I think people are missing the distinction I'm trying to make. It's, as I said in my original post, a subtle and mostly technical one, so that's not unforeseeab

I think people are missing the distinction I'm trying to make. It's, as I said in my original post, a subtle and mostly technical one, so that's not unforeseeable. Once again, for posterity's sake, then: there's a difference between "decriminalization" and "legalization", namely the one between tolerated and allowed. Per my reading and understanding of how marijuana possession and use is handled in Alaska, it falls in the former category. What Uruguay has done falls in the latter. They didn't merely say, "There's no penalty for committing this crime." They didn't merely say, "We're going to make prosecution of this crime our lowest priority." They said, "This is not a crime." That's what's different here, and it's an important, but apparently overlooked distinction that I think needs pointing out. That's all I'm trying to say here.