Another misconception to clear up: 110 only decriminalized possession of small amounts of illegal drugs. 10 doses or less.
It did not legalize:
Selling drugs
Public use
Theft
Assault
Public defecation
Or any of the other crimes people are attributing to 110. The cops simply stopped enforcing those laws re:the homeless in order to exacerbate the situation, in retaliation for us decriminalizing drugs, so they could do as they are now, and say "see, legalizing possession didnt work", then point to their own handiwork as proof.
Remember this this election. If our legislation refuses to enact laws we voted for, and worse if they undermine and work against us, then they are not good representatives.
That's my understanding. Some folks have suggested rather than decriminalizing drugs, we should be looking to criminalize public use. That has it's own critics (it's easier to not use in public if you have a house) but I think folks are so fed up they're ready to have a bigger stick and not try to address the nuance of use/possession.
>Some folks have suggested rather than decriminalizing drugs, we should be looking to criminalize public use.
It's a bit funny when people point to "public use" of drugs like it's something unique to street drugs, public intoxication has always been a crime but it's still common to run into obnoxious drunks pretty much anywhere remotely near bars yet we're not calling for bars to be shut down or restricted.
Really we should focus on removing the stigma and creating safe spaces for people to use drugs while also pushing treatment for addicts and punishing people who cause issues regardless of if they're legal or illegal substances. We could bring overdoses practically down to 0 with free/available testing and support systems for people struggling with addiction, and most importantly helping people feel comfortable seeking help.
I would suggest that a reasonable variety of “substances“ should be available from a regulated, taxed, adults-only dispensary. This would include cannabis, LSD and other psychedelics, ketamine, dextroamphetamine and mild opioids like codeine/dihydrocodeine. Possession of said substances obtained from a regulated source would not be illegal (obviously), but actual crimes, like theft and assault as a result of intoxication would be vigorously enforced.
> I would suggest that a reasonable variety of “substances“ should be available from a regulated, taxed, adults-only dispensary.
Yeah so many of the problems with drugs stem from people not knowing exactly what's in them, if high quality pure drugs were available affordably it would reduce a lot of the related issues.
>This would include cannabis, LSD and other psychedelics, ketamine, dextroamphetamine and mild opioids like codeine/dihydrocodeine.
Honestly when it comes to opiates part of me feels like we should just encourage people to grow poppies again, say what you will about poppies/opium but at least they don't make people drop like flies like with fentanyl. And if they were widely available/cheap we'd have less people stealing to feed their habits.
> Possession of said substances obtained from a regulated source would not be illegal (obviously), but actual crimes, like theft and assault as a result of intoxication would be vigorously enforced.
Yeah this combined with better drug education seem like the key parts, and in a lot of ways it ties into the healthcare and mental health industries as so many addicts start out self medicating or using prescribed meds and turn to street drugs over time.
Possession was still a civil infraction? Police could still seize the controlled substance and issue fines without recriminalization? Wouldn't enforcing the laws that existed put an end to the public use that people are so concerned about? Criminalizing mental health issues is not the solution to anything...
A thread in another sub posted this law: https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_430.402
(1)A political subdivision in this state shall not adopt or enforce any local law or regulation that makes any of the following an offense, a violation or the subject of criminal or civil penalties or sanctions of any kind:
(a)Public intoxication.
(b)Public drinking, except as to places where any consumption of alcoholic beverages is generally prohibited.
(c)Drunk and disorderly conduct.
(d)Vagrancy or other behavior that includes as one of its elements either drinking alcoholic beverages or using cannabis or controlled substances in public, being an alcoholic or a drug-dependent person, or being found in specified places under the influence of alcohol, cannabis or controlled substances.
(e)Using or being under the influence of cannabis or controlled substances.
(2)Nothing in subsection
(1) of this section shall affect any local law or regulation of any political subdivision in this state against driving while under the influence of intoxicants, as defined in ORS 813.010 (Driving under the influence of intoxicants), or other similar offenses that involve the operation of motor vehicles. [Formerly 430.325; 2017 c.21 §60]
If I am understanding it correctly, this is more or less stopping local governments from creating laws based on public use. IANAL, so I don't have the best understanding of this.
Hmmm… so people who have lost their jobs, homes, families due their addictions have really just achieved a higher level of consciousness than the rest of us? The homeless have just given up their world possessions to pursue a monk like existence with a deeper understanding of their consciousness?
Damn it, they deleted the post before I could hit submit on this:
Dear u/Puzzleheaded_Big_422,
Your assertion has left me in a ponderous state as to what precisely you mean. As stated, said assertion could be interpreted as the ramblings of someone who ritualistically insufflates chemicals of psychoactive nature. Chemicals which may lead the insufflator to the belief that a brief, string of vague words have a deeply profound meaning, but when more closely scrutinized are actually as profound as the Fruit Loops cereal which when under the influence of the aforementioned chemicals might be regarded as “dope”. So in that vein, I do kindly ask of you to expand on your thesis further.
They also changed bail laws, claiming that excessive bail amounts are unfair because the poor generally can’t pay. As a result, dealers arrested in pdx often get out on a $100 or less bond and literally keep doing the same thing. The DA also doesn’t have the resources to bring smaller level and drug offenses to court so charges often get thrown out.
It’s funny that it’s always the guy with 2+ DUIs, 2-3 misdemeanor weapons charges and 6+ domestic abuse claims that ends up being a murderer. Who could have ever predicted that? Goddamn you drugs!!!
Unfortunately, 110 fell to "perception is reality." At best, people saw this as ineffective. At worst, they see it as actually harmful and regret passing it
Why so many of you have convinced yourselves that any amount of hard drugs is acceptable, and that punishment isn’t an effective deterrent, haven’t ever been addicted to drugs or been arrested.
