this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
43 points (95.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

34281 readers
1425 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.