Oregon reverses drug decriminalization

[basballguy]

https://www.axios.com/local/portland/2024/03/02/oregon-drugs-reverse-decriminalization-legalize-law-bill#

lol

It’s a shame it took them 3 years to realize it was a stupid idea

[*Nately120*]

Land of the people who can't handle freedom.

[*michaelsean*]

Uh oh…it’s going to disproportionately affect someone, as if that matters as to whether it’s a good idea or not.

[KillerGoose]

I know very little about how Oregon handled it but I have seen Oregon residents saying that they never actually fully committed to it. Apparently, Oregon had committed to building 100 additional rehab centers but only one was constructed. They attempted to follow in the steps of Portugal, who decriminalized drugs to massive success but they also had all of the infrastructure to support it. Plenty of rehab centers, social workers and the whole nine yards.

Also, as a clarification because I have ran into this a lot. Drugs were not legal in Oregon, nor are they legal in Portugal. The term refers to reduced penalties I.E. no prison time for possession of drugs. I generally support the idea if it can have enough support to be fully implemented.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-03-2024, 07:15 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I know very little about how Oregon handled it but I have seen Oregon residents saying that they never actually fully committed to it. Apparently, Oregon had committed to building 100 additional rehab centers but only one was constructed. They attempted to follow in the steps of Portugal, who decriminalized drugs to massive success but they also had all of the infrastructure to support it. Plenty of rehab centers, social workers and the whole nine yards.

Also, as a clarification because I have ran into this a lot. Drugs were not legal in Oregon, nor are they legal in Portugal. The term refers to reduced penalties I.E. no prison time for possession of drugs. I generally support the idea if it can have enough support to be fully implemented.

Portugal also didn't have China actively flooding them with drugs as a form of warfare. Solving a problem is much harder when there's a global power actively trying to prevent the problem from being solved.

[KillerGoose]

(03-03-2024, 09:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Portugal also didn't have China actively flooding them with drugs as a form of warfare. Solving a problem is much harder when there's a global power actively trying to prevent the problem from being solved.

Oh absolutely. Circumstances are quite a bit different. Solving the drug problem in the U.S. is a really complex issue to tackle.

[Belsnickel]

(03-03-2024, 07:15 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I know very little about how Oregon handled it but I have seen Oregon residents saying that they never actually fully committed to it. Apparently, Oregon had committed to building 100 additional rehab centers but only one was constructed. They attempted to follow in the steps of Portugal, who decriminalized drugs to massive success but they also had all of the infrastructure to support it. Plenty of rehab centers, social workers and the whole nine yards.

Also, as a clarification because I have ran into this a lot. Drugs were not legal in Oregon, nor are they legal in Portugal. The term refers to reduced penalties I.E. no prison time for possession of drugs. I generally support the idea if it can have enough support to be fully implemented.

So, this is one of the biggest things to keep in mind with this. When Oregon voters decriminalized low levels of drug possession, the intention was for the effort to push resources towards treatment. However, three years later, Oregon ranks last in the nation with regards to access to drug treatment. Even with that, they are better than average in the nation when it comes to overdose deaths while states with more strict drug laws rank much higher.

This new law is still not a complete reversal, though. It will allow officials to confiscate the drugs and it also allows sentencing to drug treatment rather than imprisonment. In a sense, the new law will allow officials to make people seek treatment rather than just handing them information and hoping they go. Of course, that does no good if they don't put the resources into it.

[GMDino]

(03-03-2024, 07:15 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I know very little about how Oregon handled it but I have seen Oregon residents saying that they never actually fully committed to it. Apparently, Oregon had committed to building 100 additional rehab centers but only one was constructed. They attempted to follow in the steps of Portugal, who decriminalized drugs to massive success but they also had all of the infrastructure to support it. Plenty of rehab centers, social workers and the whole nine yards.

Also, as a clarification because I have ran into this a lot. Drugs were not legal in Oregon, nor are they legal in Portugal. The term refers to reduced penalties I.E. no prison time for possession of drugs. I generally support the idea if it can have enough support to be fully implemented.

(03-04-2024, 08:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, this is one of the biggest things to keep in mind with this. When Oregon voters decriminalized low levels of drug possession, the intention was for the effort to push resources towards treatment. However, three years later, Oregon ranks last in the nation with regards to access to drug treatment. Even with that, they are better than average in the nation when it comes to overdose deaths while states with more strict drug laws rank much higher.

This new law is still not a complete reversal, though. It will allow officials to confiscate the drugs and it also allows sentencing to drug treatment rather than imprisonment. In a sense, the new law will allow officials to make people seek treatment rather than just handing them information and hoping they go. Of course, that does no good if they don't put the resources into it.

