> I seem the logic in your statement, but you forget so many others - by 'decriminalizing' you still have users buying unknown products at shady corners, from organized crime that is pure net loss for society on so many levels. We still talk about a simple plant that used to grow everywhere.
The fact that the plant used to grow everywhere helps my point: there is very little risk of people getting bad stuff if they buy it from a shady source since it's so easy to obtain the good stuff (or growing it yourself). Again the goal here is to reduce usage as much as possible without ruining lives for those who don't follow the rule. Getting the stuff everywhere, with referral, marketing, promotion, ... . will increase the consumption. Just like cigarette makers have developed a battery of technique to get teens/young adults hooked up on their product, so will MJ stores. Just not allowing the stuff to be so openly sold in the first place is _so much easier_. I can get the whole tax dollars argument, but I am willing to bet the cigarettes and alcohol cost way more in public health than they bring in in taxes, no reason to add more to the list.
> Decriminalization is a (self)lie - when the question is 'what about weed' and the answer is 'we don't know', 'its illegal, just less'. US model of the recent past is one of the worst in human history, as seen on long-term results, but decriminalization is some temporary state, nothing that makes sense long-term. In Netherland, coffee shops can sell but they can't legally obtain weed (something along those lines) - what sense does this make?
It is pretty simple actually: it is never OK to have/sell/consume MJ, just like now. The only difference is if you get caught :
- Before: appearing in front of a judge. Getting potential prison time. Maybe losing your job. Having a criminal file, and basically paying your blunt for the rest of your life.
- After: Here is a $250 ticket.
The idea is just to stop clogging the justice system, and destroying lives for something as insignificant as weed, while preventing widespread distribution of the product, which has known and proven long and short term harmful side effects.
> If I can buy a beer at local pub to wind off after long day, I sure as hell should be able to buy a reefer to do the same (or ideally something not requiring smoking for the same effect). Any deviation from this basic logic I've heard so far was flawed.
The issue is simply: where does it stop ? Psylo mushrooms are fully naturals too. Is MDMDA OK (it really, really winds you off) ? I have heard good echoes of microdoses of LSD ? Cocaine as a booster is popular as well.
We already have two well known psychoactive substances in wide circulation (alcohol and cigarettes). Both can be (and are) used responsibly by a lot of people. But we also know from experience that they pose significant additional health problem , and are abused by a lot of people. We also know that the producer will do everything they can to increase consumption without regard for the consequences. I don't see how adding more to the list is better for the common good.