[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I have to say, decriminalization is useless. It tends to be the default position for people who acknowledge that the war on drugs doesn't work, but are afraid of what it means to legalize a drug (even though we have plenty of those already, with varying degrees of potential benefit/harm) from a social perspective (will usage go up, is there easier access for kids, etc..)

But the problem with this position is that by decriminalizing possession, you essentially keep all the bad aspects of drug use (high-level crime, street dealings with no concern for age, possible usage increase, lack of proper studies on effects, etc..) while not allowing the benefits (taxation, age-limits, regulated distribution, more informative social and youth programs, less stress on justice system, etc..)

In my opinion, if you're for decriminalization but against legalization, you're letting your personal ideals regarding drug use cloud yourself to the overall social benefits. If you're against it, just be against it. Decriminalization is not a logical position to me, it's just sitting on the fence with a buzzword that makes you feel like your with the times. If you don't care either way, the default position should really be legalization. If you do care, your position should be not to legalize. Anything in-between is essentially useless.

There are plenty of things that are decriminalized but not legalized. Things like driving over the speed limit or riding the C-train without a fare. The reasons why these things are decriminalized but not legalized are pretty straight forward.