It's true Gov. Shumlin did not elaborate on how he planned to reduce "abuse" (non-medical use) and addiction. I suppose my mind went there because I've heard the line "Free the herb but lock up all the junkies" so many times by people who profess to be supporters of drug reform. Some people seem to think the war on drugs is nothing more than a war on marijuana. Sometimes I wish marijuana would just be legalized so we can get on to discussing reform of our other drug laws. 

I don't live in Vermont or know much about Shumlin's politics. The fact that he signed the naloxone access and "Good Samaritan" measures are good signs. It would be nice to see some Governors come out in support of across the board decriminalization. 

However consider the following, suppose because of this decrim measure cops stop going after pot smokers. But the police have the same incentives, overtime, quotas, ect. Now they know they can't bust the pot smokers anymore, so they focus on the other drug users more. Wouldn't this shift the focus to the users of other drugs regardless of what plans the Governor has to specifically reduce "abuse" and addiction? In other words the perverse incentives are built into the system to perpetuate the war on drugs, without marijuana as a target wouldn't there be increased pressure on other non-cannabis drugs regardless of the Governor's intentions? Unless Shumlin is going to shift significant resources away from law enforcement to treatment, education and prevention, I just don't see police saying, "well we can't bust pot smokers anymore, so we'll just go back to real police work (solving victim crimes like robbery, rape, murder, ect)" or will they just shift resources currently directed toward marijuana investigations to other drugs? We're only talking decrim here so the effect won't likely de dramatic (though certainly important for those who would otherwise go to jail) but down the line to full legalization I wonder if this won't be the case.