They didn't do 'Portugal-style' decriminalization/treatment because in Portugal a drug addict can be forced into drug treatment, fined or mandated community service. Open drug use is also not allowed.
Was this always the case ( I would assume so), or did it come with the decriminalization changes?
These policies seem not only reasonable but obvious. But I don’t think the motivations in the US for decriminalizing are consistent with committing addicts and stopping open drug use. And unfortunately they arent standards in Portland, Seattle, or anywhere else with this problem in the US really.
So basically, i dont see that happening in the US. Its the same story for mental and behavioral health. People that were dangers to themselves and society used to be committed to institutions but we decided it was more humane to empty these institutions out on the streets.
I can bring a bit of context. I'm Portuguese, I know the history well.
The intervention was centered in the SNS (our national health service), and soft touch. No mandatory treatments, no punitive approach.
Fundamentally, we approached addicts. Safe consumption spaces, with free syringes, drug testing kits, and staffed with personnel who got to know the addicts personally.
This staff, slowly but effectively, pushed those who accepted treatment onto SNS programs. It turns out addicts want to get better, as a general trend in the medium term. Give it time, this technique works.
Decriminalization is a part of it. Essential to allow the rest of the program, but a small part of it, effort-wise.
A lot of recent sentencing reform was motivated by the desire to lower the cost of running prisons, and started off Republican-led. Whenever people talk about solving mental health crises with jail time, no one is willing to put up the money.
This is not a question of resources but of political will. There is no appetite, especially on the left, for any kind of forced institutionalization. There is an ideological aspect to this as well, where it is more ideologically aligned to pretend that homelessness is mainly (or wholly) caused by a lack of affordable housing, and therefore _only_ affordable housing polices are put forth as a solution.
Each of these things seems more reasonable than US's two options 1) ignore them or 2) dispense varying lengths of the same punishment that brutally awful convicts get.
It's not a question of resources but politics. There is a segment of the left that links homelessness to housing policy (as in they don't consider homeless drug addicts as a drug addiction problem, but rather an affordable housing problem) and is also against any forced institutionalization.
I can bring a bit of context. I'm Portuguese, I know the history well.
The intervention was centered in the SNS (our national health service), and soft touch. No mandatory treatments, no punitive approach.
Fundamentally, we approached addicts. Safe consumption spaces, with free syringes, drug testing kits, and staffed with personnel who got to know the addicts personally.