1. Progressives who favor marijuana de-criminalization but not legalization are involved in a hoax. They want to appear progressive, but in reality their position insures that the War on Drugs (as applied to marijuana) survives and thrives.
2. If marijuana is decriminalized but not legalized, where will people get their marijuana? A small number will grow it or get it free from someone who grows it. But most will *purchase* it. Because growing pot requires expertise and costs time/money.
3. And decriminalization regimes retain the prohibition against *sale. So the overwhelming number of marijuana transactions remain illegal. Those who sell (“dealers”) remain criminal.
4. To put it differently, decriminalization-but-not-legalization retains a place for police at the center of most marijuana transactions.
5. This will mean the ramping up of buy-bust stings. And who do you think will be most implicated by enforcement? Black people, poor people, those on the street, ppl trying to make a buck supplying what the legal regime says can be freely used. Those ppl will be arrested, caged.
6. Proponents of decriminalization-but-not-legalization try to hide behind a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about needing to prevent big marijuana businesses from forming - a standard they literally apply to zero other industries like beer, pharmaceuticals, weapons of war.
7. And they talk about the need to prevent the harms that come from marijuana - as though decriminalization-but-not-legalization will somehow address those. Also a standard they don’t apply to far more dangerous products, like wine, automobiles, and aspirin.
8. But the decriminalization-but-not-legalization crowd elides the harms of the Drug War from that calculation. Their favored policy ensures the Drug War (against marijuana) will continue. It retains the very worst aspects of the mass incarceration approach to cannabis.
9. Also they act as though “legalization” is some sort of Wild West - as though it is incompatible with sensible regulation. In fact everywhere cannabis has been legalized it has been significantly regulated.
10. Here in Oregon counties can opt out of allowing storefronts. In most (all?) states there are zoning restrictions. There are limitations on advertising, labeling. Limits on who can buy, how much. There’s product testing. Limits on who can own licenses to grow, how much.
11. The decriminalization-but-not-legalization crowd act like legalization leaves consumers to the whims of large distributors. The opposite is true. Legalization facilitates the regulation of distributors.
12. In states that have legalized, consumers are empowered: they know what they're buying: strain, THC level, CBD content, dosage, supplier, potential dangers, etc. And choice expands. When was last time your "dealer" gave you choice of 10 strains? Provided you with THC level?
13. In legalization states, consumers are protected from the adulteration of the product. Growers are known/licensed. Product is tested for impurities, label accuracy. When was the last time you bought pot on the black market and knew who grew it? Had protection against impurity?
14. Those who favor decriminalization-but-not-legalization claim the latter disempowers consumers, leaves them at whims of big bad marijuana companies. But the opposite is true. It's their decrim regime – that inevitably retains the black market – that disempowers consumers.
15. Here in Oregon we even use a portion of the taxes from legalized marijuana – an advantage, I might add, that decriminalization does not offer – to run advertisements educating the public about its harms, the need to act responsibly.
16. Some progressives also say we can't have legalization without reparations for those targeted by the Drug War. Sounds good to me. Erase old pot convictions. Give arrestees a leg up on getting licenses.
17. But how on earth has this become an argument *against* legalization? Unless we have full reparations for those targeted in the war on marijuana we must continue to arrest and jail people in a war on marijuana? What kind of nonsense is that?
18. In conclusion, decriminalization-but-not-legalization is a way of retaining the worst aspects of the Drug War without getting many of the benefits of legalization. In the abstract, it seems “moderate” and “incrementalist. In reality it is the worst of both worlds.
19. Many progressives who favor decriminalization-but-not-legalization are smart enough to know all of this. Makes me think they are trying to confuse the public into maintaining as much of a cruel, sadistic, failed regime as possible.
20. As the public adopts regulated legalization regimes, the decriminalization-but-not-legalization people should be called out; they are not so much moderates as charlatans. They want to prop up a crumbling Drug War – and all of the harms that go with it – without admitting it.
