Oregon governor signs bill recriminalizing drug possession into law
apnews.com
apnews.com
- Decriminalization of drugs creates better health outcomes for drug users.
- Criminalization of drugs creates better outcomes for non-drug users.
It's unreasonable to ask people to be okay with open drug use, and the consequences thereof, for the good of drug users.
A balanced policy between compassionate enforcement and properly funding treatment seems more socially palatable.
I am afraid they badly implemented a policy that, if implemented correctly, could have made a big difference, and now everyone will think it just doesn’t work.
One example of how this negatively impacts non-drug using citizens is that summer camps have been having trouble because the kids can't use the bathrooms at the local parks. People are smoking fentanyl in the park bathrooms (which is not currently illegal), and so the kids have no where to do their business.
1: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/08/multnomah-county-purc...
Yes, and that's why the state also needs to provide injection sites, non-shelter housing, and all sorts of other programs that were supposed to happen under Measure 110, and which the state refused to fund, and which never had the time to get off the ground before this bill was passed.
> One example of how this negatively impacts non-drug using citizens is that summer camps have been having trouble because the kids can't use the bathrooms at the local parks. People are smoking fentanyl in the park bathrooms (which is not currently illegal), and so the kids have no where to do their business.
There are lots of ways to solve that issue without criminalizing drugs. And in fact, as proven by countless other cities across the country, criminalizing drugs doesn't even solve that problem either.
It doesn't solve the problem.
However, criminalization may be a less worse way to mitigate the impacts of the problem.
This feels like "no true Scotsman" at policy-scale: it's unscientific to point out the flaws in actual sausage making as the reason the Platonically ideal sausage turned out poorly in reality.
Those political characteristics are inherent to the process! If one path to utopia requires pissing voters off, then it's more logical to engineer a different path to get there while placating voters, because the former in untenable in a democracy.
There's no data to support this claim, and copious evidence against it.
> This feels like "no true Scotsman" at policy-scale: it's unscientific to point out the flaws in actual sausage making as the reason the Platonically ideal sausage turned out poorly in reality. Those political characteristics are inherent to the process! If one path to utopia requires pissing voters off, then it's more logical to engineer a different path to get there while placating voters, because the former in untenable in a democracy.
It's not a "no true Scotsman" to point out that the measure that voters passed was never actually implemented. Some of the provisions weren't even due to kick in until later this year!
Ironically, your statement is a great example of begging the question (in the correct usage of the term): by your logic, any world in which decriminalization is not already implemented is "proof" that it's a bad policy, because if it were, the Logical Politicians™ would implement it, as that would surely appease voters.
In reality, what happened is simple: voters approved an initiative, elected officials didn't like what voters chose, so they just refused to implement it, then called it a "failure".
If the voters passed a measure, that caused substantial negative perception before it was fully implemented, then who's to blame?
Maybe the voters should have been clearer on the implementation sequencing.
> In reality, what happened is simple: voters approved an initiative, elected officials didn't like what voters chose, so they just refused to implement it, then called it a "failure".
How does this not suffice as an excuse for any bad results from decriminalization? What constitutes a sufficiently perfect implementation to validate negative outcomes?
> Maybe the voters should have been clearer on the implementation sequencing.
This is, again, begging the question. You're assuming the consequent.
Voters were clear on what they wanted. They directly voted for and passed a specific bill. Elected officials - not voters - refused to implement what voters chose. Then, elected officials - not voters - repealed the bill.
It's not like this was repealed by popular vote. As of today, there's not even any evidence that the same voters who approved this in 2020 have somehow changed their minds and oppose it today.
You're arguing from a position of pure speculation to support an a priori conclusion, and that's simply not logically sound.
> How does this not suffice as an excuse for any bad results from decriminalization?
This is ridiculous. You can't judge the effect of a policy that's not implemented. If you're willing to do that, you've left the realm of science altogether and might as well argue for policy based on astrology, or augury.
I don't know how feasible this would be without public healthcare though
I’m sure it’s real, but is the problem that the drug use isn’t illegal? How does making it a crime again help?