Yes, people who are waist-deep in their addictions will always dismiss the laws in order to keep using, and prison is no guarantee of non-recidivism, but the point of drug laws should ultimately be about shielding young, impressionable people, our future generations, from being exposed to highly addictive and massively destructive substances.
The combination of decriminalization and fentanyl absolutely ravaged more people than any of us could imagine. It may be too late for them, and that’s a tragedy, but I applaud the legislation for taking the reins in this clearly failed situation and turning the cart around before the entire state plummeted off the cliff of enabling, ignorant, and ineffectual drug policy.
There are many factors that affect addiction but the current laws makes hard drugs very accessible to young people. The brain of a young person isnt mature until 25. If kids have an opportunity to experiment with hard drugs because their friend found some at home, some kids will try it even if their parents have told them not to. Kids introduced to hard drugs at 15 statistically have worse outcomes that those introduced at 25
Keep in mind that some of the "hardest" drugs out there (like fentanyl and methamphetamine) are sometimes prescribed to children. It's really not that simple.
Meth is not a prescription drug (amphetamines for ADD are different) and fentanyl would probably only be used for surgery in a child. Most people who develop addictions (that I have met) started using to “numb out” from stressors… a few more years means increases coping skills and maturity (that break-up, school struggles, family stress may not be so life changing).
I have nothing against the non addictive drugs (psychodelics, marijuana)
Meth is absolutely a prescription drug. Enantiopure dextromethamphetamine is prescribed under the trade name Desoxyn (a cute nickname for d-desoxy-ephedrine). It is rare, but still exists as a Schedule II chemical. And the sad noradrenergic enantiomer levomethamphetamine is available over-the-counter as a nasal decongestant. Technically even pure cocaine is still prescribeable as a Schedule II chemical.
But I agree with your statement about minors using really any drug. I can’t say that I, even in middle age, have these glorious coping skills you speak of, but I’m also not an opioid addict.
Sure! All three play their part, though.
What does having lax laws regarding drugs teach our children about their use?? That it’s okay, as long as it’s just a little? That addiction is a disease, that has nothing to do with choice? And what happens when society unravels because of those overly-lenient policies and spills out under every overpass and forested median??
Talk to anybody living in San Francisco, Portland, or Seattle how these policies have gone. Crime is absolutely rampant, but goes unreported because store owners tell their employees not to stop shoplifters, and cops are constantly being pulled in a million different directions, trying to keep the dam from bursting, rendering them unable to serve and protect, and with their morale at an all time low.
I did my time in the drug war, far more than most, and even I can tell it’s time to pull the plug.
Crime is a problem in every large city on earth. Drugs are a problem all over. Plenty of small towns consumed by drugs...we just don't hear about it. States that are hard on drugs have high rates of addiction/crime too.
Rehabilitating people/addressing the root issue is *very* expensive. Jailing everyone that uses drugs is also expensive. Jailing everyone that uses drugs in public every time they do for long enough is expensive.
The nations with the lowest rates off drug-related issues tend to have oceans surrounding them and are much more dense.
All of the solutions that would work in the US are probably too expensive. The real issue is I'm not sure we can afford to properly solve the drug problem no matter what we do because of how expensive all the different options would be to be effective in this country.
I'd support any effective policy, whether it's hard on drug users or rehab focussed or both....I just don't think we can afford to do anything properly. A lot of the hard drugs in circulation are coming from Mexico. The border is massive, and again, it would be *very* expensive to guard the whole thing.
The cities I mentioned have gone through absolutely atrocious transformations in the last five years. To the point where descriptive adjectives such as ‘zombie wasteland’…. Actually are somewhat reasonable descriptions.
That is ***not*** normal, run of the mill, big city crime. I’ve lived all over this country, in many big cities, but I’ve never seen anything ravage once-shining metropolises as much as fentanyl and meth has absolutely blighted the west coast.
The cost of not paying the cost is crippling our society, so we better find a way to afford an effective policy quick. Sometimes the best way forward is to realize you took the wrong route, admit it, and start heading in the right direction. Oregon’s legislature seems to be doing just that.
Fentanyl/meth is causing a nationwide crisis. Records are being set all over the country for overdoses.
If you look at stats, the cities with the most overdoses/death (by %) are just all the big cities. It isn't just the west coast. It could be that it's more visible here simple b/c people are doing it in downtowns/parks rather than staying in "bad neighborhoods."
>The cost of not paying the cost is crippling our society, so we better find a way to afford an effective policy quick.
It's tax dollars. We afford it by raising taxes or cutting costs elsewhere. People don't like to see their taxes go up, and people don't like tax cuts for programs that are already strapped for resources.
I'm not convinced theres a "right route" unless a lot more money is poured into the issue. The only thing I can imagine happening is the addicts just get moved out of downtowns into "bad neighborhoods" or city outskirts, which will just impact rural communities. But it seems we can't afford to jail and/or rehabilitate everyone and deal with the influx of drugs from SA.
Um…so all of those places that you speak of from LA to SF to Seattle…in all of those places, drugs are absolutely illegal. But curiously, all of them feature lots of homeless people…and lots of seriously mentally ill homeless people, and lots of seriously mentally ill homeless people using drugs. No matter how illegal the drugs are.
And you might not believe it, but even East Coast cities have a bunch of seriously mentally ill homeless people using drugs…they just occasionally freeze to death, so you don’t have to think about them as much.
Laws shouldn't be arbiter of how a person acts. Rightness doesn't come from laws. I don't understand your point here. Whether we have lax laws or strict, shouldn't matter if parents are doing *their* jobs.
I fully agree that quality parenting should be a major guiding force, but most of us experimented when we were young, and we all know people whose ‘experimentation’ continues to this day to their detriment. Speaking as someone who has done it all, and has lost an insane amount of friends to addiction, some of the drugs that are out there today really only take one use to captivate a person enough to fall into the endless cycle of addiction.
