03-04-2024, 02:34 PM
(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
