Legalization vs Decriminalization

[elchivito]

An excellent "elaboration", and surprisingly, it's from Tejas.

Decriminalization Vs. Legalization

Decriminalization:

A system that punishes offenses by means other than prison. Fines for most traffic violations are an example. In relation to drugs, it is normally limited to possession (and sometimes growth) of small amounts (often around one ounce) and somtimes to sale of equally small amounts to adults. It is also often limited to marijuana among the illegal drugs.

There is another distinction possible between de jure decriminalization, which entails an amendment to criminal legislation, and de facto decriminalization, which involves an administrative decision not to prosecute acts that nonetheless remain subject to arrest and imprisonment under the law. Some cities have simply decided de facto to specify that enforcement of some marijuana laws is the "lowest priority" for their police forces.


Legalization:

A system that allows the use and sale of drugs to adults under a system of regulation such as pertains to alcohol or perhaps involving licenses. Many suggest there would be a ban on advertising and public use. If the alcohol model prevailed, different states might vary the regulatory structure and legality might also be limited by local option to specific areas within a state.

Drug Policy Forum of Texas

[Air&Road]

Originally Posted by elchivito

An excellent "elaboration", and surprisingly, it's from Tejas.

Decriminalization Vs. Legalization

Decriminalization:

A system that punishes offenses by means other than prison. Fines for most traffic violations are an example. In relation to drugs, it is normally limited to possession (and sometimes growth) of small amounts (often around one ounce) and somtimes to sale of equally small amounts to adults. It is also often limited to marijuana among the illegal drugs.

There is another distinction possible between de jure decriminalization, which entails an amendment to criminal legislation, and de facto decriminalization, which involves an administrative decision not to prosecute acts that nonetheless remain subject to arrest and imprisonment under the law. Some cities have simply decided de facto to specify that enforcement of some marijuana laws is the "lowest priority" for their police forces.


Legalization:

A system that allows the use and sale of drugs to adults under a system of regulation such as pertains to alcohol or perhaps involving licenses. Many suggest there would be a ban on advertising and public use. If the alcohol model prevailed, different states might vary the regulatory structure and legality might also be limited by local option to specific areas within a state.

Drug Policy Forum of Texas

Very simple explanation in that one sentence.

Thanks for posting.

[kerry]

Explained in the original article which was under discussion in the other thread. All that bluster without reading it?

[Air&Road]

I read it, but they did not make the decriminalization portion NEARLY as clear as the simple sentence bolded above.

There are not alot of people that are able to explain things thoroughly in very few words. Most writers can not. In the case of the original article, there were too many ancilliary issues involved for the article to be very clear, especially given the lack of clarity of the author.

There are a few people on this forum that do a SUPERB job of explaining relatively complex things with VERY few words. It's a gift. Botnst and Jim Ellington have always seemed to be capable of doing so, and there might be one or two others that don't immediately come to mind.

Okay, now I'll hand it back over to you guys so you can continue your regularly scheduled Larry bashing.

[JB3]

Originally Posted by Air&Road

I read it, but they did not make the decriminalization portion NEARLY as clear as the simple sentence bolded above.

There are not alot of people that are able to explain things thoroughly in very few words. Most writers can not. In the case of the original article, there were too many ancilliary issues involved for the article to be very clear, especially given the lack of clarity of the author.

There are a few people on this forum that do a SUPERB job of explaining relatively complex things with VERY few words. It's a gift. Botnst and Jim Ellington have always seemed to be capable of doing so, and there might be one or two others that don't immediately come to mind.

Okay, now I'll hand it back over to you guys so you can continue your regularly scheduled Larry bashing.

Can you blame people? Hundreds of posts in a thread, and the last post before its locked, and after 20 different people explained the difference, you still ask about the difference between decriminalization and legalization.

This is what drives people up the wall Larry. You turned that other thread into a huge off topic morality debate without apparently understanding the first post or linked article, or any of the subsequent explanations that were posted nearly every page. Read that thread again and see for yourself, now that you apparently understand the difference.