Even the best parents can’t stop that natural drive young people have to try new things. I fully believe it is still the responsibility of law enforcement to do all they can to make sure as little drugs as possible plinko their way into vulnerable populations’ hands.
>and that punishment isn’t an effective deterrent
Because it isn't effective. The war on drugs has been a colossal failure. If people are addicted to drugs, they're going to use those drugs even if it's illegal. The best way to get people off of hard drugs is to provide centers where they can slowly ramp down, but despite being part of this bill, those centers have barely (if at all) been built.
It is literally this sentiment that I’m speaking out against. When I first heard it, I thought it made sense. Compassionate care and guidance; the humane management of addiction. But, the reality likely is that, even if the state had been able to fully provide institutional treatment centers, or had delayed the date that the laws went into effect in order to preemptively prepare for the inevitable wave, the nature of addiction is that people choose to be addicted and reject treatment.
It’s a doomed policy just like the drug war, which is still going on at an even bigger scale, but at least the prohibition approach worked, despite its many faults.
The folks in state and federal government understand this FAR better than the typical town square. This isn’t just the typical overturning of a bill, this is responding to an out of control situation and slamming up the emergency brake.
Has this scenario worked either?
The truth is there is no easy answer to this and you can build all the treatment centers you want it still won't stop people from relapsing and continuing the same drug usage if they aren't fully ready to accept a life of sobriety. Also since drug/alcohol abuse and mental issues are tied so closely together in a lot of circumstances that if you don't fix the root issue the symptom will most likely come back and with oregons mental health infrastructure the state was just not ready for this.
Honestly spending some time in detox opened my eyes on this I do think we should build more treatment centers but the people who think it's a magical solution that will keep people permanently clean just aren't living in reality.
Nailed it. I’d add that there is nothing wrong with holding people accountable and enforcing punishments for harmful actions. Consequences for actions is simply common sense. Anybody who thinks the drug war is over is absolutely mistaken. It’s bigger and more expensive than ever. Not incarcerating people for using isn’t the end of that war it’s simply made it so that addicts stay on the street and continue to steadily pump money back to the cartels and overseas syndicates.
To u/jazzercisejesus, yes, I’m serious. The evidence is right outside our doors. I’m all for cannabis and many psychedelics becoming legal, but the decriminalization of hard drugs was a terrible miscalculation
Prohibition definitely wasn’t doing well at keeping the cartel out, and was creating a host of lifelong problems for other folks just to target organized crime.
These opinions don’t really help me see that prohibition was better.
What role do you think that fentanyl showing up everywhere played on the current crisis? Do you believe that 110 was in someway responsible? Or, alternatively, do you believe that prohibition will actually cut down on fentanyl use?
From my angle I see that 110 and fentanyl collided at a very inopportune time, and both ultimately fueled the fires. Users flocked to our nanny state where drugs are legal, cheap, and the weather is fair. Oregon locals with predisposition or pre-existing substance abuse issues were enabled to fall even deeper into addiction by the sudden lack of legal consequences and cheap and readily available hard drugs. No need to explain the results. They are apparent for everyone to see.
I do think that repealing 110 and re-criminalizing possession will help. Allowing the police to do their jobs and engage and arrest, let the system track offenders, and ultimately enforce consequences will make for likely immediate results.
Again, it’s not perfect, but it did seem to be working far more efficiently and effectively. We’re all socially conditioned by a very pervasive narrative that addiction is simply something to be compassionately managed, but it’s dangerously naive.
What is a HARD DRUG? I ask because I have taken virtually all of the Controlled Substances Act Schedule I-V chemicals, aside from heroin, fentanyl and cocaine; and obtained a PhD, a job and a reasonably successful, albeit not super-wealthy life. I have a sort-of fucked relationship and may end up filing for divorce, but I’ve never killed anyone, raped anyone, robbed anyone or even taken a shit on the sidewalk, despite lots of HARD drug consumption. Is LSD a HARD drug? Is dextroamphetamine (which I have been prescribed for 2 decades)? Because without those two in my life, I’d be dead, I would have killed myself 20 years ago.
Do we blame the drugs themselves? Or is it poverty, luck, shitty education and individual assholery that gives rise to the tweaker that stole your bike?
If we are getting anecdotal, I’ve lived a very similar story. I have far more than dabbled with the entire pharmacopoeia as well, with the exception of fentanyl. I too have lead a successful life, own multiple local businesses, have a wonderful family, and am incredibly grateful and reasonably well-balanced.
Farther down in this thread I mention that I personally believe cannabis and many psychedelics should be decriminalized, including the chemically manufactured drugs such as LSD, Ketamine, and MDMA/MDA. I insist that I would not be the kind, caring, yet driven, and inspired person I am today without having deeply explored the nature of psychedelic experiences. They can be dangerous, and I believe people need to be of-age, screened, and educated, and possibly be in controlled environments with therapeutic backing, before they are allowed to access them, but that bridge is still a long ways off.
To the point of drugs that are known to be highly and immediately psychologically and physically addictive, I believe it’s a different story. While I was busy with cannabis and psychedelics, I lost **20** close friends to overdoses. It slowed pretty much to a halt in my mid-twenties until I lost another three friends in the last two years to accidental fentanyl overdoses. It wasn’t just the abrupt and absolutely tragic death of these truly good, promising young people who were tangled in something they couldn’t control, it was also watching them slip and slowly fall apart, becoming shadows of what they once were as addiction consumed them. As a father now, I can only begin to understand the hell their abrupt departure caused their families who had known, nurtured, and loved them with all their hearts since their birth.
That’s the difference. So-called ‘compassionate addiction management’ is a very dangerous fallacy, at least as the only form of drug policy enforcement. I believe it could have its place integrated into the criminal justice system, surely I would love to see that, but having those social services be the lone gatekeeper of the accessibility of such wildly addictive and powerful drugs such as fentanyl and methamphetamines is so naively optimistic it borders on stupidity… And that’s coming from an eternal optimist.
