Democratic lawmakers in Oregon on Tuesday unveiled a sweeping new bill that would undo a key part of the state’s first-in-the-nation drug decriminalization law, a recognition that public opinion has soured on the measure amid rampant public drug use during the fentanyl crisis.
The bill would recriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs as a low-level misdemeanor, enabling police to confiscate them and crack down on their use on sidewalks and in parks, its authors said. It also aims to make it easier to prosecute dealers, to access addiction treatment medication, and to obtain and keep housing without facing discrimination for using that medication.
End the failed war on drugs already.
B- but then people might use drugs more openly and be more forthright in admitting they have an addiction, and I’ll have to look at them! We had better just throw them all in jail instead. That always works.
Do you think kids should be subjected to people shooting up drugs when playing outside or when going to school?
I am anti drug war personally but if any situation led to it being easier for kids to be subjected to that, that seems like a worse world.
Wont someone think of the children!?!??!?!?!!??!?!?!??!
Very “Hello fellow kids” kinda comment with that “im anti drug war…” part
Beyond all that, countries like Netherlands have safe injection sites where users can get clean needles, be in a safe space for consumption, test kits for safety, and monitors to watch for accidental overdoses.
Oregon doesn’t have that kind of funding or ability to organize. Portland is a massive shit-show of mismanagement.
I don’t want drug use to be a crime either, but ffs this isn’t the way.
Harm reduction sites already exist in Portland and provide many of those services. The US justice department has traditionally been a block for doing more.
The drugs laws in place since the 80s have essentially made providing any type of support to a drug user in the United States a federal offense. This is why safe injection sites in New York City took decades to open and essentially opened in defiance of Federal rulings against such sites source. Corporate Counsel for the City of New York has essentially dared the Federal government to come stop them citing a public health emergency in preventing overdoses, and the U.S. Attorney (Prosecutor) for the Southern District of NY (where the sites are) promising swift enforcement (which has yet to materialize) source
I’m glad the second article got into the history a bit. Regardless of what the prosecutor is saying, the Biden DoJ has signaled more openness, but the election could change things quickly.
That doesn’t mean the funds have been used appropriately.
All these negative effects are consequences of the war on drugs, not the drugs themselves. If society treats drug addicts as patients instead of as criminals, things get better. This has worked every time it’s been tried. The only reason it isn’t done in a larger scale is people who benefit from the war on drugs preventing it.
Do you think if we stop the war on drugs, that will reduce the number of homeless drug addicted people? I don’t think it will. There’s need to be more to it than that, otherwise you’re literally not preparing for the 2nd half of that foot drop.
I largely agree alot of these problems are a result of criminalizing drug use but decriminizing doesn’t solve some of these problems with homeless folks which is probably more related to mental health services.
Ending the war on drugs will not solve every problem. But at least things will stop getting worse. And it’ll make it far easier to tackle all the other problems.
I read somewhere that if someone uses BUT in the first sentence of a statement youd be wise to ignore everything said before the BUT. Specifically referencing your second paragraph.
Haha awesome way to avoid having to answer and also attacking someone for no good reason at the same time. Your comments really contribute.
Avoid having to answer? Are you proposing that “Do you think kids should be subjected to people shooting up drugs when playing outside or when going to school?” was a sincere question?
I think it’s kind of a loaded question yeah. But I live near a park that has kids playing along side people using. I’m just not sure they’re ready for that.
Just keep ignoring the existence of safe injection sites
deleted by creator
Meow
Yes. Why hide the world when it’s right in front of them? Tall to the child, tell them what is happening and do not imply judgement. Unless you feel the need to talk shit about those with drug addiction, then that’s your personal thing but most folks find that kind of thing distasteful since its metaphorically kicking someone while they are stuck in a life they can’t get out of. And many do want out, want to quit, but they lack the help and resources to escape. So if you are upset at seeing this and want others to “think of the children”, ask yourself what you will do about it?
That’s one reason why more progressive areas have safe injection sites. Wanna guess who’s generally against those?
tHiNk Of TeH kIdS!!!11!!!1!!
It’s a relevant point. We don’t allow cigarette companies to advertise to children so should it be acceptable to advertise crack or coke?
The ban on tobacco advertisements is a relatively recent thing.
We’re inundated with ads for alcohol and pharmaceuticals.
Super unhealthy sugar-filled snacks and breakfast cereals made up like 90% of TV commercials when I was growing up.
