Okay well, I misspelled the first one and decrime is shorthand, but I guess you never use shorthand on a day-to-day basis. On the main point, instead of pretentious grammar corrections, by that logic missouri would have legalized weed because they allow sale of it. However, they didn't because they couldn't, but they could completely decriminalize it which is what I'm talking about. Oregan didn't completely decrime hard drugs, obviously, just small amounts. In reference to canada tho, yea they are legalizing it, not decriminalizing it, because they are changing federal law. I suppose since you care about words so much, I could've bypassed both of your worthless comments by simply saying nowhere in america has legalized hard drugs like canada is planning to. Which is true

Not wrong, but wrong to what I said. Oregan made small amounts of possession not a crime. However, only psychedelics are available for sale and distribution and completely decrimed them. What Canada is doing is much different and will make hard drugs available and not only not illegal to possess. So what I said remains true

I like how by his logic weed is getting worse for you than it used to be, however policing for weed is becoming far less punishing than it used to be. So, he thinks that people in the 90s deserved to get beaten nearly to die and go to jail over something that wasn't harmful, but now that it is harmful (according to him) he worries about all the overdoses it will cause. Fucking hypocrite

Places in canada decriminalizated those hard drugs to see if it helped the risisng hard drug epidemic there, which in all liklihood it will. However, no where in america has decriminalizated any of the drugs you're taking about.

Fortune, in fact, did not favour the bold