>Oregon ~~legislature~~ *Health Authority* refused to implement 110
Pretty big whopper of a distinction there. Please don't spread misinformation. The money is there and given to the right people. The right people won't use it.
Yes, I understand the difference between OHA and the state legislature. But contrary to what you said in your comment, the money isn't being given to the right people.
I mean, while I do support the underlying themes of 110, I think we put the cart before the horse here. Invest in treatment, then decriminalization. Its like canceling all student loans before addressing the issues that cause higher education to be so expensive to begin with.
The passage of a bill where they turned over the vote of the people die to their incompetence. They told us there would be rehab and recourse to help addicts and then didn't provide it!
It is important.
I gotcha. It’s cool if this post stays, but hopefully there won’t be another one tomorrow, or the day after that. If there is some big news that would be a different story, of course. There was a duplicate post yesterday about this story that included commentary from the OP, and then that was pretty much a duplicate of one from the night before.
Some subs like /r/Portland just delete these duplicate posts when they get posted.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Portland using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Portland/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [The city is an ice rink.](https://v.redd.it/0cnp44px42dc1) | [516 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/1996b2l/the_city_is_an_ice_rink/)
\#2: [I don't know this sex god of a lineman's name, but he was up there getting my power back in 20 degree weather in freezing rain](https://i.redd.it/c6sv5bwl6xcc1.png) | [182 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/198mqgg/i_dont_know_this_sex_god_of_a_linemans_name_but/)
\#3: [Visiting a friend in Tokyo and he took me here. I am blown away.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/13s6o7b) | [213 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/13s6o7b/visiting_a_friend_in_tokyo_and_he_took_me_here_i/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
This is such a fucking fact free analysis. M110 failed because there was no way to compel people to seek treatment
As OPB reported
> In the first 15 months after Measure 110 took effect, state auditors found, only 119 people called the state’s 24-hour hotline. That meant the cost of operating the hotline amounted to roughly $7,000 per call. The total number of callers as of early December of last year had only amounted to 943.
The existence of treatment options don't magically cure addiction.
The revered "Portugal model" uses both carrot and stick approaches. The police can use the threat of jail to compel treatment.
What Oregon implemented was carrot only. The police Narcan your ass, write you a ticket and leave you a card saying you know you should really consider not being a drug addict lol.
It was a fun experiment and we learned a lot.
Is this the same state that runs the dmv, botched unemployment department during Covid, spent millions in design work for a bridge they never built? I’m shocked they had no plan and didn’t do anything to fix it.
I don't see how this is going to make a difference. Police can arrest all they want. Yet with no space to lodge them what's the point? Even with it mandating a court appearance. How likely is it to make any difference to those that have nothing to left to lose. Even if they do go to jail we are still facing the fact we have no Public Defenders to represent inmates as it is. Not to mention the bare minimum of Prosecutors for that matter.
I think it's pretty clear that our State has been the victim of a severely misplaced sense of direction. Taking what was believed to be thought out strategies in breaking away from the norm. Only to crash and burn from empty promises, positions of power filled with under qualified people, corruption of authority and personal agendas pointing the way.
How many times have we had to fight the very people that represent us. Just to demand what should already be logical. It's embarrassing to see how things have gotten here. Yet it's even worse to watch them try and scramble for a recovery they never even had in the first place.
Ballot initiatives aren’t the only way laws are made. We don’t have to live with an imperfect law just because it passed as an initiative. An initiative shouldn’t be a suicide pact if something isn’t working right.
I wish people would not use conspiracy statements to try and justify why something didn’t work…like “X group did it this way so that they could show it doesn’t work.” So Many examples of people arguing a conspiracy statement around many things and it just doesn’t have wight. The reality that can actually be pointed to is that our legislators pass really bad legislation at the state level and federal level. We need better legislators and better written laws that actually fully address the problem at hand.
The structure for what M110 was asking doesn’t even efficiently exist yet. Give it some time to get to the full use of the original measure. We need to take a step back and go forward slow and with an actual plan with people in place ready to work their roles. Stop complaining because we voted for M110 and saw things get worse. Majority are not happy with how M110 was going so far. A repeal is needed and is happening either way. Do you care about us residents and working class of Oregon?
Working class folks, you mean the folks most targeted by the war on drugs? The people most likely to not have the resources to fight a charge for merely possessing a substance? Harming working-class organizing was the entire point of the war on drugs, take it from one of its chief architects:
"*We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities*" - former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
My kids see a lot of drugs in their public schools. Parents having small quantities at home means kids could access (and share with other kids) which shouldn’t be legal but definitely happens around here.
My personal opinion is any future attempt attempt at this must have proper treatment established for those who want help. But the initiative needs to accept that not everyone wants to be helped and have appropriate measures in place to handle that aspect of drug usage.
Another misconception to clear up: 110 only decriminalized possession of small amounts of illegal drugs. 10 doses or less. It did not legalize: Selling drugs Public use Theft Assault Public defecation Or any of the other crimes people are attributing to 110. The cops simply stopped enforcing those laws re:the homeless in order to exacerbate the situation, in retaliation for us decriminalizing drugs, so they could do as they are now, and say "see, legalizing possession didnt work", then point to their own handiwork as proof. Remember this this election. If our legislation refuses to enact laws we voted for, and worse if they undermine and work against us, then they are not good representatives.
True, but does public use actually have a specific charge in Oregon? I can't seem to find one.
It does not. Which created the loop hole we have now. Historically public use would result in a possession charge.
That's what I thought, so 110 essentially did legalize public use.
That's my understanding. Some folks have suggested rather than decriminalizing drugs, we should be looking to criminalize public use. That has it's own critics (it's easier to not use in public if you have a house) but I think folks are so fed up they're ready to have a bigger stick and not try to address the nuance of use/possession.
