If you are including legalisation as a criterion for these markets, I think you should put it in the title, not just decriminalisation. They are different things, one is more likely than the other, and I think the title should include both.

@WXTJ It reads likes an inclusive disjunction and you can’t legalize without decriminalizing. I’m not reading the description as saying it resolves YES if legalized. Only if at least decriminalized, which would be satisfied by legalization too.

Yes, my thinking is exactly this. Full legalization entails decriminalization.

Now that they've clarified, that's fine, but they are distinct things, and it would not be recognised by everyone that legalisation also involves decriminalisation. I agree that simply from the dictionary meaning of the words, and without the context of how they are used in debates about drug policy, then 'you can't legalize without decriminalising' does make sense.

Allowing for the political/policy context, I think it should've been clarified:

Decriminalisation to many people means something specific and different - eg keeping prohibition in law but moving to civil penalties not criminal, or effectively stopping enforcing criminal penalties (without removing them) for an offence. Given that legalisation does not in itself involve steps like this, legalisation does not automatically include things generally recognised as decriminalisation. It does, however, make all those other options redundant.

Sorry for the pedantry!

@WXTJ How about "Will California decriminalize and/or legalize MDMA before 2027?"

@zQ4Z82W If that doesn't change your originally intended meaning, then I think that would work!

Markets for LSD and mushrooms in California: