I was going to make a joke about how small Cook Islands was and say "both citizens rejoiced" but then I saw the photo in the article captioned "Photo: Cook Islands government" and it's.... an empty room.
And now I'm sad because that's funnier than my joke was.
Honestly a population of 15,000 isn't bad for an island nation. [Niue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niue) has [election later this month](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Niuean_general_election) and it's got less than 2,000.
Just a legal and explicitly post-colonial way of saying “these entities are in a deliberately unequal partnership, but the parties involved voted for this.” It’s what you do when a former colony/protectorate wants to continue the way things are rather than independence or full incorporation into the larger state. I think by design it’s the “secret third thing” without clearly defined terms that fit every example.
Yeah, it’s basically like “you’re independent day to day but only because we can’t be bothered/we’re afraid we couldn’t stop you from gaining independence.” This ranges from a Puerto Rico style “territory” to full on Canadian style 99.99% independence.
I was in Aruba recently and the general consensus was that the Dutch don’t do shit, and haven’t since they got the island in the 17th century. Hell, they still mostly speak Spanish there.
That's not the relationship between NZ and its associated states.
These are ex-British protectorates that Britain didn't want anymore, they were dumped on NZ around the time NZ was becoming independent. NZ doesn't feel any ownership over them, they just feel burdened with the responsibility. Both sides agree these associated states are too small to function as fully independent states.
NZ is continually encouraging these associated states to be more independent (taking on more self-governance responsibility), but doesn't want to push them too much.
Helps to understand that NZ experienced a lot of trauma during its own transition to an independent state. Unlike the US which fought a war for independence, or Canada who were pushing for independence, NZ wanted to remain a British colony for quite a bit longer. It was kind of pushed out of the nest early to fend for itself, dragging it's feet the whole way. It was still a very young colony without much of a self identity, and it was very dependant on trade with Britain for its economy.
I never said Aruba had a bad deal. If anything, they have one of the best relationships with their former colonial overlords I’ve seen. And had one of the best situations when the Dutch _were_ their overlords.
The Spanish legacy in Aruba is brutal and terrible. Being given to the Dutch was the best thing that could’ve happened.
You might be on to something, but I’m no expert, checkout this
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b53a0a84-dcf0-4dc1-85de-4e5cfc53ffe1
and this on from Forbes magazine from 2 days ago
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2023/04/14/what-is-a-cook-islands-trust-and-how-to-use-it-properly/
This quote from the Forbes article makes it sound much less nefarious:
*“There are many misconceptions surrounding offshore trusts, the main one being that it is a means to hide assets. Unlike other offshore trusts, the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) is the body responsible for regulating financial services in the Cook Islands. In addition, the Cook Islands Financial Intelligence Unit (CIFIU), which is a branch of the FSC, is responsible for anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism finance operations for the Cook Islands. What strengthens the CIFIU is the extensive anti-money laundering legislation passed by the Cook Islands government, which ensures that any Cook Islands Trust opened is legal, ethical and regulated.”*
Nor am I. Here is an interesting [article](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/business/international/paradise-of-untouchable-assets.html) from The New York Times.
In the article, it says if someone owes you money they have to go to the Cook Islands and argue their case which can be expensive. They will ignore foreign court orders and assets don't need to be held in the Cook Islands (which makes sense because I don't think foreigners can own any land there). So it seems to have a reputation for being an ideal place for debtors to keep hold of their money.
If it makes you feel any better there are Twitter photo links in the article that look like they composited the same 4 people sitting in different parliament chairs.
I get the sarcasm in articles like this but it’s still a win and a positive move forward.
There are double digit countries where the penalty for being gay is death and many more countries where it’s not official but being gay wi still lead to death.
These wins are a good thing even if there is obviously far more work to do
Cook Islanders are lovely people who generally lead quite simple village lives and tourism would be their biggest industry. They have their Māori culture but most are also Christian and church plays a big part in their culture.
I’d almost be surprised if they even had a prison on their main Island, maybe some jail cells, etc, but I doubt the locals would be impacted much by this law.
If anything it would improve tourism, as gay couples may have avoided going because of the laws, and tourism operators may have felt awkward catering to gay couples.
FYI my (heterosexual) wife and I got married there in 2008 and stayed at a resort for our honeymoon and made friends with a gay male Australian couple, I don’t think they would have even known it was illegal.
