A Contribution to the Cannabis Discussion - Legalisation and Decriminalisation

Firstly, many people use the terms interchangeably. That may be because their concern is both for the reduction of the extensive power that the illicit drug trade operators have in the society and the effect on the people, the youth in particular.
LEGALISATION
Generally, in legal terms and for Governments, Legalisation is the removal of prohibition against a substance. Eg the removal of the prohibition against alcohol produced outside of the legitimate facilities and channels or distribution.
With legalisation, what is sought is the bringing of the production and distribution of the substance under regulated control and, in the case of marijuana, for use for particular purposes eg medical marijuana.
Legalising marijuana, it is argued, will allow the state to obtain revenue from the drug that is now illegal, as happens with alcohol, tobacco and gambling.  In New South Wales, Australia alone the anticipated direct income to Government is estimated at $600M per year.
Licensed producers would also reap huge dividends now claimed by the illegal cartels which control the illicit production and distribution systems
Legalising also moves the problem away from a law enforcement to a health response problem.
The argument against legalisation is that just as alcohol and tobacco consumption is widespread because they are legally available, there is the fear that legalising marijuana will lead to increased consumption and a different cost to society in the form of larger numbers of hospital admissions and abuse treatment problems, for example.
There is no conclusive evidence for or against since legalisation has not been fully implemented in any country as yet.
The attraction in the national conversation for the Legalisation option is the possibility for legal profit and Government Revenues. That attraction may be out of concern for the current economic situation more than for dealing with the drug problem.
DECRIMINALISAITON
Decriminalisation has meant different things to different people and countries so far.
Essentially it involves the reduction of legal penalties mostly associated with the offences of use and possession, particularly to the possession of small quantities “for personal use” as is frequently said in our Courts and in the media.
It also includes the use of ‘civil’ fines without incurring  a criminal record and the use of compulsory treatment programmes as an alternative to jail time.
From the state’s perspective, decriminalisation is touted as having the potential to reduce burdens on the police criminal justice system.
Given our out-of-control criminal situation, this is an attractive argument in TT.
In Portugal, research suggests that decriminalisation has not led to increased drug use rates, as well. In Australia, a side effect, however, is that more people have been brought into the criminal justice system.
In a sense, decriminalisation is aimed at the end user rather than the illicit production and distribution system.
In TT, there is an emotional argument for decriminalisation that is based on the view that it will remove the harassment and stigma against “little black boys”.
At the moment, there is not enough experience and therefore EVIDENCE to conclusively evaluate the success of either Legalisation or Decriminalisation globally.
There is a lot of sentiment involved in the debate.