>> ^Psychologic:

It isn't the decriminalization that reduces use, it's the treatment... but of course people are much less likely to seek treatment if they're afraid of being prosecuted for possession.

Yeah, I'm a bit surprised liberal Cenk didn't make that point explicitly. The reduced usage comes from government-provided healthcare, not the decriminalization itself. The real thing these countries did was decide to spend less money on prisons, and more on social welfare, to positive results.

It isn't the decriminalization that reduces use, it's the treatment... but of course people are much less likely to seek treatment if they're afraid of being prosecuted for possession.

I do like the "free heroin" thing. It completely destroys the profitability for dealers so there's no incentive to market it to new users. People can try it if they want (and in a safe environment), but they have to make a conscious effort rather than coming across it randomly on the street or through a friend.

I don't really like the taxation argument though. If there is a profit to be made then there will always be a reason to persuade more people to use a given drug, and there is additional cost incurred by the tax collection and product regulation. I say make it legal, leave it alone, and be happy with cutting a huge chunk of enforcement spending out of the local and federal budgets.

I heard some "expert" on NPR saying that whatever your preconceived notions of drugs you'll be proven right when you look at the data from Portugal. For example if you are against decriminalization you'll see that Portugal proves you right and it shouldn't be decriminalized and vice versa.

Now I don't know if that's true or not and I'm considering the source the bastion of the intellectual class of state managers. I'd like to see someone parse this report down to something more palatable.

Wasn't angry. Capitals and other formatting just used for effect. I apologize if I came off that way.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
You lost me completely. I understand the difference between legal and illegal. There is no meaningful distinction between something that has been decriminalized and legal. People use "decriminalized" to still place the moral bad sign on something while advocating it's non-criminal status; a way of labeling something bad and yet having it be legal. The phrase is all about having your moral cake, and eating it too. Didn't mean to excite your anger there, was just asking what you saw as a difference, if any, between something that is decriminalized, and something that is legal, because for me, it is semantically the same.

@GeeSussFreeK

I agree that it is a move in the right direction. It is a very important step to assist in harm reduction for citizens; however, it completely fails in some areas.

One area of harm reduction that it completely misses is the lack of quality control. Unless you do independent analysis of what you are buying (assuming you have some lab equipment, knowledge, time, and desire), you have no way of knowing the purity of the illegal(or decriminalized) substance is being bought. This is bad in two ways: (1) the can be cut with harmful (varying degrees) substances to increase overall profit and (2) this can greatly affect the strength of the substance - which leads to accidental overdoses.

The second area of fail for decriminalization is that it doesn't affect the criminal supply structure at all. It doesn't remove the drug dealers off the street and doesn't stop any money from being channeled back to the drug cartels.

The above two points (and I'm sure some other ones) are why you will find some people who strongly oppose decriminalization as a midstep towards full legalization and control. I think that some feel that decriminalization wouldn't be good enough or that it would be a false midstep (i.e. offered up to placate the people and kill the momentum for full legalization.)

Again, decriminalization is fantastic for helping those that are addicts. The government did a big study on veterans come back from Vietnam because a large percentage of them did various/multiple drugs while there because it was so stressful. They found that after a year of being home, less than half still used drugs. It was either 3 or 5 years later, a small percentage used recreationally and 1-3 percent still used them very frequently. I've read several studies on this phenomenon and it holds out that 1-3 percent of people that try a substance become an addict (varying degrees.) Most people just need a perceptual change if they start abandoning their responsibilities because of *insert object of obsession here* (i.e. kick in the pants.) Personally, I ran into this with NHL 2010 for the PS3. Seriously how much more fun can it get? But I started missing homework, missing deadlines from my personal projects, etc. I realized this and actually sold my TV and PS3 to some coworkers to get it out of my place. However because of brain chemistry or personality traits, addicts need professional help. Decriminalization can free a person from the criminal burden when seeking help for substance addiction. (Small side note to pre-address expected thoughts in some people's heads: most addicts get caught doing illegal things like breaking into houses, etc... The point is that most addicts get into this position to feed and because of their addiction. I'm not advocating ignoring the responsibility for those actions, but most reactions focus on dealing punishment instead of treating the root cause.) Over time, decriminalization can also help with removing the social stigmatization of seeking help for addiction. But to be honest, legalizing would be better at that.