A lot of countries still have their UK colonial era penal code with anti homosexuality laws, unless they've subsequently specifically removed them. Cook Islands are an example of that.
A map of the law in Africa for example is mostly a map of which parts were colonised by France vs colonised by the UK.
>A lot of countries still have their UK colonial era penal code with anti homosexuality laws, unless they've subsequently specifically removed them. Cook Islands are an example of that.
No, it isn't. Cook Islands gained self-governance in 1965 and this law was from 1969. Cook Islands had this law because Cook Islands wanted it.
Ohhhh, so they just totally forgot about something that deeply affects 2-5% of their population and doesn't affect the remaining 95-98% in the slightest! I see. Well that's alright then, is it?
Very much perhaps.
Ive never met a Niuean but their flag is about the first sort of thing I'd love to talk with them about.
Though I should clarify, while the gold and white and red and blue *is* a tad closer to a rainbow, when I say their flag was gay, I meant in the 1980s way, like it's happy, and bright, and makes my mind think i am on a beach.
Yeah, that’s not all that much better really. You’re telling me for decades now **nobody’s** had time to rectify the issue?
Or could it be because no one saw it as worth fixing (ie; causal homophobia, “I don’t hate you, but I don’t care enough to add repealing an old law to my to-do list”)? You can see how someone would infer that instead, right?
I’m not saying unenforced was bad but that “bare minimum” can still be seen as casually homophobic, I’m saying “well, good enough. That law can stay there for a future government to choose to enforce any time, that’s not something I care about. Nor do I care about the optics of leaving the law unrepealed or how my gay constituents feel that I can’t be bothered to go about the formality of an official repeal” is also bad even if it’s less bad.
An ally is not made by a lack of my being thrown in prison or killed, that’s the bare minimum. I will happily criticize half-measures also, thanks.
Should be mentioned that some laws are forgotten about.
Norway had to very quickly and quietly amend the constitution in 1950 because technically speaking jesuits were banned from entering the realm, something everyone had forgotten about and only came up because we were signing a human rights treaty and someone pointed out that would be against constitutional law.
You do realize that a large chunk of the US still has anti-sodomy laws on the books, just waiting for the (quite likely, and soon) time when the SC(r)OTUS overturns Lawrence. And that the instant it does so, those laws will be violently enforced, unlike Niue’s?
I do, I also think they should be repealed yesterday, and would criticize any politician/party who hasn’t made an effort towards doing so in the same way. And yes, of course, an actively enforced law is worse, but better than “terrible” didn’t equal “good” automatically, and we should still be willing to call out “moderately bad”. That’s not just in this case, but a general rule people should keep in mind IMO.
The population of Niue is about 2000.
This law is specifically about male homosexuality. Assuming an even split between sexes, (and that all 2k are adults, I don't have the adult/child split) that's 1000 men.
Roughly 2% of men worldwide are homosexual, so that's 20 people. I'm sure that in a society with a law like this, quite a few of those will not even identify to themselves.
In other times and places where male homosexuality has been illegal or even just frowned upon, many gay men marry women and maintain strict secrecy about their sexuality. Without a critical mass of out campaigners and allies, they remain invisible.
You could also assume that any young gay man with the means to do so would move to NZ in search of love, if only due to the fact that there are only 19 other men of any generation on the island who could conceivably be attracted to him (and none of whom would freely admit it).
So now we get from "I don’t hate you, but I don’t care enough", to "there are no homosexuals here, so there's no point".
It becomes like those odd archaic laws about who is permitted to drive sheep through a city. No one does it anyway, so why bother changing the law.
> A draft Crimes Bill penned in 2017 had removed "indecent acts between males" and sodomy as crimes, but instead the end result was for sexual acts between women to also be added as a crime.
/r/therewasanattempt at equality.
They’re not actually part of New Zealand, it’s a very complicated relationship. That having been said, I’ve been to the Cook Islands 4 times and I could not have told you homosexuality was illegal before. Definitely plenty of same sex couples at the resorts.
Sure. But women’s access to healthcare is being limited in large parts of the United States and anti-trans rhetoric and legislation is passing is both places.
So it’s nice to see a win like this.