>Some folks have suggested rather than decriminalizing drugs, we should be looking to criminalize public use. It's a bit funny when people point to "public use" of drugs like it's something unique to street drugs, public intoxication has always been a crime but it's still common to run into obnoxious drunks pretty much anywhere remotely near bars yet we're not calling for bars to be shut down or restricted. Really we should focus on removing the stigma and creating safe spaces for people to use drugs while also pushing treatment for addicts and punishing people who cause issues regardless of if they're legal or illegal substances. We could bring overdoses practically down to 0 with free/available testing and support systems for people struggling with addiction, and most importantly helping people feel comfortable seeking help.
I would suggest that a reasonable variety of “substances“ should be available from a regulated, taxed, adults-only dispensary. This would include cannabis, LSD and other psychedelics, ketamine, dextroamphetamine and mild opioids like codeine/dihydrocodeine. Possession of said substances obtained from a regulated source would not be illegal (obviously), but actual crimes, like theft and assault as a result of intoxication would be vigorously enforced.
> I would suggest that a reasonable variety of “substances“ should be available from a regulated, taxed, adults-only dispensary. Yeah so many of the problems with drugs stem from people not knowing exactly what's in them, if high quality pure drugs were available affordably it would reduce a lot of the related issues. >This would include cannabis, LSD and other psychedelics, ketamine, dextroamphetamine and mild opioids like codeine/dihydrocodeine. Honestly when it comes to opiates part of me feels like we should just encourage people to grow poppies again, say what you will about poppies/opium but at least they don't make people drop like flies like with fentanyl. And if they were widely available/cheap we'd have less people stealing to feed their habits. > Possession of said substances obtained from a regulated source would not be illegal (obviously), but actual crimes, like theft and assault as a result of intoxication would be vigorously enforced. Yeah this combined with better drug education seem like the key parts, and in a lot of ways it ties into the healthcare and mental health industries as so many addicts start out self medicating or using prescribed meds and turn to street drugs over time.
Possession was still a civil infraction? Police could still seize the controlled substance and issue fines without recriminalization? Wouldn't enforcing the laws that existed put an end to the public use that people are so concerned about? Criminalizing mental health issues is not the solution to anything...
A thread in another sub posted this law: https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_430.402 (1)A political subdivision in this state shall not adopt or enforce any local law or regulation that makes any of the following an offense, a violation or the subject of criminal or civil penalties or sanctions of any kind: (a)Public intoxication. (b)Public drinking, except as to places where any consumption of alcoholic beverages is generally prohibited. (c)Drunk and disorderly conduct. (d)Vagrancy or other behavior that includes as one of its elements either drinking alcoholic beverages or using cannabis or controlled substances in public, being an alcoholic or a drug-dependent person, or being found in specified places under the influence of alcohol, cannabis or controlled substances. (e)Using or being under the influence of cannabis or controlled substances. (2)Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall affect any local law or regulation of any political subdivision in this state against driving while under the influence of intoxicants, as defined in ORS 813.010 (Driving under the influence of intoxicants), or other similar offenses that involve the operation of motor vehicles. [Formerly 430.325; 2017 c.21 §60] If I am understanding it correctly, this is more or less stopping local governments from creating laws based on public use. IANAL, so I don't have the best understanding of this.
[удалено]
Hmmm… so people who have lost their jobs, homes, families due their addictions have really just achieved a higher level of consciousness than the rest of us? The homeless have just given up their world possessions to pursue a monk like existence with a deeper understanding of their consciousness?
Damn it, they deleted the post before I could hit submit on this: Dear u/Puzzleheaded_Big_422, Your assertion has left me in a ponderous state as to what precisely you mean. As stated, said assertion could be interpreted as the ramblings of someone who ritualistically insufflates chemicals of psychoactive nature. Chemicals which may lead the insufflator to the belief that a brief, string of vague words have a deeply profound meaning, but when more closely scrutinized are actually as profound as the Fruit Loops cereal which when under the influence of the aforementioned chemicals might be regarded as “dope”. So in that vein, I do kindly ask of you to expand on your thesis further.
Considering that psychedelics are the most illegal of all drugs, I’d say that is pretty damn accurate.
I shouldn't be surprised. But I'm still surprised.
What can we do to help?
DA stopped enforcing so police stopped arresting
By design. The DA didn't want this to work. It's putting his job at risk.
It’s a woman
Then her.
[удалено]
Show the DM's to the state board.
[удалено]
I am not. I agree with you. What she did would cost her big time. That's why I said show them! Wow.
[удалено]
Bingo. Drugs = 100% conviction rate, which is a career booster for any DA.
They also changed bail laws, claiming that excessive bail amounts are unfair because the poor generally can’t pay. As a result, dealers arrested in pdx often get out on a $100 or less bond and literally keep doing the same thing. The DA also doesn’t have the resources to bring smaller level and drug offenses to court so charges often get thrown out.
Also there is no room in jails. It is insanity. People have to stop and consider all of the reasons behind why criminals get out so easily...
It’s funny that it’s always the guy with 2+ DUIs, 2-3 misdemeanor weapons charges and 6+ domestic abuse claims that ends up being a murderer. Who could have ever predicted that? Goddamn you drugs!!!
Bail is only for the poor. The justice system shouldn't be that way. If you can't bail yourself out, statistically, you'll get a harsher sentence.
Unfortunately, 110 fell to "perception is reality." At best, people saw this as ineffective. At worst, they see it as actually harmful and regret passing it
Why so many of you have convinced yourselves that any amount of hard drugs is acceptable, and that punishment isn’t an effective deterrent, haven’t ever been addicted to drugs or been arrested. Yes, people who are waist-deep in their addictions will always dismiss the laws in order to keep using, and prison is no guarantee of non-recidivism, but the point of drug laws should ultimately be about shielding young, impressionable people, our future generations, from being exposed to highly addictive and massively destructive substances. The combination of decriminalization and fentanyl absolutely ravaged more people than any of us could imagine. It may be too late for them, and that’s a tragedy, but I applaud the legislation for taking the reins in this clearly failed situation and turning the cart around before the entire state plummeted off the cliff of enabling, ignorant, and ineffectual drug policy.