I don't see decriminalization as very likely across the US. Fear is the daily diet here and drugs make great PR material for fear. Also there is a great deal of money and the government fighting it. Most government bodies get extra money in their budget to fight the "war on drugs" and don't want to give up that money. Lobbying efforts will mainly be against it: by pharma (why pay for something when you can just grow something that addresses your specific need?) and prisons (US's new slavery system - See how they learned! Now with less visibility and a few whites too! ^{I kid, I kid}) In this regard, I hope that California will take the lead in showing the nation that the world won't come crashing down when this happens. It will eventually as the older people die off. That sounds callous, but it reminds me of scientific advances. Typically a generation can only go so far because of the mental knowledge base that they grew up with. Future generations grew up build their knowledge foundation on the mid- to end-work of the previous generations and are able to look at it differently and advance it.

Well, that seems to be a subject that can make me type... I need to go some work done.

>> ^curiousity:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/GeeSussFreeK" title="member since August 1st, 2008" class="profilelink">GeeSussFreeK
It is still illegal when it is decriminalized; it is typically that the punishment moves from the criminal justice system to a one that typically focuses on harm reduction for the individual caught. In a way it is like being taken to civil court instead of criminal court - you could have some punishment, but the risk of going to jail is gone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization#Drug_decriminalization

Article about how Portugal's decriminalization works:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug
-decriminalization


Interesting! You see, that is a misconception I had about decriminalization, that it was in essence removing all consequence from said action. Didn't realize it just changed it to a fine instead of time. Still less than ideal, and even more prone to abuse I would think...but a move in the right direction.

@GeeSussFreeK

It is still illegal when it is decriminalized; it is typically that the punishment moves from the criminal justice system to a one that typically focuses on harm reduction for the individual caught. In a way it is like being taken to civil court instead of criminal court - you could have some punishment, but the risk of going to jail is gone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_liberalization#Drug_decriminalization

Article about how Portugal's decriminalization works:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

You lost me completely. I understand the difference between legal and illegal. There is no meaningful distinction between something that has been decriminalized and legal. People use "decriminalized" to still place the moral bad sign on something while advocating it's non-criminal status; a way of labeling something bad and yet having it be legal. The phrase is all about having your moral cake, and eating it too. Didn't mean to excite your anger there, was just asking what you saw as a difference, if any, between something that is decriminalized, and something that is legal, because for me, it is semantically the same.


>> ^Payback:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I understand the political difference, in the world of real things, I don't understand there to be any difference. What do you see as the big difference?


No big difference? Illegal is NOTHING like criminal, but nor is it LEGAL.
Would you want to walk beside, or ride a bike along, a street after speeding was deemed legal?
How about driving in a city that legalized running red lights and stop signs?
How about investing when the SEC legalizes misleading advertising for brokerages? skip that, already done...
How about eating store-bought food after the Food and Drug administration legalizes the use of the myriad substances they've banned throughout the years as poisonous or carcenogenic?
HUGE difference between legal and illegal. It's not as big a difference as between legal and criminal but, it's still a real, marked difference.
Mr. Robertson is just one of those people who has admitted that parking in a handicapped space doesn't deserve 5-7 years in prison.

>> ^Payback:

To be fair, Robertson never said he was for legalizing pot, just decriminalizing it. BIG difference.


I understand the political difference, in the world of real things, I don't understand there to be any difference. What do you see as the big difference?

To be fair, Robertson never said he was for legalizing pot, just decriminalizing it. BIG difference.

>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^NetRunner:
It's a Christmas miracle!

God bless us, every one!
Wouldn't that be awesome if Christians became the new hippies and started living on little farms, growing marijuana?? I would love to buy Jesus weed.

What a Utopia! Christians, who actually know that Jesus said we should love the poor, and who understand that even if God gave man dominion over the world, that doesn't mean we should rip it apart, poison it, and burn it at every opportunity.

Instead of "God hates fags" on Church signs, we would see "BONG HITS 4 JESUS!"

>> ^NetRunner:

It's a Christmas miracle!


God bless us, every one!

Wouldn't that be awesome if Christians became the new hippies and started living on little farms, growing marijuana?? I would love to buy Jesus weed. There would be Christians on sidewalks in cities doing tarot card reading and henna and working on progressive hard rock and blues albums with lyrics about Jesus fighting hordes of demons during the apocalypse.

God, I am really high.

Thank you for the promote.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Thanks for the promote.

In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
*promote

Thanks for the promote.

In reply to this comment by MrFisk:
*promote

Decriminalizing and legalizing are two completely different ideas. Even people who think it should remain illegal can't justify it being criminal just by virtue of plain, ordinary financial sense.