I've not suggested the US models don't provide good case studies. In fact, i've said the exact opposite, I've pointed out they are great case studies.

I'm sorry but in your previous comment you make no such assertion.

Yes, from 2002. This has nothing to do with concrete policy

Indeed from 2002. The study undertook an excellent analysis of a range of jurisdictions. It concludes with a range of well-considered recommendations for implementing public policy.

What I've pointed out is Colorado and Wahsington spent years and years establishing a real-world regulatory system to get to the point they are today.

Before this statement in our exchange, you pointed out no such thing.

Colorado has been working on it since 1999.

I am genuinely interested in the subject; so, if it is not too much trouble, could you please point to information on Colorado undertaking the preparation for regulatory work since 1999. An honest question, why would they undertake the regulatory work for selling marijuana while it was illegal - was this for medocal marijuana?

because many people continue to prefer the cheaper and often easier-to-access black market.

Is this not an example of poorly executed implementation. If it were easier to access, then this issue goes away.

Your internationalizing the LPC's vague ideas and

What do you mean by this?

misrepresenting the NDP's.

If you read what I wrote, rather than focusing on attacking me, you would see that I asked for you to illustrate how the NDP position had a clear path forward. Again, how does the NDP position of decrim and study provide a clear path forward? What are the specifics that make it so progressive? Has Mr. Mulcair committed to moving to legalization or has he indicated he just does not understand the issue and we will see?

I've worked on this issue with professionals at Provincial, Federal and Municipal levels and within the legal system and this idea would be laughed out of the room.

Which idea? Thank you for taking the path of denigration - it is so much better than being civil.

Not to mention your claim that decrim is a step backwards is simply not factually. Just saying it is over and over is a fine opinion, but it's a typical 'if i don't agree with it it's backwards' perfect is the enemy of the good approach.

I did not say that decrim is a step backward - I said it is not an improvement over prohibition because it is literally a modified form of prohibition. I also did not repeat my stance over and over - I provided examples of how legalization would allow us to address the social harms of marijuana prohibition while decrim does nothing to alleviate those harms. Finally, I don't think that people who don't agree with me are backwards - the world is better when people have strong differing opinions. I do think people who resort to obfuscation and try to mock people with different opinions are backwards and socially inept.

I am open to the idea that Colorado and/or Washington have studied the logistics of legalization and would sincerely appreciate being pointed toward that information.

My premise is simple, decriminalization is a form of prohibition that perpetuates a paradigm of societal harm that is reduced through legalization. You have not demonstrated that is untrue; you have not provided me with examples of a progressive path forward for the NDP position; thus, I continue to see a political spectrum where the CPC propose prohibition, the NDP propose a modified prohibition and the LPC propose legalization.