Unfortunately, if the new laws are enforced there will be a "correction" that takes place and I imagine that will include fines, arrests, and jail.
They didn't even really do the decriminalization. The full law never came into effect, and the most of the treatment programs they promised to create as an alternative to incarceration were still in the process of being set up. The state never approved the funding for many of them, so they killed the initiative before it ever started.
> I am afraid they badly implemented a policy that, if implemented correctly, could have made a big difference, and now everyone will think it just doesn’t work.
That's exactly what happened. The funny part is that the evidence has shown quite clearly that criminalization doesn't "work" either. But it's treated as the societal default, that which can be accepted and trusted without any evidence.
Decriminalization was really badly implemented in Oregon. Part of it was the pandemic. Part of it was the confluence with the fentanyl surge. Part of it was that our public agencies just didn't seem to know how to coordinate with one another on the issues that arose.
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/bill-using-drugs-p...
Drug use should happen in safe spaces that don't negatively impact others. For any airborne use, I want a 'fume / chemical hood' like negative draw with scrubbed exhaust.
A component of this is minimum building standards.
Homeless is a direct consequence of socially deciding that no new housing under certain standards (and therefore building costs) can be constructed.
If we were okay with building cost- and density-optimized cubes, we could probably solve homelessness in a year.
Instead, we've decided that it's better to have minimum building standards, with the side effect that some people cannot afford such a dwelling.
Just mindlessly chasing "newer code is better", without understanding how it affects housing affordability. Or maybe it's an intentional payout to developers to let them profit from increased complexity?
Opiates and amphetamines are entirely different animals than drugs like alcohol and weed. You can’t really treat them as the same kind of thing.
I'm not implying the laws should be exactly the same, only that public alcohol consumption also has problems that are visible to non-drinkers/locals.
Alcohol is also more trivial to illegally produce than most recreational drugs. Hell, you can make it on accident by just keeping fruit too long.
Decriminalization isn't enough to resolve the societal problems caused by a system of prohibition. The greater societal problems - like poverty, homelessness, petty crime, and violence - are tied more closely to production and distribution than possession and use.
Drug use doesn't provide a social place. Also, certain drugs are an order of magnitude way worse than having a moderate amount of alcohol. Legalizing public drug use, outside of marijuana, seems idiotic to me.
To contrast, people addicted to heroin or meth are much more vulnerable to unemployment, homelessness, etc.; which pushes them into public spaces, and incentivizes them to commit petty and violent crime.
but also contradicts the original parent that had me going: "Decriminalization of drugs creates better health outcomes for drug users.". but we're saying, the recriminalization is preventing them from doing drugs, falling into homelessness, and then doing drugs on street corners. like why wasnt "treatment is available" doing that. (I mean I know why, it's because coercive force helps coerce drug users to change where they otherwise would have less reason to. halfway houses are like conduits between prison cells and the outside world).
First, in the case of drugs like methamphetamine, heroine, cocaine, fentanyl, and so on, we're looking to eliminate use of these compounds outside of medical applications. Having a lovely entertainment venue for blowing off steam is not what we're going for. We want to help people avoid or conquer addictions to dangerous drugs.
A program aimed at this goal that has worked elsewhere includes a system of policies and spending that work together to achieve that aim. The system includes a number of aspects:
- Spending on rehabilitation and treatment
- Eliminating criminal penalties for drug use and instead requiring treatment programs
- Jobs programs (it turns out a lot of addiction is about purpose, or lack thereof)
To do this is hard to pull off, because you have to have a number of groups of people all pulling together for the same goal of helping people resolve their addictions. If you don't do it altogether, and just label it "decriminalization" and only do that part of it, it is guaranteed to fail. It is idiotic. There's also a name for it: Cargo Cult.
We're bewildered that the problem just doesn't go away (the planes don't land and bring cargo) when we go through the superficial motions (wave sticks at the sky near the landing strip) of "decriminalization."
I suppose it beats breaking into cars to do it.
Note: I'm not claiming decriminalization is a panacea. But, decriminalizing without robust diversion/treatment options is bound to fail just as badly as tossing all the addicts in jail.