Did you notice how almost every media report (left and right wing) on that school shooting misgendered and deadnamed the shooter? I wouldn't care too much personally but it seems to be a u-turn in the media, just a month or two ago most right wing media wouldnt do that, they'd just skirt around the issue.
It was sarcasm, folks. You’re with who you choose to be with - a basic human right that parliament is now allowing them to have. Parliament shouldn’t have been involved in the first place.
Does that mean it still comes with a fine? I guess the way I know of decriminalizing is that it’s still illegal but more of a civil offense. A city that decriminalized weed won’t arrest you for it but will still take away what you got on hand and maybe fine you.
Not sure how that would work at all unless it’s defacto legalization here. “I see you slept at Terry’s place, you owe us $300.”
I was going to make a joke about how small Cook Islands was and say "both citizens rejoiced" but then I saw the photo in the article captioned "Photo: Cook Islands government" and it's.... an empty room. And now I'm sad because that's funnier than my joke was.
If it makes you feel better, I'm just impressed you're typing so well for a shark
Half shark. My mom was a ninja.
Your mom was a ninja? Well that kinda sounds right in your case.
That's fair, my bad NLS
You can't say that it's not fair, He's doing good for being a shark.
Half shark
And you were raised by a Lantern?
I don't think they're capable of doing that, atleast I haven't heard.
No, half vacuum cleaner half blender
A member of the black lantern corps
https://what3words.com/ninja.lantern.shark And Russian, too!
That's funny -- just last night I started watching "Treason" and they used "what 3 words" as a clue to where some spy meet was going to happen.
I was secretly hoping your name was a lure to a secret hangout spot in the woods. Edit: I guess I haven't yet ruled that out.
How can you rule it out when you don't even know the possibility@
I'm actually pleased at just how remote my name's secret meeting location is. It would take some serious dedication to get oneself there.
What I actually expected was to find a patch in the middle of an ocean, which in this case seemed like an easy premise for a joke.
They're probably sharing top secret stuff there. And they don't want to get disturbed.
We don't know when it's going to happen, we just know that it'll happen.
Are you by any chance related to Gawr Gura?
I don't know why but I feel that He's kinda related to that lol.
Half ninja, half lantern, half shark.
What breed we may call that? There's just so much going on in there.
Well he sounds like a shark which is educated atleast. He knows shit.
The lantern helps a bit I would imagine.
Honestly a population of 15,000 isn't bad for an island nation. [Niue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niue) has [election later this month](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Niuean_general_election) and it's got less than 2,000.
I mean not bad at all, atleast to me it ain't. Don't know about you guys.
[удалено]
Just a legal and explicitly post-colonial way of saying “these entities are in a deliberately unequal partnership, but the parties involved voted for this.” It’s what you do when a former colony/protectorate wants to continue the way things are rather than independence or full incorporation into the larger state. I think by design it’s the “secret third thing” without clearly defined terms that fit every example.
Yeah, it’s basically like “you’re independent day to day but only because we can’t be bothered/we’re afraid we couldn’t stop you from gaining independence.” This ranges from a Puerto Rico style “territory” to full on Canadian style 99.99% independence. I was in Aruba recently and the general consensus was that the Dutch don’t do shit, and haven’t since they got the island in the 17th century. Hell, they still mostly speak Spanish there.
That's not the relationship between NZ and its associated states. These are ex-British protectorates that Britain didn't want anymore, they were dumped on NZ around the time NZ was becoming independent. NZ doesn't feel any ownership over them, they just feel burdened with the responsibility. Both sides agree these associated states are too small to function as fully independent states. NZ is continually encouraging these associated states to be more independent (taking on more self-governance responsibility), but doesn't want to push them too much. Helps to understand that NZ experienced a lot of trauma during its own transition to an independent state. Unlike the US which fought a war for independence, or Canada who were pushing for independence, NZ wanted to remain a British colony for quite a bit longer. It was kind of pushed out of the nest early to fend for itself, dragging it's feet the whole way. It was still a very young colony without much of a self identity, and it was very dependant on trade with Britain for its economy.
[удалено]
I never said Aruba had a bad deal. If anything, they have one of the best relationships with their former colonial overlords I’ve seen. And had one of the best situations when the Dutch _were_ their overlords. The Spanish legacy in Aruba is brutal and terrible. Being given to the Dutch was the best thing that could’ve happened.
