Portland tried that in 2020 by decriminalizing drug possession.
They reversed course and recently passed a law to recriminalize possession. I think its the right move. Downtown turned into a very unpleasant place.
They reversed course and recently passed a law to recriminalize possession. I think its the right move. Downtown turned into a very unpleasant place.
The support and treatment structures have remained essentially unchanged since Measure 110 passed, with holdups to funding and logistics at almost every level of the state's government. Oregon was already ranked almost dead last in addiction treatment, and that hasn't budged. I can't see how it would work without this other critical piece.
Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) has some good coverage about this failure from the first couple years (which was never really rectified): https://www.opb.org/article/2022/05/24/oregons-measure-110-i...
Also worth noting is that research has found no association with with Measure 110 and crime, and crime has been steadily falling since the measure was passed. (along with most other metro areas in the USA) https://www.opb.org/article/2024/01/24/portland-crime-violen...
Then in April of 2024 House Bill 4002 made possession once again a misdemeanor but kept most of the other provisions of Measure 110 and still focuses on "deflecting" people who possess out of the criminal justice system and into treatment programs.
So Measure 110 is still mostly in effect. They just made it so you do in fact have something on your record if you're caught with possession.
Unless you're forced to do something to deal with the addiction then there's probably not much point for this kind of thing:
> Starting September 1, 2024, possession of hard drugs became classified as a criminal misdemeanor outside of the regular A-E categorization system, carrying a sentence of up to 6 months of jail, which may be waived if the convictee enters into mandatory drug treatment.[8][9]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Oregon_Ballot_Measure_110
Of course one needs to keep at it, otherwise things fall apart:
> Funding ebbed still more recently due to new national budget pressures, which undercut efforts encouraging addicts into rehabilitation programs. The results of “disinvestment” and “a freezing in [their] response” led Goulão to state that “what we have today no longer serves as an example to anyone.”
> Speaking more quantitatively, drug users in treatment declined from 1,150 to 352 (from 2015 to 2021) as funding dropped in 2012 from $82.7 million to $17.4 million. Budget pressures and the apparent desire to cut immediate program costs of drug addiction (distinct from the total societal cost of drug addiction) led to program decentralization and the use of NGOs. Anecdotal evidence of a fragmenting, even breaking, system abounds: Demoralized police no longer cite addicts to get them into treatment and at least some NGOs view the effort as less about treatment and more about framing lifetime drug use as a right.
* https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/is-portugals-dru...
The other question is does the US have the resources (that people can afford) to have folks go to treatment.
In terms of GDP per capita, the USA is the 6th richest on the planet. So the question is not do we have the resources (we do!), but are we willing to make the political and social choices that would be required to deploy the resources to such ends.
The deterioration of our public spaces is not caused by our drug epidemic, it's the logical outcome when the state fails to provide services to the most vulnerable. People literally have nowhere else to go.
How would you sell this in a way that could get you re-elected?
How would you persuade voters to NOT vote for that other guy, now that the problem is solved? How would you "secure more funding" for x,y, or z now that z doesn't exist? If you eradicate suffering, you can't blame the other side for it anymore. It's political suicide.
Not likely you'll run out of problems to fix.
It's still a good idea, but term limits only really work as part of a much broader program of oversight and control over the incentives of politicians.
I wonder to what degree Portland is a product of its local policy (like this decriminalization/recriminalization) vs the national trends that are seen across the USA.
You could go the way of East Asia. That would be very difficult, but easy access to narcotics could lead to disastrous results.
You need access to safe and clean drugs. Support systems need to be in place. The look of downtown isn't the only way to measure success. How many people aren't dying because there isn't a stigma around drug use, where clean and predictable drug doses (like alcohol) can be had, drug testing kits, safe pieces to use with, safe places to be etc
Most incarceration is about helping those who aren't the ones suffering (evidenced by "... a very unpleasant place"). Not attacking you for your comment, just pointing out the paradigm we as a society have.