I'm an Oregonian. I would have preferred that the state enacted robust enforcement of bans on public use and stood up legal use sites rather than recriminalize. I'm not sure that would be politically viable though, and "stand up legal use sites" is easy to write in a law, but it's exactly the kind of thing our public agencies have been utterly incapable of doing in recent years. Where would these legal use sites be? Near which schools, homes, and businesses? Which agency would administer them? Or rather, which agency would administer the contract to a grant-supported non-profit entity (because that's how these things work here)? How would you convince qualified people to work there? Can't be done in Oregon on any kind of timeline that would address the present crisis.
Watching The Wire Season 3 play out in real life has been unfortunate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wire#Season_3
No drug user was ever helped by a jail cell. Nor was any drug user helped by this free-for-all policy. Oregon allowed users to suffer the same as before and cause unsafe situations for the general populace.
Smoking meth in a sidewalk tent should get your ass sent to a care facility. For help. Oregon ran with the headlines from Portugal but never bothered to read the actual article.
Now I doubt decriminalization will be tried again on this level in this country. And with the drug epidemic still in full swing we badly need a policy that isn’t criminalization. It almost feels like it was meant to fail.
Time and time again the people of Oregon (and specifically Portland) try to show goodwill towards their fellow man. Raising taxes on ourselves is a hobby. Time and time again the legislature makes the money disappear, implements XYZ poorly, and engineers failure.
That feels like this policy in an ouroboros-esque nutshell -- doing something for just reasons, but without working through the realpolitik implementation details.
The people of my state voted to legalize medical cannabis: it was implemented with absurd restrictions. The people of my state voted for a third-party committee to draw our district maps: our representatives chose to implement their own maps instead.
And any democracy traits it might have are representative democracy.
(Maybe the moral of the story should be that LSD shouldn't be schedule-1.)
Harm reduction in general is a wonderful thing and the solution to drug use is definitely not to make it more dangerous. Making it safer and providing easy access to real, non-propaganda harm reduction resources will help far more people than criminalization ever could. Providing safe, regulated supply that won't be contaminated with adulterants or impure byproducts, allowing people to consult with doctors about it, allowing research to be done on it so that it can be better understood, etc.
Coincidental username though, reminds me of "NBOMe" :)
The issue to me is how it becomes penalized - especially given the US response to ex-felons (and its use of felons as a non voting slave class) - it’s very easy for the result of a drug related offense to put people in a position where drugs are functionally the only practical option (either abuse or selling).
Wholesale decriminalization seems like a bad response based on the outcomes in many areas, but it really seems like there should be an option that doesn’t result in immediate criminal records for life.
Isn't this what the drug diversion programs are for? https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/diversion-programs.h...
All they had to do was prosecute people using drugs in the street.
Ask any poor or working class person. They don’t want this crap. Drugs ravage their communities. They have to deal with these problems.
Same thing with the defund the police and other non sense.
I grew up in shit areas and went to college in an inner city. Some of my friends, college staff, and my own experiences (been robbed a dozen times) all lived thru this shit. We need police and we need to stop criminals from selling drugs and put career junkies away (they don’t want to get clean, ok go away then)
Meanwhile mfs wearing Arcteryx want to lecture people wearing 2nd hand Starter they should just be cool with junkies and destruction.
I’m personally doing okay now but I didn’t grow up with a silver spoon and parents having multiple homes. Some of the things my peers say now makes me roll my eyes and take their other opinions with a grain of salt.
Ive been to the rich liberal types' parties. You know how some of them go? Like this:
You'll have a retreat to the den. The host will either send someone out to get "supplies" or they'll already have it. And they'll pull out a few eight-balls, and they'll put up a few hundreds around the room, and everyone will enjoy a few lines.
They'll then retreat to the in-house pool or hot tub, and enjoy.
I also had a friend who was a retired record exec, and it was routine that during lunchtime, they'd gather money to go down to the street and buy coke.
Just because they're rich, doesnt mean they don't do drugs. They likely do, just not on the streets. They do from their mansions.