So it wasn't just liberalism/progressivism run amok?  Followed by them saying they were stupid and needed to get back to old policies?

It was typical government making a plan but not financing it or following through?  

[JustWinBaby]

That the program's failure would be blamed on a lack of funding was and will never be remotely predictable.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-03-2024, 07:15 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I know very little about how Oregon handled it but I have seen Oregon residents saying that they never actually fully committed to it.

I am not accusing you of making this argument, but this reeks of "Actual Communism has never been tried" arguments from pro-Communists trying to argue against why the system fails utterly every time it is tried.

Quote:Apparently, Oregon had committed to building 100 additional rehab centers but only one was constructed. They attempted to follow in the steps of Portugal, who decriminalized drugs to massive success but they also had all of the infrastructure to support it. Plenty of rehab centers, social workers and the whole nine yards.

The question to ask next is why?  The Dems utterly control state level politics thanks to wacked ass Portland.

Quote:Also, as a clarification because I have ran into this a lot. Drugs were not legal in Oregon, nor are they legal in Portugal. The term refers to reduced penalties I.E. no prison time for possession of drugs. I generally support the idea if it can have enough support to be fully implemented.

Potato, potahto.  The law made them de facto legal.  The whole point of making something illegal is to provide penalties for engaging in it.  If their is zero penalty for committing an illegal act than it being illegal means absolutely nothing.

(03-03-2024, 09:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Portugal also didn't have China actively flooding them with drugs as a form of warfare. Solving a problem is much harder when there's a global power actively trying to prevent the problem from being solved.

Spot on.  An often overlooked, and enormous, reason for our current predicament.

(03-04-2024, 08:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, this is one of the biggest things to keep in mind with this. When Oregon voters decriminalized low levels of drug possession, the intention was for the effort to push resources towards treatment. However, three years later, Oregon ranks last in the nation with regards to access to drug treatment. Even with that, they are better than average in the nation when it comes to overdose deaths while states with more strict drug laws rank much higher.

Again, the question then becomes why not?  Also, them having lower levels than other states isn't really important when you consider their overdose deaths, and other criminal activity absolutely skyrocketed because of this law.  There's a lot of factors that go into this problem, proximity to the Mexican border being one of them.  

Quote:This new law is still not a complete reversal, though. It will allow officials to confiscate the drugs and it also allows sentencing to drug treatment rather than imprisonment. In a sense, the new law will allow officials to make people seek treatment rather than just handing them information and hoping they go. Of course, that does no good if they don't put the resources into it.

I have been pounding this drum on this site for probably over a decade now.  Involuntary treatment in a secure facility is the only way to go.  Voluntary treatment will always be better, but any treatment is better than no treatment.  There's a reason that every recovery program uses the term "rock bottom" to describe when a person finally seeks treatment, because your typical addict will not seek treatment voluntarily until things are as bad as they can possibly get.

[KillerGoose]

(03-04-2024, 01:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am not accusing you of making this argument, but this reeks of "Actual Communism has never been tried" arguments from pro-Communists trying to argue against why the system fails utterly every time it is tried.

It's funny you mention that because I had that exact thought as I was typing it out. 

Quote:The question to ask next is why?  The Dems utterly control state level politics thanks to wacked ass Portland.

If what I have heard is correct, this is my primary question. Why did access to treatment not actually be completed like promised? Were there unexpected budget constraints? Was it a political move from the beginning to appease the voting base without intention on following through? I have no idea.

Quote:Potato, potahto.  The law made them de facto legal.  The whole point of making something illegal is to provide penalties for engaging in it.  If their is zero penalty for committing an illegal act than it being illegal means absolutely nothing.

My understanding is that there was still a penalty, just not a felony. I think it was reclassified to a misdemeanor if it was a small enough amount. Which I am in favor of, generally speaking. I don't think taking a fentanyl addict and throwing them into prison does anything to ultimately solve the problem. You have to have the rehab infrastructure to support the policies though, which can ultimately make it similar to the Communism bit at the beginning. It's a lot of funding and maintenance. Even Portugal is having some issues to my understanding, as they don't have enough rehab centers anymore. 

I could be wrong on some of the information on the Oregon side. Like I said, I'm much less familiar with how they enacted it aside from surface level reads. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2024, 02:12 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: It's funny you mention that because I had that exact thought as I was typing it out. 




If what I have heard is correct, this is my primary question. Why did access to treatment not actually be completed like promised? Were there unexpected budget constraints? Was it a political move from the beginning to appease the voting base without intention on following through? I have no idea.

Likely the latter.  I have stated this many times, politicians would much rather give the appearance of doing something rather than actually doing something.  You get the same kudos from the electorate, but don't have to then give those pesky results.