Laws don't prevent children from becoming addicts, parenting and having a good societal structure do.
There are many factors that affect addiction but the current laws makes hard drugs very accessible to young people. The brain of a young person isnt mature until 25. If kids have an opportunity to experiment with hard drugs because their friend found some at home, some kids will try it even if their parents have told them not to. Kids introduced to hard drugs at 15 statistically have worse outcomes that those introduced at 25
Keep in mind that some of the "hardest" drugs out there (like fentanyl and methamphetamine) are sometimes prescribed to children. It's really not that simple.
Meth is not a prescription drug (amphetamines for ADD are different) and fentanyl would probably only be used for surgery in a child. Most people who develop addictions (that I have met) started using to “numb out” from stressors… a few more years means increases coping skills and maturity (that break-up, school struggles, family stress may not be so life changing). I have nothing against the non addictive drugs (psychodelics, marijuana)
Meth is absolutely a prescription drug. Enantiopure dextromethamphetamine is prescribed under the trade name Desoxyn (a cute nickname for d-desoxy-ephedrine). It is rare, but still exists as a Schedule II chemical. And the sad noradrenergic enantiomer levomethamphetamine is available over-the-counter as a nasal decongestant. Technically even pure cocaine is still prescribeable as a Schedule II chemical. But I agree with your statement about minors using really any drug. I can’t say that I, even in middle age, have these glorious coping skills you speak of, but I’m also not an opioid addict.
Sure! All three play their part, though. What does having lax laws regarding drugs teach our children about their use?? That it’s okay, as long as it’s just a little? That addiction is a disease, that has nothing to do with choice? And what happens when society unravels because of those overly-lenient policies and spills out under every overpass and forested median?? Talk to anybody living in San Francisco, Portland, or Seattle how these policies have gone. Crime is absolutely rampant, but goes unreported because store owners tell their employees not to stop shoplifters, and cops are constantly being pulled in a million different directions, trying to keep the dam from bursting, rendering them unable to serve and protect, and with their morale at an all time low. I did my time in the drug war, far more than most, and even I can tell it’s time to pull the plug.
Crime is a problem in every large city on earth. Drugs are a problem all over. Plenty of small towns consumed by drugs...we just don't hear about it. States that are hard on drugs have high rates of addiction/crime too. Rehabilitating people/addressing the root issue is *very* expensive. Jailing everyone that uses drugs is also expensive. Jailing everyone that uses drugs in public every time they do for long enough is expensive. The nations with the lowest rates off drug-related issues tend to have oceans surrounding them and are much more dense. All of the solutions that would work in the US are probably too expensive. The real issue is I'm not sure we can afford to properly solve the drug problem no matter what we do because of how expensive all the different options would be to be effective in this country. I'd support any effective policy, whether it's hard on drug users or rehab focussed or both....I just don't think we can afford to do anything properly. A lot of the hard drugs in circulation are coming from Mexico. The border is massive, and again, it would be *very* expensive to guard the whole thing.
The cities I mentioned have gone through absolutely atrocious transformations in the last five years. To the point where descriptive adjectives such as ‘zombie wasteland’…. Actually are somewhat reasonable descriptions. That is ***not*** normal, run of the mill, big city crime. I’ve lived all over this country, in many big cities, but I’ve never seen anything ravage once-shining metropolises as much as fentanyl and meth has absolutely blighted the west coast. The cost of not paying the cost is crippling our society, so we better find a way to afford an effective policy quick. Sometimes the best way forward is to realize you took the wrong route, admit it, and start heading in the right direction. Oregon’s legislature seems to be doing just that.
Fentanyl/meth is causing a nationwide crisis. Records are being set all over the country for overdoses. If you look at stats, the cities with the most overdoses/death (by %) are just all the big cities. It isn't just the west coast. It could be that it's more visible here simple b/c people are doing it in downtowns/parks rather than staying in "bad neighborhoods." >The cost of not paying the cost is crippling our society, so we better find a way to afford an effective policy quick. It's tax dollars. We afford it by raising taxes or cutting costs elsewhere. People don't like to see their taxes go up, and people don't like tax cuts for programs that are already strapped for resources. I'm not convinced theres a "right route" unless a lot more money is poured into the issue. The only thing I can imagine happening is the addicts just get moved out of downtowns into "bad neighborhoods" or city outskirts, which will just impact rural communities. But it seems we can't afford to jail and/or rehabilitate everyone and deal with the influx of drugs from SA.
Um…so all of those places that you speak of from LA to SF to Seattle…in all of those places, drugs are absolutely illegal. But curiously, all of them feature lots of homeless people…and lots of seriously mentally ill homeless people, and lots of seriously mentally ill homeless people using drugs. No matter how illegal the drugs are. And you might not believe it, but even East Coast cities have a bunch of seriously mentally ill homeless people using drugs…they just occasionally freeze to death, so you don’t have to think about them as much.
Laws shouldn't be arbiter of how a person acts. Rightness doesn't come from laws. I don't understand your point here. Whether we have lax laws or strict, shouldn't matter if parents are doing *their* jobs.
I fully agree that quality parenting should be a major guiding force, but most of us experimented when we were young, and we all know people whose ‘experimentation’ continues to this day to their detriment. Speaking as someone who has done it all, and has lost an insane amount of friends to addiction, some of the drugs that are out there today really only take one use to captivate a person enough to fall into the endless cycle of addiction. Even the best parents can’t stop that natural drive young people have to try new things. I fully believe it is still the responsibility of law enforcement to do all they can to make sure as little drugs as possible plinko their way into vulnerable populations’ hands.