(And its also the middle class who're scared shitless about drugs. My guess is because they don't have the money to hire a lawyer to keep a drug rap off.)
too bad about all the dead people i guess
Fundamentally the justice system is just broken in Oregon, and this is merely a political move to please cops and conservatives, that won't fix anything. The state just released a report that they will be short 1800 public defenders due to just this law alone.
"Catch and release" will continue, cops will cry for more budget and less oversight and the human misery of those caught up in addiction will just increase with further legal entanglements.
Therefore, you arrest criminals, and offer them jail or treatment that they must follow or they go straight to jail.
Camping on a city sidewalk should be a crime. This is a public space used by everyone, not just one person to make a random house on. Children use sidewalks which are a public good. If someone uses drugs and camps on the sidewalk, they should be arrested and offerred jail or treatment.
The problem is also damaging your brain and body with drugs, developing bad habits and/or drug addiction, your supply being contaminated/poisoned, making irresponsible decisions while intoxicated, etc.
For example cannabis can be mostly safe for adults, but children or teens who use too much of it can develop neurological defects like short-term memory impairment, depending on the frequency and duration of use.
We can make the same exact argument about sugar and HFCS. Either of those substances can make people feel extremely hungry even with a full stomach, thus make terrible decisions and damage their bodies.
Alcohol's much worse. Yet we tried banning that. Remind me how that went again? Oh thats right, we had federal agents poisoning alcohol to intentionally kill drinkers. Wonderful times.
> For example cannabis can be mostly safe for adults, but children or teens who use too much of it can develop neurological defects like short-term memory impairment, depending on the frequency and duration of use.
Again, most drugs aren't that bad, regardless what DARE propagandized you into believing. Id advise anyone actually wanting to understand what a drug is like, to go to https://www.erowid.org/ and read up about experiences.
I've been on damn near every painkiller up to fentanyl. My fav is morphine. Feels like a glowing warmth and "home". I could easily see me doing a small amount on a friday evening after work's done. Id keep it down enough that I wouldn't get a tolerance, and I'd be "sobered" up by next morning.
Ive also been on amphetamines, and threw' em away. Made me feel TERRIBLE.
The 3 biggest scourge drugs we have are alcohol, tobacco, and sugar. And, when did bans actually accomplish the ban goal?
I haven't been propagandized into believing anything by DARE. My sources of information are PsychonautWiki and NIH research papers, as well as harm reduction communities like Bluelight.
I do actually know someone who has permanent short-term memory impairment due to heavy marijuana use at a young age. There is absolutely nothing propagandized about that because it literally happened. It is something that can happen. But it's merely an example. I'm just using it to illustrate how reckless usage of drugs is one of the big issues right now.
> I've been on damn near every painkiller up to fentanyl. My fav is morphine. Feels like a glowing warmth and "home". I could easily see me doing a small amount on a friday evening after work's done. Id keep it down enough that I wouldn't get a tolerance, and I'd be "sobered" up by next morning.
Nothing wrong with that. Just because abuse is an issue doesn't mean you can't use drugs responsibly.
I used to have a lorazepam prescription for panic attacks, but had to stop getting it because I couldn't use it responsibly. It mostly worked, but I would use too much and risk depleting my natural GABA reserves, which could kill me.
I don't see anything wrong with benzos though. Or opioids. It's all in how you use them.
> Ive also been on amphetamines, and threw' em away. Made me feel TERRIBLE.
I have ADHD and adderall made me feel so terrible that my executive dysfunction got worse and I couldn't leave bed at all. I had to sleep it off. Meanwhile, dexedrine (pure dextroamph without levo) makes me feel calmer and more focused.
They work differently for everybody!
> The 3 biggest scourge drugs we have are alcohol, tobacco, and sugar.
I'd add nicotine (even outside of tobacco) and caffeine to that list!
You forgot those who commit crimes in an effort to use drugs. I think treatment inside jail (or some controlled environment) is probably your best bet. If you have someone who's addiction is clouding their judgement, they might say anything just to stay out of jail, but how do you get them to follow through?