Note: I am very much in favor of smoking the reefer. I used to be in favor of full blown legalization, but after delving a little more into the market, I've changed my preference toward decriminalization, even though I think it's the sovereign right of all individuals to voluntarily smoke cannabis if they so choose. Basically, it's about the seen and the unseen. With legalization, you see that cops stop caging you like an animal for cultivating, selling, and possessing weed. That's all good and well, but there's also the unseen: masses and masses of government regulation. The state begins to charge taxes on it, similar to the alcopops tax and the absurd tobacco taxes. They start to regulate sale: no late opening hours, no home delivery, ID requirements, etc. They set size limits, usually around an eighth to an ounce. [hr][/hr] Full, proper legalization is not political achievable, and likely never will be. They'll always feel the need to control you and your life. Consequently, the choice between legalization and decriminalization isn't really feasible. Rather, it's a choice between: Legalization + control and regulation and Decriminalization. I am of the opinion that limiting the infringement penalty to basically a speeding ticket is the best course of action. Better yet, make sale punishable by a small fine, but cultivation and use completely legal. In such a scenario there will be no legal cannabis stores, weed will not be sold in the white market. Thus, we retain a lot of the black market (turn grey market) liberty that we've come to know and love: good dealers who will drop stuff off at any hour of the night, no size limits, no concern whatsoever for the edicts of the state. [hr][/hr] Full legalization is a nice ideal, but it's just that - an ideal. The government will always seek to control the use and sale of cannabis - so given the only real choices we have: decriminalization or legalization+control - I think the rational choice is decriminalization. Opinions?
Sorry, but I find your position extremely selfish. The sole concern running through your entire post is your own convenience of being able to do what you want (use cannabis) with zero consideration of any of the other consequences. I'm not saying they automatically lead to a different conclusion, only that you've singularly failed to even consider them.
You are mistaken, I have considered the state's regulation and find it involuntary and abusive, in all its forms. I am an anarchist. An advocate of counter-economics.
I disagree, passing a law knowing it will be violated by the majority causes people to lose respect for the law and leads to more crime .
Then why aren't you arguing for legalisation without regulation and why only regarding cannabis? That's very selective anarchism.
I have thought the same thing. The only way I would agree with legalization is with the caveat that government keeps its hands off the cultivating and selling. Regulate it with laws similar to alcohol.
