The law should be revoked. I would not assume that the legislature is more legitimate than the local prosecutor who decides not to enforce. Often this situation happens when the legislature is captured by special interests who are unconcerned with popular will (and the risk of resistance), or by a national government trying to micromanage local and personal affairs.

Law enforcement doesn’t make the laws. They enforce the laws the legislature creates.

There is a reason those processes are separated.

One of the reasons immigration is so fucked in the US is because of selective enforcement of the immigration laws that occurred for decades.

Just fix the law or risk a new administration coming in and deciding to start enforcing the laws as you have to watch the chaos and pain.

This kind of thing can be considered a form of “checks and balances”. If one branch of the government passes a law and another branch enforces it, both branches have to agree for the law to function.

I think there should be flexibility in sentencing but not really enforcement. This kind of thing can be used for good or evil but I don't think its beneficial to have esoteric rules to be kept on the books for decades, waiting for the wrong person to abuse them. It's better to levy fines for sodomy (as an example) than to wait for that one dickhead to imprison people for life under the same statute.

In the United States, this has a racial component. If we depend on cops to overlook certain things, then they will be more likely to overlook it for white people than black people. Enlightened Centrists will say "whelp, they technically broke the law" without any further insight.

The 3rd season of The Wire try to explain that

For the case of Danemark I don’t know I’m not Dane and don’t know their political landscape.

I’ll can talk about Vancouver a little, in the first decade of the 2000 the gov (mayor office ?) gave its ok to stop prosecuting and arresting people who take drug (not selling it). They stop financing « criminalizing tactics » and for a while it work however as the years pass (and as I understand it) they slowly reverse track. Now they’re saying there is an epidemic and people are smoking crack on the streets unbother by the police (who seems to use this new problem to ask for more money from the city).

Don’t get me wrong I think that decriminalizing is the only way and prosecuting a « 1 consenting-ish victim crime » take a lot of time for nothing. What you need is service and specialized help.

The action may or may not conflict with the will of the people. In the usa for example, the majority opinion on many issues is not reflected by our laws, such as marijuana. This leaves open the possibility of defying laws based on something like a moral objection. However, this can be dangerous because the actions of one may not actually align with the masses. So, each occurrence should be based on the merits and facts. I wouldn't assign a specific timeline to limit the actions.