Comment by cstrahan
3 years ago
> How does that work exactly? How does one end up with a tint amount for personal consumption if someone else couldn't legally allowed to have enough to sell?
Same way people acquire guns illegally in US states that prohibit gun ownership: involved parties choose to break the law.
> Seems really strange that the government would have bothered decriminalizing consumption if the supply itself is illegal.
These governments take the stance that drug dealers exploit the addictions/circumstances of their customers, exposing them to more harm. So they make selling (or possessing enough that an intent to sell seems probable) illegal.
Because the users are at worst harming themselves (assuming they aren’t doing something like driving while intoxicated, or parenting under the influence, but there are laws that already handle these scenarios), these governments don’t see the point in further harming the users of these drugs by locking them away in prison. So drug use is legal, and possessing a small amount (so small that it would be unlikely you’re selling) is legal. Also, because the use of drugs is not illegal, this makes users more likely to seek help, whether from their community or resources provided by their government.
> Same way people acquire guns illegally in US states that prohibit gun ownership: involved parties choose to break the law.
There are legal avenues to buy guns in the US though, that's the confusion for me. Why bother saying I can own it if the law also says no one can legally sell it to me?
> Why bother saying I can own it if the law also says no one can legally sell it to me?
The government isn’t saying “we’re totally ok with you personally taking drugs,” it’s saying “we don’t think that arresting people who have small amounts of drugs for personal consumption is a valuable use of law enforcement resources, so we’re decriminalizing personal possession and use to focus those resources on larger criminal organizations.”