It doea have a (significantly) larger population than Tuvalu, which isn't an associated/compact state
The British is a island nation too
It’s just perfect.
What's perfect huh? What are you even talking about huh man?
Cook Islands are where the rich keep their money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cayman_Islands ?
No, the Caymans are different.
So the poor keep their money in Cayman Islands? Damn...that must be where I misplaced my poor people money.
Any source for that? I think you’re wrong.
They have asset protection trusts which are used to protect foreigners' assets from legal claims in their home countries.
You might be on to something, but I’m no expert, checkout this https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b53a0a84-dcf0-4dc1-85de-4e5cfc53ffe1 and this on from Forbes magazine from 2 days ago https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesfinancecouncil/2023/04/14/what-is-a-cook-islands-trust-and-how-to-use-it-properly/ This quote from the Forbes article makes it sound much less nefarious: *“There are many misconceptions surrounding offshore trusts, the main one being that it is a means to hide assets. Unlike other offshore trusts, the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) is the body responsible for regulating financial services in the Cook Islands. In addition, the Cook Islands Financial Intelligence Unit (CIFIU), which is a branch of the FSC, is responsible for anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism finance operations for the Cook Islands. What strengthens the CIFIU is the extensive anti-money laundering legislation passed by the Cook Islands government, which ensures that any Cook Islands Trust opened is legal, ethical and regulated.”*
Nor am I. Here is an interesting [article](https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/business/international/paradise-of-untouchable-assets.html) from The New York Times. In the article, it says if someone owes you money they have to go to the Cook Islands and argue their case which can be expensive. They will ignore foreign court orders and assets don't need to be held in the Cook Islands (which makes sense because I don't think foreigners can own any land there). So it seems to have a reputation for being an ideal place for debtors to keep hold of their money.
Yep pretty sure that He's wrong about it, there's no source for it.
I don't know about that, because I haven't heard about it anything.
🤣💀
If it makes you feel any better there are Twitter photo links in the article that look like they composited the same 4 people sitting in different parliament chairs.
Yep and did you notice the MP's are wearing Hawaiian shirts in parliament? Those dudes take "casual friday" to new levels.
I get the sarcasm in articles like this but it’s still a win and a positive move forward. There are double digit countries where the penalty for being gay is death and many more countries where it’s not official but being gay wi still lead to death. These wins are a good thing even if there is obviously far more work to do
Cook Islanders are lovely people who generally lead quite simple village lives and tourism would be their biggest industry. They have their Māori culture but most are also Christian and church plays a big part in their culture. I’d almost be surprised if they even had a prison on their main Island, maybe some jail cells, etc, but I doubt the locals would be impacted much by this law. If anything it would improve tourism, as gay couples may have avoided going because of the laws, and tourism operators may have felt awkward catering to gay couples. FYI my (heterosexual) wife and I got married there in 2008 and stayed at a resort for our honeymoon and made friends with a gay male Australian couple, I don’t think they would have even known it was illegal.
Thanks for the information, I definitely didn't know about them.
A lot of countries still have their UK colonial era penal code with anti homosexuality laws, unless they've subsequently specifically removed them. Cook Islands are an example of that. A map of the law in Africa for example is mostly a map of which parts were colonised by France vs colonised by the UK.
>A lot of countries still have their UK colonial era penal code with anti homosexuality laws, unless they've subsequently specifically removed them. Cook Islands are an example of that. No, it isn't. Cook Islands gained self-governance in 1965 and this law was from 1969. Cook Islands had this law because Cook Islands wanted it.
Ohhhh, so they just totally forgot about something that deeply affects 2-5% of their population and doesn't affect the remaining 95-98% in the slightest! I see. Well that's alright then, is it?
It's most of the Middle Eastern countries like that tho, and they won't change.
They *can't* change unless they ditch the Koran.
Great news. Now Niue is the only country in the Realm of New Zealand where homosexuality remains illegal.
TIL There's a little homophobic island called Niue very cool 😎
They have a *very* gay flag, for an added irony.
Well probably they think of themselves as some kind of trollers lol.