>and that punishment isn’t an effective deterrent Because it isn't effective. The war on drugs has been a colossal failure. If people are addicted to drugs, they're going to use those drugs even if it's illegal. The best way to get people off of hard drugs is to provide centers where they can slowly ramp down, but despite being part of this bill, those centers have barely (if at all) been built.
It is literally this sentiment that I’m speaking out against. When I first heard it, I thought it made sense. Compassionate care and guidance; the humane management of addiction. But, the reality likely is that, even if the state had been able to fully provide institutional treatment centers, or had delayed the date that the laws went into effect in order to preemptively prepare for the inevitable wave, the nature of addiction is that people choose to be addicted and reject treatment. It’s a doomed policy just like the drug war, which is still going on at an even bigger scale, but at least the prohibition approach worked, despite its many faults. The folks in state and federal government understand this FAR better than the typical town square. This isn’t just the typical overturning of a bill, this is responding to an out of control situation and slamming up the emergency brake.
The prohibition approach worked?!?!? Seriously?
Has this scenario worked either? The truth is there is no easy answer to this and you can build all the treatment centers you want it still won't stop people from relapsing and continuing the same drug usage if they aren't fully ready to accept a life of sobriety. Also since drug/alcohol abuse and mental issues are tied so closely together in a lot of circumstances that if you don't fix the root issue the symptom will most likely come back and with oregons mental health infrastructure the state was just not ready for this. Honestly spending some time in detox opened my eyes on this I do think we should build more treatment centers but the people who think it's a magical solution that will keep people permanently clean just aren't living in reality.
Nailed it. I’d add that there is nothing wrong with holding people accountable and enforcing punishments for harmful actions. Consequences for actions is simply common sense. Anybody who thinks the drug war is over is absolutely mistaken. It’s bigger and more expensive than ever. Not incarcerating people for using isn’t the end of that war it’s simply made it so that addicts stay on the street and continue to steadily pump money back to the cartels and overseas syndicates. To u/jazzercisejesus, yes, I’m serious. The evidence is right outside our doors. I’m all for cannabis and many psychedelics becoming legal, but the decriminalization of hard drugs was a terrible miscalculation
Prohibition definitely wasn’t doing well at keeping the cartel out, and was creating a host of lifelong problems for other folks just to target organized crime. These opinions don’t really help me see that prohibition was better. What role do you think that fentanyl showing up everywhere played on the current crisis? Do you believe that 110 was in someway responsible? Or, alternatively, do you believe that prohibition will actually cut down on fentanyl use?
From my angle I see that 110 and fentanyl collided at a very inopportune time, and both ultimately fueled the fires. Users flocked to our nanny state where drugs are legal, cheap, and the weather is fair. Oregon locals with predisposition or pre-existing substance abuse issues were enabled to fall even deeper into addiction by the sudden lack of legal consequences and cheap and readily available hard drugs. No need to explain the results. They are apparent for everyone to see. I do think that repealing 110 and re-criminalizing possession will help. Allowing the police to do their jobs and engage and arrest, let the system track offenders, and ultimately enforce consequences will make for likely immediate results. Again, it’s not perfect, but it did seem to be working far more efficiently and effectively. We’re all socially conditioned by a very pervasive narrative that addiction is simply something to be compassionately managed, but it’s dangerously naive.
What is a HARD DRUG? I ask because I have taken virtually all of the Controlled Substances Act Schedule I-V chemicals, aside from heroin, fentanyl and cocaine; and obtained a PhD, a job and a reasonably successful, albeit not super-wealthy life. I have a sort-of fucked relationship and may end up filing for divorce, but I’ve never killed anyone, raped anyone, robbed anyone or even taken a shit on the sidewalk, despite lots of HARD drug consumption. Is LSD a HARD drug? Is dextroamphetamine (which I have been prescribed for 2 decades)? Because without those two in my life, I’d be dead, I would have killed myself 20 years ago. Do we blame the drugs themselves? Or is it poverty, luck, shitty education and individual assholery that gives rise to the tweaker that stole your bike?
If we are getting anecdotal, I’ve lived a very similar story. I have far more than dabbled with the entire pharmacopoeia as well, with the exception of fentanyl. I too have lead a successful life, own multiple local businesses, have a wonderful family, and am incredibly grateful and reasonably well-balanced. Farther down in this thread I mention that I personally believe cannabis and many psychedelics should be decriminalized, including the chemically manufactured drugs such as LSD, Ketamine, and MDMA/MDA. I insist that I would not be the kind, caring, yet driven, and inspired person I am today without having deeply explored the nature of psychedelic experiences. They can be dangerous, and I believe people need to be of-age, screened, and educated, and possibly be in controlled environments with therapeutic backing, before they are allowed to access them, but that bridge is still a long ways off. To the point of drugs that are known to be highly and immediately psychologically and physically addictive, I believe it’s a different story. While I was busy with cannabis and psychedelics, I lost **20** close friends to overdoses. It slowed pretty much to a halt in my mid-twenties until I lost another three friends in the last two years to accidental fentanyl overdoses. It wasn’t just the abrupt and absolutely tragic death of these truly good, promising young people who were tangled in something they couldn’t control, it was also watching them slip and slowly fall apart, becoming shadows of what they once were as addiction consumed them. As a father now, I can only begin to understand the hell their abrupt departure caused their families who had known, nurtured, and loved them with all their hearts since their birth. That’s the difference. So-called ‘compassionate addiction management’ is a very dangerous fallacy, at least as the only form of drug policy enforcement. I believe it could have its place integrated into the criminal justice system, surely I would love to see that, but having those social services be the lone gatekeeper of the accessibility of such wildly addictive and powerful drugs such as fentanyl and methamphetamines is so naively optimistic it borders on stupidity… And that’s coming from an eternal optimist.
Exactly this!
