fewer non-violent users behind bars. That might be worth it, but don't keep bringing up the benefits of legalization when you're arguing for decriminalization.