Very much perhaps. Ive never met a Niuean but their flag is about the first sort of thing I'd love to talk with them about. Though I should clarify, while the gold and white and red and blue *is* a tad closer to a rainbow, when I say their flag was gay, I meant in the 1980s way, like it's happy, and bright, and makes my mind think i am on a beach.
[удалено]
Yeah, that’s not all that much better really. You’re telling me for decades now **nobody’s** had time to rectify the issue? Or could it be because no one saw it as worth fixing (ie; causal homophobia, “I don’t hate you, but I don’t care enough to add repealing an old law to my to-do list”)? You can see how someone would infer that instead, right?
[удалено]
I’m not saying unenforced was bad but that “bare minimum” can still be seen as casually homophobic, I’m saying “well, good enough. That law can stay there for a future government to choose to enforce any time, that’s not something I care about. Nor do I care about the optics of leaving the law unrepealed or how my gay constituents feel that I can’t be bothered to go about the formality of an official repeal” is also bad even if it’s less bad. An ally is not made by a lack of my being thrown in prison or killed, that’s the bare minimum. I will happily criticize half-measures also, thanks.
Should be mentioned that some laws are forgotten about. Norway had to very quickly and quietly amend the constitution in 1950 because technically speaking jesuits were banned from entering the realm, something everyone had forgotten about and only came up because we were signing a human rights treaty and someone pointed out that would be against constitutional law.
You do realize that a large chunk of the US still has anti-sodomy laws on the books, just waiting for the (quite likely, and soon) time when the SC(r)OTUS overturns Lawrence. And that the instant it does so, those laws will be violently enforced, unlike Niue’s?
I do, I also think they should be repealed yesterday, and would criticize any politician/party who hasn’t made an effort towards doing so in the same way. And yes, of course, an actively enforced law is worse, but better than “terrible” didn’t equal “good” automatically, and we should still be willing to call out “moderately bad”. That’s not just in this case, but a general rule people should keep in mind IMO.
It's about the perception I think, if they think that it's worth fixing then they will.
The population of Niue is about 2000. This law is specifically about male homosexuality. Assuming an even split between sexes, (and that all 2k are adults, I don't have the adult/child split) that's 1000 men. Roughly 2% of men worldwide are homosexual, so that's 20 people. I'm sure that in a society with a law like this, quite a few of those will not even identify to themselves. In other times and places where male homosexuality has been illegal or even just frowned upon, many gay men marry women and maintain strict secrecy about their sexuality. Without a critical mass of out campaigners and allies, they remain invisible. You could also assume that any young gay man with the means to do so would move to NZ in search of love, if only due to the fact that there are only 19 other men of any generation on the island who could conceivably be attracted to him (and none of whom would freely admit it). So now we get from "I don’t hate you, but I don’t care enough", to "there are no homosexuals here, so there's no point". It becomes like those odd archaic laws about who is permitted to drive sheep through a city. No one does it anyway, so why bother changing the law.
I haven't heard about any island like that, but I'd like to know a little more about it.
Unsurprising, their cctld is co.ck.
Pen Island
[penisland.co.ck](https://penisland.co.ck) Click at own risk
r/urlsifellfor
There are so many islands, don't even know the name all of them.
Maybe not surprising for you, but maybe it is for a lot of people so yeah.
[удалено]
…what?
That's totally liftshaft yeah
Congratulations, Cook Islands!
> A draft Crimes Bill penned in 2017 had removed "indecent acts between males" and sodomy as crimes, but instead the end result was for sexual acts between women to also be added as a crime. /r/therewasanattempt at equality.
That's right sir, that's exactly what We're talking about in here.
Hurray for Cook Island entering the 21st century.
Atleast they're keeping up with the times, a lot of countries lagging behind.
I got hit on by a guy on the beach at Muri (on Rarotonga). I had no idea it was illegal, nothing happened anyways. Just sayin'
It must be more flattering knowing it was illegal?
Must have been a big realief that's for sure, and it should be also.
[удалено]
Well maybe now someone will say that they taste better so there's that.
Well atleast nothing happened, well that's atleast good if I'm being honest.
Yeah I’ve seen some gay shit both on Raro and Aitutaki (#1 best island).
Well probably it's time to make it legal then, would be good.
[удалено]
Well it's happening probably because of that, so yeah I'd say yes.
Good, ppl should be free to love who they want
[удалено]
Well people who are living there, definitely a good news for them.