Quote:My understanding is that there was still a penalty, just not a felony. I think it was reclassified to a misdemeanor if it was a small enough amount. Which I am in favor of, generally speaking. I don't think taking a fentanyl addict and throwing them into prison does anything to ultimately solve the problem. You have to have the rehab infrastructure to support the policies though, which can ultimately make it similar to the Communism bit at the beginning. It's a lot of funding and maintenance. Even Portugal is having some issues to my understanding, as they don't have enough rehab centers anymore. 

I could be wrong on some of the information on the Oregon side. Like I said, I'm much less familiar with how they enacted it aside from surface level reads. 

For anyone actually interested in reading it.

https://www.oregon.gov/oha/hsd/amh/pages/measure110.aspx

A well written article from NPR on the subject.

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/07/1229655142/oregon-pioneered-a-radical-drug-policy-now-its-reconsidering

[KillerGoose]

(03-04-2024, 02:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Likely the latter.  I have stated this many times, politicians would much rather give the appearance of doing something rather than actually doing something.  You get the same kudos from the electorate, but don't have to then give those pesky results.



For anyone actually interested in reading it.

https://www.oregon.gov/oha/hsd/amh/pages/measure110.aspx

A well written article from NPR on the subject.

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/07/1229655142/oregon-pioneered-a-radical-drug-policy-now-its-reconsidering

Thanks for the links. I read the NPR article as legal language in bills tend to make my eyes gloss over. While I think some of the things I have read may be hyperbole (e.g. only one additional rehab center has been constructed) the overall point seems to be accurate. There isn't enough infrastructure to support what the bill wanted to do. More importantly, though, they aren't getting enough calls to their hotline. Hardly anyone was taking advantage of the program it seems.

Here is another NPR article about Portugal's implementation. It's a great and insightful read. One glaring difference is how the two societies view police officers. In Portugal, you will read that the officers are viewed as "friends" whereas in the United States, perhaps more on the left, police are viewed as enemies e.g. "ACAB". Where Oregon has had barely anyone contact the hotline established by Measure 110, Portugal sports a 90% hit rate. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-04-2024, 06:32 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: Thanks for the links. I read the NPR article as legal language in bills tend to make my eyes gloss over. While I think some of the things I have read may be hyperbole (e.g. only one additional rehab center has been constructed) the overall point seems to be accurate. There isn't enough infrastructure to support what the bill wanted to do. More importantly, though, they aren't getting enough calls to their hotline. Hardly anyone was taking advantage of the program it seems.

Not sure why there'd be such a variance in the use of these services.  Addiction behavior is rather consistent across cultural boundaries.

Quote:Here is another NPR article about Portugal's implementation. It's a great and insightful read. One glaring difference is how the two societies view police officers. In Portugal, you will read that the officers are viewed as "friends" whereas in the United States, perhaps more on the left, police are viewed as enemies e.g. "ACAB". Where Oregon has had barely anyone contact the hotline established by Measure 110, Portugal sports a 90% hit rate. 

Law enforcement as the enemy is a rather recent phenomena, for much of the country that is.  A large part of the problem is that we, also until recently, had some rather odious laws in place that law enforcement was obligated to enforce.  Sometimes with far too much enthusiasm.  Today it is colored far too broadly by bad actors receiving disproportionate media coverage.  

[JustWinBaby]

(03-04-2024, 01:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I am not accusing you of making this argument, but this reeks of "Actual Communism has never been tried" arguments from pro-Communists trying to argue against why the system fails utterly every time it is tried.

Funny that you had the same observation as I did.  When Repub policies fail, it's always because they were a "bad idea".  When Dem policies fail, it's usually because the law didn't go far enough or they didn't spend enough money, or sometimes because of the Repubs!

In either event, it was a noble effort.  Perhaps the implementation was indeed inadequate.  Worth learning from and trying again.  However - and this is critical - people really don't appreciate cultural, geographical and other differences that make it much more complicated than simply copying what worked somewhere else.

Drugs are the source of a ton of problems in our society, including gun violence (among others).  So I'm completely open to innovative solutions.  But it's also a simple consequence of when you make drugs more accessible/safe/legal, you have the negative externality of increased addiction.  Which is where treatment comes in - but treating addicts your policy creates is the mother of all trade-offs.  And the larger problem is people have to first acknowledge a problem, and want to change, before they'll seek treatment.

[Belsnickel]

(03-04-2024, 01:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Again, the question then becomes why not?  Also, them having lower levels than other states isn't really important when you consider their overdose deaths, and other criminal activity absolutely skyrocketed because of this law.  There's a lot of factors that go into this problem, proximity to the Mexican border being one of them.  

