[enneff]

Decriminalization doesn't mean legalization. It just means that you don't make criminals out of drug users, and instead use the money that you would spend policing drug distribution (which doesn't work) on rehabilitation (which does).

[pm90]

If you don't police drug distribution, wouldn't gangs/drug dealers just take over the city? i.e. it would be safe to deal drugs since its not being policed, so the "bad guys" would all try to corner the local drug market leading to turf wars and such...

[laughinghan]

Huh? Violent turf wars would still be illegal.

We don't police clothing distribution, and lots of people buy clothes, why haven't violent gangs selling clothing just taken over the city? Because they're outcompeted by law-abiding sellers who don't have all the overhead costs of evading the law, who use legal, nonviolent means to wage their turf wars.

[pm90]

Selling clothes is legal. Selling drugs would be illegal even if we decriminalize the users of said drugs.

[laughinghan]

One of us is confused (it might be me).

As you point out in another comment, every jurisdiction that has decriminalized drug usage while keeping selling drugs illegal has continued to police drug distribution. I'm not OP, but suggesting we stop policing drug distribution implies to me that we're making drug distribution legal. Which is to say, making selling drugs legal. Just like alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine. I'm not saying I agree that's what we should do, but it's a defensible position to take, and seems to me like the obvious reading of OP's comment.

[enneff]

That doesn't seem to be the outcome, if you look at the various places around the world that have decriminalised drugs.

[pm90]

I don't think any of the places that decriminalized drugs stopped policing distribution.