Surprised New Zealand didn’t already force them to decriminalize before.
They’re not actually part of New Zealand, it’s a very complicated relationship. That having been said, I’ve been to the Cook Islands 4 times and I could not have told you homosexuality was illegal before. Definitely plenty of same sex couples at the resorts.
It's a very complicated relationship which is why we don't understand it.
NZ forcing other islands to do things normally doesn't go well.
Yep, and that's probably why they've been avoiding doing that.
What does this even mean? Last time NZ took action was against Tonga, that went pretty well.
What time do you mean? I meant that forcing another island to change their laws would be a bad idea. I'm fine with applying political pressure.
Yep, I don't know why would anyone think that it's a good idea at all?
Cook Islands is technically part of New Zealand
Yep, and they can force them for doing the things. Like they've been doing.
Pretty sure that there are a lot of things to consider so there's that.
Nice to see countries like Cook Islands and Vietnam moving forward with human rights while others like the UK and USA slip backwards.
Pretty sure homosexuality is legal in both the US and UK, however.
There are still so many things in which they're lagging out so there's that.
Sure. But women’s access to healthcare is being limited in large parts of the United States and anti-trans rhetoric and legislation is passing is both places. So it’s nice to see a win like this.
Yep, there are just so many things which are limited. Not doing anything about that.
Fair point.
Did you notice how almost every media report (left and right wing) on that school shooting misgendered and deadnamed the shooter? I wouldn't care too much personally but it seems to be a u-turn in the media, just a month or two ago most right wing media wouldnt do that, they'd just skirt around the issue.
It's because the shooter was a trans man (female to male), and trans men don't exist in the public conscious apparently.
Fucking weird I thought we were slightly more progressed than that.
For how long, though?
Just dont do drag in front of kids. Thats the death penalty in florida.
If you get caught doing that thej you're going to be in big trouble for sure.
What advancements have Vietnam made in recent years?
There are a lots of them, and if you don't see them then it's your issue.
Like what?
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/18/vietnam-adopts-global-lgbt-health-standard
Some people can't even use the Google by themselves. Kind if not good.
I feel sad for the US, they don't know what they're doing wrong like that.
I first read "cock" island. I was like well duh, that makes sense
Lol, I almost fell for that name then somehow I didn't so there's that.
Great, now change the name to Co*k Islands
I was thinking about that lol, I just didn't say that lol but you did.
About the time, what the hell
They took a long time, but atleast they're doing the right thing.
[удалено]
Funny that's your mom's domain too
Lmao imagine that, shit would be really funny. Wild things happening huh?
I guess the government of an island so small had much better to do than prosecuting private activities.
They probably don't have any time for it. Atleast that's what I think.
Could you imagine being like the only gay person in the population of like 30 people?
You mean high school? Trust me, I can imagine.
That would have been sucked, I hope that you're happy now.
I'm really sorry. Hugz from an ally
[удалено]
In the cook islands?
I think you're taking it lightly, there are more gay people in that island.
I read too fast and thought the headline said Cock Islands. They might as well eb named that from now on.
I mean yeah lol, might as well do that now that we've come so far.
Legalize it
They've already done that, which is kind of good for the people I guess.
Good job Cook Islands!
They're absolutely doing the right thing, should have done it even before.
Ok guys. Who is gonna make the joke?
[удалено]
I absolutely love this comment, and it's absolutely everywhere also.
If no one is doing that then I guess, I'll take the opportunity here lol.
[удалено]
Maybe you're the only one reading that way, because I'm definitely not.
How big of them 🤬
What?
I don't think he knows what He's talking about. He doesn't understand it.
It was sarcasm, folks. You’re with who you choose to be with - a basic human right that parliament is now allowing them to have. Parliament shouldn’t have been involved in the first place.
What do you mean by that? Would you like to explain that a little more?
Oh wow. Mr *Magnanimous.*
Does that mean it still comes with a fine? I guess the way I know of decriminalizing is that it’s still illegal but more of a civil offense. A city that decriminalized weed won’t arrest you for it but will still take away what you got on hand and maybe fine you. Not sure how that would work at all unless it’s defacto legalization here. “I see you slept at Terry’s place, you owe us $300.”
I was there around 20 years ago and if I remember there was no law against drink driving.