It rose in correlation with the law, not necessarily because of it. There are a lot of other factors to be considered, as you accurately point out. Causality is difficult to ascertain on this issue. As to why the state didn't put more resources into it? It was likely because they didn't have the money to do so, though again there could be any number of reasons. I don't follow Oregon politics enough.

(03-04-2024, 01:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have been pounding this drum on this site for probably over a decade now.  Involuntary treatment in a secure facility is the only way to go.  Voluntary treatment will always be better, but any treatment is better than no treatment.  There's a reason that every recovery program uses the term "rock bottom" to describe when a person finally seeks treatment, because your typical addict will not seek treatment voluntarily until things are as bad as they can possibly get.

Agreed. I have never been addicted to drugs, but it is because I have an addictive personality (thanks ADHD!) and as a result I have always tempered my use of most substances. Except tobacco. I smoked from age 13 to 27. I smoked a lot, too. Much like most smokers I had the cycle of "quitting" and then going back to it. However, it took me really wanting to quit to make it happen. And when it did, I quit cold turkey and haven't looked back in over ten years. Everyone's experience is different, but when it comes to quitting any addiction it won't stick unless someone really wants it, but maybe forcing them to seek treatment can cause that realization. We can only try.

(03-04-2024, 07:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Law enforcement as the enemy is a rather recent phenomena, for much of the country that is.  A large part of the problem is that we, also until recently, had some rather odious laws in place that law enforcement was obligated to enforce.  Sometimes with far too much enthusiasm.  Today it is colored far too broadly by bad actors receiving disproportionate media coverage.  

Is it, though? I mean, being an Appalachian hillbilly with OG rednecks in my lineage, I am fairly certain that the law ain't ever been well liked in a good portion of this country. I would contend that from the very beginning, even before modern policing emerged in the mid-1800's, law enforcement was viewed by a large swath of the country as a tool of the elite to hold down the lower classes. A way for wealthy and corporate interests to enact their will upon the populous. I would say that the "feel good" view of law enforcement is more of a result of some of the popular media surrounding it, mostly from the '70s onward, which was likely an attempt to repair an image coming out of Vietnam and the Civil Rights Era. We hit a peak of this sentiment in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when the terror attacks caused the country to rally around our military and first responders but has been waning ever since because, well, our citizenry is mercurial.

I just realized typing this up that next year 9/11 will be as many years in the past as the first season of CHiPs was in the past from 9/11 and I am sad now.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2024, 09:17 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Is it, though? I mean, being an Appalachian hillbilly with OG rednecks in my lineage, I am fairly certain that the law ain't ever been well liked in a good portion of this country. I would contend that from the very beginning, even before modern policing emerged in the mid-1800's, law enforcement was viewed by a large swath of the country as a tool of the elite to hold down the lower classes. A way for wealthy and corporate interests to enact their will upon the populous. I would say that the "feel good" view of law enforcement is more of a result of some of the popular media surrounding it, mostly from the '70s onward, which was likely an attempt to repair an image coming out of Vietnam and the Civil Rights Era. We hit a peak of this sentiment in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 when the terror attacks caused the country to rally around our military and first responders but has been waning ever since because, well, our citizenry is mercurial.

I just realized typing this up that next year 9/11 will be as many years in the past as the first season of CHiPs was in the past from 9/11 and I am sad now.

Considering your points and giving it some thought you are largely correct.  I suppose that was generational bias speaking in my initial post.  I was born in '74, so I hit the peak of what you accurately described.  

[Belsnickel]

(03-05-2024, 12:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Considering your points and giving it some thought you are largely correct.  I suppose that was generational bias speaking in my initial post.  I was born in '74, so I hit the peak of what you accurately described.  

Which is completely understandable for that very reason. It is because of my background that I get to see it a little more even with growing up in that timeframe. I live just up the road from a place named for being a moonshine run and the descendants of the family still inhabit the area. I work with folks from areas that police don't go, and it's been that way for generations. Their holler is inhabited by one branch of a family that spells their name slightly different than another branch and they have been feuding for a century or more.

I love Appalachia.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2024, 01:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which is completely understandable for that very reason. It is because of my background that I get to see it a little more even with growing up in that timeframe. I live just up the road from a place named for being a moonshine run and the descendants of the family still inhabit the area. I work with folks from areas that police don't go, and it's been that way for generations. Their holler is inhabited by one branch of a family that spells their name slightly different than another branch and they have been feuding for a century or more.

I love Appalachia.

A feud likely sparked by a perceived insult or off hand comment.  It's great, in a weird way, that there are still parts of the country like this.