- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
I suppose it beats breaking into cars to do it.