I'm a fan of the Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972, applying it to plants and fungi in Schedule I.
Possession of marihuana for personal use would no longer be an offense, but marihuana possessed in public would remain contraband subject to summary seizure and forfeiture. Casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration not involving profit would no longer be an offense.
I appreciate the detailed explorations in this piece. I am confused about your intentions here. The title includes the word “Decriminalization,” yet this is entirely devoted to methods for defining quantity based criminal penalties for possession. Rescheduling is closer to what you’ve written about. Decrim is just that - striking the matter from the lawbooks.
That’s what we have in Colorado - decriminalization of personal use with no weight limits - and the resulting crime wave is notable. In the years prior to Prop 122 arrests for psychedelic possession (not co-mingled with illegal guns, opiates, prescriptions, etc) were in the high single digits across the state. In the year since decriminalization arrests are still in the single digits. Single digits. Fewer than ten per year, unchanged. Quite notable.
Thanks for your thoughts David. You're right—these bills aren't full-blown decriminalization, but they are decriminalization. Perhaps a better term is something like "threshold decriminalization." It's all a matter of line drawing. In Colorado it's still a crime to sell psilocybin (in any of its various forms). So Colorado drew the decrim line at "selling" rather than "possession of a certain quantity."
Interestingly, the states with the most ambitious psychedelic reform laws passed them via popular vote. State legislators might think large-scale reform costs too much political capital, or they could think it's hard to catch someone in the act of selling drugs so chose to use "possession of large quantity" as a proxy for "intent to distribute", or some third thing. Whatever the reason, some legislatures are comfortable with decriminalizing possession below some quantity, but nothing above that (for now).
I'm a fan of the Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, 1972, applying it to plants and fungi in Schedule I.
Possession of marihuana for personal use would no longer be an offense, but marihuana possessed in public would remain contraband subject to summary seizure and forfeiture. Casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration not involving profit would no longer be an offense.
Umm why fret all these details. Just legalize it all. No fines for any amount. Smh.
If only it was that simple.
"50mg of LSD"
should be 50mcg--micrograms, not milligrams.
I appreciate the detailed explorations in this piece. I am confused about your intentions here. The title includes the word “Decriminalization,” yet this is entirely devoted to methods for defining quantity based criminal penalties for possession. Rescheduling is closer to what you’ve written about. Decrim is just that - striking the matter from the lawbooks.
That’s what we have in Colorado - decriminalization of personal use with no weight limits - and the resulting crime wave is notable. In the years prior to Prop 122 arrests for psychedelic possession (not co-mingled with illegal guns, opiates, prescriptions, etc) were in the high single digits across the state. In the year since decriminalization arrests are still in the single digits. Single digits. Fewer than ten per year, unchanged. Quite notable.
Thanks for your thoughts David. You're right—these bills aren't full-blown decriminalization, but they are decriminalization. Perhaps a better term is something like "threshold decriminalization." It's all a matter of line drawing. In Colorado it's still a crime to sell psilocybin (in any of its various forms). So Colorado drew the decrim line at "selling" rather than "possession of a certain quantity."
Interestingly, the states with the most ambitious psychedelic reform laws passed them via popular vote. State legislators might think large-scale reform costs too much political capital, or they could think it's hard to catch someone in the act of selling drugs so chose to use "possession of large quantity" as a proxy for "intent to distribute", or some third thing. Whatever the reason, some legislatures are comfortable with decriminalizing possession below some quantity, but nothing above that (for now).
drawing the line at "selling" rather than "possession" sounds like the correct approach to me.