A notable example is the approach to soft drugs in the Netherlands. Despite being illegal, the public prosecutor has chosen not to enforce the law. To the point that many if not most think they’re legal.
This situation presents a complex issue to me: it involves a small group of individuals (the prosecutor’s office) effectively deciding to disregard the broader democratic process and the will of the voters. When such things happen, I believe they should be rare, pragmatic and temporary.
What’s your view on the matter?
The 3rd season of The Wire try to explain that
For the case of Danemark I don’t know I’m not Dane and don’t know their political landscape.
I’ll can talk about Vancouver a little, in the first decade of the 2000 the gov (mayor office ?) gave its ok to stop prosecuting and arresting people who take drug (not selling it). They stop financing « criminalizing tactics » and for a while it work however as the years pass (and as I understand it) they slowly reverse track. Now they’re saying there is an epidemic and people are smoking crack on the streets unbother by the police (who seems to use this new problem to ask for more money from the city).
Don’t get me wrong I think that decriminalizing is the only way and prosecuting a « 1 consenting-ish victim crime » take a lot of time for nothing. What you need is service and specialized help.
Decriminalizing is not the way. The only way is legalizing sale, manufacture and distribution of drugs. That way you can:
A) control quality standards B) extract taxes to pay for rehabilitation programs C) eliminate black market and thus lower crime rate
The perfect, literally perfect, case study is alcohol. It was prohibited without eliminating the underlying demand, so what happened? The black market supplied the demand. What is happening nowadays? Alcohol consumption in the US is at its lowest levels.