There is not a single reason why you wouldn't be a fan of a decriminalization idea when it comes to drug addicts, now that you suddenly decided to understand what it meant.

[Air&Road]

Originally Posted by JB3

Can you blame people? Hundreds of posts in a thread, and the last post before its locked, and after 20 different people explained the difference, you still ask about the difference between decriminalization and legalization.

This is what drives people up the wall Larry. You turned that other thread into a huge off topic morality debate without apparently understanding the first post or linked article, or any of the subsequent explanations that were posted nearly every page. Read that thread again and see for yourself, now that you apparently understand the difference.

There is not a single reason why you wouldn't be a fan of a decriminalization idea when it comes to drug addicts, now that you suddenly decided to understand what it meant.

I'm pleased to see that I didn't disrupt your Larry bashing schedule. Wouldn't want to derail you guys.

In the aggregate decriminalization vs. legalization makes no difference to me on this subject. My contention then and my contention now is that it not be made legal. Simple as that.

Worming around the drug laws so as to make drug use legal is putting lipstick on a pig. Lipstick or not, it's still a pig.

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by Air&Road

I'm pleased to see that I didn't disrupt your Larry bashing schedule. Wouldn't want to derail you guys.

Where's that 'leave Chelsea(Britney) alone!' graphic?

Legalization of all drugs doesn't appeal to me. Having a legal industry to make and distribute high purity meth and/or heroin seems a bit weird.

[MTI]

Wasn't it Britney?

[cmac2012]

Originally Posted by MTI

Wasn't it Britney?

Good Lord, I'm slipping. I thought something felt wrong when I typed that.

[MTI]

Methiest States in the US

Making Main Ingredient Harder to Get, Gets Results

Big Pharma is inadvertently helping meth labs by using their financial powers to block legislation that would make getting Sudafed a little harder to get.

[BAVBMW]

Originally Posted by MTI

Methiest States in the US

Making Main Ingredient Harder to Get, Gets Results

Big Pharma is inadvertently helping meth labs by using their financial powers to block legislation that would make getting Sudafed a little harder to get.

Then I guess I'm with big pharma. I don't really care much about the methheads, I just wish we could relax the rules on shooting them. But trying to buy Sudafed is an incredible hassles, which seems all the worse when I'm actually feeling like I need some Sudafed.

MV

[BAVBMW]

Oh, and about the easiest way to descried the difference between legalization and decriminalization is:

One is saying it's "Ok", and the other is saying "I'll look the other way."

In practicality, the differences are subtle, but I suppose if you live in that world, they might mean much more.

MV

[Air&Road]

Originally Posted by BAVBMW

Then I guess I'm with big pharma. I don't really care much about the methheads, I just wish we could relax the rules on shooting them. But trying to buy Sudafed is an incredible hassles, which seems all the worse when I'm actually feeling like I need some Sudafed.

MV

Yes, for some innocent person to have a headache, they'll just have to suffer. Shooting the meth heads instead of punishing people minding their own business is certainly an alternative worth giving serious consideration.

That's where the liberal drug users have taken over our society. Favor the law breakers at the expense of innocent people trying to do the right thing. That's the way it is in today's America.

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Where's that 'leave Chelsea(Britney) alone!' graphic?

Legalization of all drugs doesn't appeal to me. Having a legal industry to make and distribute high purity meth and/or heroin seems a bit weird.

[cmbdiesel]

Originally Posted by BAVBMW

Oh, and about the easiest way to descried the difference between legalization and decriminalization is:

One is saying it's "Ok", and the other is saying "I'll look the other way."

In practicality, the differences are subtle, but I suppose if you live in that world, they might mean much more.

MV

I'm of the opinion that you are incorrect.
Did you perchance read the link posted in the now locked thread regarding the results seen in Portugal from decriminalizing?

In fact, it would seem as if 'looking the other way' is far from the reality.
Rather, the abusers are sentenced to treatment instead of incarceration.
This greatly assists in lessening the number of abusers, which I see as a net positive to society.

Shooting them... I like humor, it's funny.
Too bad some people can't recognize it when they hear it.