Yeah and we need to stop those too.
I mean im all for legalization but im also fine restricting it from public places and allowing property owners to determine usage at their location. I mean that is how alchohol works. At least here you can’t be drinking in parks unless its a festival with a license.
And even when it’s allowed in, it doesn’t mean allowing people to just do whatever. There’s plenty of places around the world where you can have a drink outdoors, but there’s still laws against loitering, being a nuisance, picking fights, etc.
There’s a whole wide world between “nobody can do drugs ever” and “we must tolerate fucked up people fucking up everything everywhere.”
yeah where im at they legalized weed and im annoyed they did not allow grow but I actually would like more restriction on advertising. The whole point of legalization is to gain some control of the situation.
"Possession of under a gram of heroin, for example, is only subject to a ticket and a maximum fine of $100.
Those caught with small amounts can have the citation dismissed by calling a 24-hour hotline to complete an addiction screening within 45 days, but those who don’t do a screening are not penalized for failing to pay the fine."
As was heavily pointed out at the time, there is no downside to ignoring all of it, so it turns out the vast majority of people ignore all of it and do what they want. The proponents live in a fantasy world where everybody wants to get clean. All of them ignore that their poster child Portugal still has penalties, just not criminal charges; jail is not the only stick (although Portugul also has a growing drug and program funding problem).
How do you get clean in a for-profit healthcare system when you’re a poor junkie?
Did you… not read the article? Oregon is sitting on a shit ton of money for treatment.
Yeah that’s the problem. They’re sitting on that money instead of distributing it like they were supposed to meaning people aren’t getting treatment. This new bill is just more of the same and allows them to continue sitting on that money while pretending like they’re doing something about the issue.
Doing drugs in public was not decriminalized but police aren’t doing their job so that they can make the problem worse and get what they want.
To a point, but as mentioned in the article if only ten people are calling a month, it also does not sound like there is that much demand from the people who need it. People want simple solutions but they don’t come simply.
Decriminalization of personal-use amounts of drugs, approved by voters in 2020 under Ballot Measure 110, was supposed to channel hundreds of millions of dollars of marijuana tax revenues into drug treatment and harm reduction programs. But that hasn’t yet translated into an improved care network for a state with the second-highest rate of substance use disorder in the nation and ranked 50th for access to treatment.
“When Oregonians passed Measure 110, we expected that our loved ones battling addiction would have access to treatment and a chance for a better life,” Fagan told reporters in a Zoom press conference. “We expected there will be fewer of our neighbors struggling on the streets.”
Instead, the funding has been slow getting out of the gate and instances of drug abuse and overdose deaths have increased.
What point is there in calling a hotline that’ll tell you there’s no treatment options available? This shit is straight out of the Republican playbook, starve services to make them ineffectual, and then point to that ineffectiveness as a reason to change laws to what they want. The only difference here is that it’s Democratic legislators doing it. It’s just scumbags all the way down regardless of the party they represent.
The proponents live in a fantasy world where everybody wants to get clean.
Absolutely false. I live in a fantasy world where my leaders are required to watch Demolition Man on repeat until they understand that people have the inalienable right to choose to make themselves miserable. That’s why we also allow casinos.
But do the leaders know how to use the three seashells?
Unless you’re native you’re gonna have a hard time opening a casino in Oregon.
People should absolutely be able to make themselves miserable however they want, and if they limited it to making themselves miserable that’d be fine and dandy. Let me know when Portland public transit stops testing positive for fentanyl and meth. So far no casino nor old lady at the slots has stolen my catalytic converter.
The goals are great, the legislation was poorly thought shit based on aspirational thinking that had predictable results. Criminalizing simple possession isn’t the solution either but we live in a ridiculously black and white society where that’s all they can think of.
Possession of under a gram of heroin, for example, is only subject to a ticket and a maximum fine of $100.
Fines like this are just taxes for the poor.
I’m poor and I’m an (ex)addict. If a fine like that came with penalties, I wouldn’t do drugs in public… Because I wouldn’t want to pay the fine. Poor people aren’t stupid and most of us aren’t in the habit of throwing away money…
A penalty that has a significant impact on the poor while being the cost of having fun for the rich is just saying the behavior is only acceptable if you can afford it.
Believe me, I understand. It should be tied to wealth… Which will never happen. $100 is much better than thousands and/or prison time. Drugs being decriminalized, and with such a low penalty, would hopefully encourage cops to be lenient in writing those tickets. Ideally, tickets would only be issued when people are literally shooting/lighting up in public. Most people know better than to do that.