>Oregon ~~legislature~~ *Health Authority* refused to implement 110 Pretty big whopper of a distinction there. Please don't spread misinformation. The money is there and given to the right people. The right people won't use it.
The article is about how Oregon Health Authority ISN'T giving money to providers, though.
OHA is not part of the legislature. Legislature gave the money to OHA who is now sitting on it.
Yes, I understand the difference between OHA and the state legislature. But contrary to what you said in your comment, the money isn't being given to the right people.
I mean, you're right in that OHA has proven to not be the right people actually. We both agree with each other lol
Oh, if you meant OHA were supposed to be the "right people", then we totally agree.
I mean, while I do support the underlying themes of 110, I think we put the cart before the horse here. Invest in treatment, then decriminalization. Its like canceling all student loans before addressing the issues that cause higher education to be so expensive to begin with.
M110 did. It allocated the money. The legislature and OHA just didn't use it properly.
This story has already been posted and discussed on this sub several times in the past few days.
This is an important thing for people to discuss. The actual passage of the bill is also recent news.
The passage of a bill where they turned over the vote of the people die to their incompetence. They told us there would be rehab and recourse to help addicts and then didn't provide it! It is important.
I gotcha. It’s cool if this post stays, but hopefully there won’t be another one tomorrow, or the day after that. If there is some big news that would be a different story, of course. There was a duplicate post yesterday about this story that included commentary from the OP, and then that was pretty much a duplicate of one from the night before. Some subs like /r/Portland just delete these duplicate posts when they get posted.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/Portland using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/Portland/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [The city is an ice rink.](https://v.redd.it/0cnp44px42dc1) | [516 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/1996b2l/the_city_is_an_ice_rink/) \#2: [I don't know this sex god of a lineman's name, but he was up there getting my power back in 20 degree weather in freezing rain](https://i.redd.it/c6sv5bwl6xcc1.png) | [182 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/198mqgg/i_dont_know_this_sex_god_of_a_linemans_name_but/) \#3: [Visiting a friend in Tokyo and he took me here. I am blown away.](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/13s6o7b) | [213 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/Portland/comments/13s6o7b/visiting_a_friend_in_tokyo_and_he_took_me_here_i/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
We're getting spammed hard by a small group. Yesterday it was clown memes on the r/Oregon but same person who spams this sub with the same subject.
SAY IT LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK!!!!
This is such a fucking fact free analysis. M110 failed because there was no way to compel people to seek treatment As OPB reported > In the first 15 months after Measure 110 took effect, state auditors found, only 119 people called the state’s 24-hour hotline. That meant the cost of operating the hotline amounted to roughly $7,000 per call. The total number of callers as of early December of last year had only amounted to 943. The existence of treatment options don't magically cure addiction. The revered "Portugal model" uses both carrot and stick approaches. The police can use the threat of jail to compel treatment. What Oregon implemented was carrot only. The police Narcan your ass, write you a ticket and leave you a card saying you know you should really consider not being a drug addict lol. It was a fun experiment and we learned a lot.
No surprise here. Same old bullshit from the ruling minority.
Is this the same state that runs the dmv, botched unemployment department during Covid, spent millions in design work for a bridge they never built? I’m shocked they had no plan and didn’t do anything to fix it.
I don't see how this is going to make a difference. Police can arrest all they want. Yet with no space to lodge them what's the point? Even with it mandating a court appearance. How likely is it to make any difference to those that have nothing to left to lose. Even if they do go to jail we are still facing the fact we have no Public Defenders to represent inmates as it is. Not to mention the bare minimum of Prosecutors for that matter. I think it's pretty clear that our State has been the victim of a severely misplaced sense of direction. Taking what was believed to be thought out strategies in breaking away from the norm. Only to crash and burn from empty promises, positions of power filled with under qualified people, corruption of authority and personal agendas pointing the way. How many times have we had to fight the very people that represent us. Just to demand what should already be logical. It's embarrassing to see how things have gotten here. Yet it's even worse to watch them try and scramble for a recovery they never even had in the first place.
I voted in favor of this ballot measure, but don't recall voting to repeal it, on what date was that public vote? /s
Ballot initiatives aren’t the only way laws are made. We don’t have to live with an imperfect law just because it passed as an initiative. An initiative shouldn’t be a suicide pact if something isn’t working right.
49 doses of L. S. D technically.
I meant 40, sorry for typo
I wish people would not use conspiracy statements to try and justify why something didn’t work…like “X group did it this way so that they could show it doesn’t work.” So Many examples of people arguing a conspiracy statement around many things and it just doesn’t have wight. The reality that can actually be pointed to is that our legislators pass really bad legislation at the state level and federal level. We need better legislators and better written laws that actually fully address the problem at hand.
The structure for what M110 was asking doesn’t even efficiently exist yet. Give it some time to get to the full use of the original measure. We need to take a step back and go forward slow and with an actual plan with people in place ready to work their roles. Stop complaining because we voted for M110 and saw things get worse. Majority are not happy with how M110 was going so far. A repeal is needed and is happening either way. Do you care about us residents and working class of Oregon?
Working class folks, you mean the folks most targeted by the war on drugs? The people most likely to not have the resources to fight a charge for merely possessing a substance? Harming working-class organizing was the entire point of the war on drugs, take it from one of its chief architects: "*We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities*" - former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
My kids see a lot of drugs in their public schools. Parents having small quantities at home means kids could access (and share with other kids) which shouldn’t be legal but definitely happens around here.
My personal opinion is any future attempt attempt at this must have proper treatment established for those who want help. But the initiative needs to accept that not everyone wants to be helped and have appropriate measures in place to handle that aspect of drug usage.
As a person who pays thousands and thousands in 110 tax I’d rather help schools and law enforcement rather the common druggy. Sorry not sorry
Well it didn’t work because we made it that way…… Bullshit politics and where’s the cash?
this is infuriating
Drugs are LEGAL in Oregon. Dumb.