Oregons problem is money mismanagement
There needs to be a complete paradigm shift. Lots of people in this thread can’t seem to wrap their heads around the concept of “decriminalization.” That’s why people aren’t being penalized. Because it’s no longer illegal to possess. It’s really that simple.
Decriminalization and legalization are not the same thing. Possession is still illegal, but there are not criminal penalties, that is why it has a citation and ostensibly a fine. Oregon has legalized marijuana, but not the rest.
I think there can be confusion because a violation and a crime are not the same thing, legally, even though they are both against the law. A violation does not include jail time, but usually does include other penalties. A traffic infraction is a very common example of a violation. You don’t go to jail for running a red light despite it being illegal.
Oregonian here… Measure 110 is an absolute shit show.
Yes, it decriminalized drugs and funded treatment programs, but the problem was the treatment programs were 100% optional.
Here’s how it “worked”:
Get busted with drugs, it’s a $100 fine.
Fine can get waived if you call a toll free number to ask about treatment.
Note: All you had to do was call the number. You didn’t have to actually GET treatment.Initially 16,000 or so people were cited in the first year, 0.85% (~136) sought treatment.
The rest were looking for free needle exchanges, free methadone, free naloxone.
There are no real consequences, and unlike booze and pot, there are no laws banning public use of hard drugs.
So we get open air drug markets, run by cartels from Honduras, in this case mere blocks from police HQ:
As those articles you linked point out, it is illegal to sell drugs and the police arrest people who do. What exactly are you recriminalizing? Is this a case where the POLICE do not want to actively solve the drug selling problem because they want to return to the days when the state money was being funneled to them and not treatment programs? We lived with possession being criminalized and nothing working since the 80s. I think we can try decriminalizing possession for long enough to get the treatment programs running.
Drug use is way up in states that are not Oregon. Fentanyl and Covid have changed the game. The timing is unfortunate sadly to try something new.
Bingo. The state hasn’t actually funded any new treatment centers and things like using drugs in a park are already illegal. This is just a way for the state to get off the hook for actually funding treatment centers while throwing a bone to police who are butthurt that they lost one of their easiest, low effort methods to arrest someone. Most of the stats thrown around about drug use in this state were from before this law even passed, so how will going right back to the old system improve anything? Democrats are lucky that Republican legislators are such pieces of trash because otherwise they’d actually be held accountable for being such huge disappointments to the population.
The police don’t arrest people who do, that’s part of the problem. They can be embarrased into action by the media, they take action if the problem gets “bad enough”.
Meanwhile:
Overdoses are through the roof:
"In June alone, firefighters from Station 1 responded to 300 overdoses.
Portland police data shows that back in 2020 nearly 90 people died from overdoses. The number jumped to 135 in 2021, then to 159 in all of 2022. So far this year there have been 151 deaths, all in less than seven months. Police expect that number to be around 300 by year’s end.
Portland firefighters are responding to more overdoses than fires — and when they do respond to a fire, it’s often-homeless camp related."
Drug related theft is through the roof:
https://www.koin.com/news/crime/retail-theft-linked-to-drugs-stolen-vehicles-in-portland/
I generally agree with your take on what is happening. But drug overdoses are way up in all states because of Fentanyl and Covid related breakdown of social programs. Since overdoses increased in other states too, I find it unlikely that we need to recriminalize to reduce them. Additionally, we have DECADES of criminalization that wasted billions without fixing the problem. How will this criminalization do what was not done in all that time in all those states. If it won’t fix it, why do we want to dump money into the police and courts?
I support a lot of actions to reduce the nuisance. I hate cleaning up needles and seeing public spaces turned into inhospitable areas. I just don’t think criminalization of possession is going to fix that. It didn’t for the last 40 years. It won’t now.
Why should there be consequences for possessing something that’s been decriminalized? Like it seems like you’re missing the entire point?
People looking for safe injection sites and needle exchanges is a good thing, it’s called harm reduction. That’s a win. That’s one of the main things that decriminalization allows us to do; let people use their drug of choice safely and privately.
Guns are legal, but there’s still penalties for possession in certain circumstances. Why should drugs be different? There’s no reason to be going around in public with a pocket full of meth.
Pot and booze are both legal, but you aren’t allowed to get high or wasted in public either.
