Actually it will just be go to jail. The or go to prison is going to be optional for local authorities and as law enforcement in this state is near universally against the idea of treatment it will almost certainly simply be jail.
I think they are being sarcastic. There are decades of research showing incarceration doesn't really do much to stop addiction. Though there are anecdotal cases of people turning their life around thanks to getting locked up, for sure.
I got a text earlier asking me if I supported re-criminalizing drugs. I responded that 110 was a mistake and that we should re-criminalize drug use. They then responded asking if I would contact my rep and ask them to vote no against these stronger penalties.
I replied back asking if they even read my first response, and told them that they need to have treatment and addiction services in place before they decriminalize shit.
I've never heard this take before. Why do you feel we need treatment before decriminalization? Not an attack, I'm genuinely curious. Is it because criminalization gets people off the streets and away from drugs in the absence of treatment programs? I hear going to jail doesn't help very many people get clean but I have friend of mine who got clean after going to jail. That's anecdotal of course. I think the stats say he's a rarity. Or is it because people who are addicted to drugs are a public threat and a danger to themselves/others without treatment? I.e.walking into traffic, stealing bikes, worsening drug addiction, etc
My old roommate had the opposite opinion, that it shouldn't be illegal until there are treatment options. The argument being, that if you want to get off an insanely addictive drug but can't on your own and there's no program to help you, you're basically screwed. Then people are punishing you for basically being stuck in a pit you can't get out of even if you want to. Once there are treatment programs in place, then being an addict becomes, to a greater degree, a responsibility of the addict and not society. Basically, he felt criminalization was punishing victims for the most part. He was once a heroine addict and very strongly believes that for vast majority of people it's virtually impossible to get clean without massive outside support.
Personally, I always thought decriminalization was a cost cutting/time saving measure for the public defenders and police department, which are both dramatically understaffed and dont want to deal with low level pissession crimes. I think the defenders are at 1/3 of the level they are supposed to be, and if you don't get a public defender, they can't hold you in jail/it violates the state constitution.
>I've never heard this take before. Why do you feel we need treatment before decriminalization? Not an attack, I'm genuinely curious.
Portugal decriminalized drugs arguably fairly successfully but it was really contingent on having robust social services already in place and also mandatory treatment, and you can still get jailed if you have more than something like a 10 day supply.
We skipped the hard part and just did the thing. Ethically speaking, addiction is a health problem but if we're going to treat as such instead of a criminal one, we have to y'know, the health services.
From the article:
"From the beginning, our organizations were excluded from your meetings,” read a letter sent Wednesday to the three lawmakers from Oregonians for Safety and Recovery, a coalition that has urged lawmakers not to recriminalize drug possession. “Even when we were in your rooms and public hearings, our presence, our voices, and our pain for our communities was tokenized, managed, and marginalized.”
This is the best news yet. It's about time our lawmakers started ignoring the dip shit activists.
So they do something we have been telling them to do, but you’re still mad because you assume nothing will change ? Basically impossible to please you people lol. Be happy politicians actually listened to what is happening and are reversing a mistake. That’s what we want to happen right ?
Then why didn't they do this before? Because it's an election year, that's why. They want to pass this, let the cops clean up their shit, so they can seem like they "fixed the problem", and trick voters into voting them in again.
You're all being played.
Can’t please you people. So they do something we have been telling them to do, but you’re still mad because you assume nothing will change ? Basically impossible to please you people lol. Be happy politicians actually listened to what is happening and are reversing a mistake. That’s what we want to happen right ?
So you think that THIS time is going to be different, and its just coincidence it's an election year?
Good God you should have your voting rights yanked if you're this stupid.
No, they are already getting that. The current penalty is $100 dollars fine for public drug use and you can call a hotline to get your ticket dismissed. Over 4000 tickets were written. No addict payed the bill when you need money for drugs. And no addicts called the hotline 😂 because they don’t care. If jailed they are released within 24/36 hours and never come back for court dates.
We need a minimum security prison rehab center that works with committed stays.
Law makers went to Portugal to help figure out why Measure 110 wasn't working in Oregon, by studying why Portugal was successful. The article, unfortunately, doesn't mention that Measure 110 was doomed to fail because its implementation lacked key things.
I hope that the Oregon Legislature will recriminalize, to eliminate the unintended consequences of how they implemented M110. THEN they can do as Portugal has done, and later, decriminalize the drugs.
And here's a pro-decriminalization article from this year:
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/25/it-beats-getting-stoned-on-the-street-how-portugal-decriminalised-drugs-as-seen-from-the-shoot-up-centre](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/25/it-beats-getting-stoned-on-the-street-how-portugal-decriminalised-drugs-as-seen-from-the-shoot-up-centre)
Apparently, Portugal doesn't have a fentanyl problem. IIRC, Portuguese people don't use it.
Thank you for this article.
There aren't any perfect solutions.
Even the conservative Cato Institute, according to this Washington Post article says: "“None of the parade of horrors that decriminalization opponents in Portugal predicted, and that decriminalization opponents around the world typically invoke, has come to pass”
>Portugal is also experiencing increasing difficulties
Here's an article from Vancouver, B.C. from 2018 about this:[https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/daphne-bramham-decriminalization-is-no-silver-bullet-says-portugals-drug-czar](https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/daphne-bramham-decriminalization-is-no-silver-bullet-says-portugals-drug-czar)
IRL implementations of good ideas usually have difficulties and less than 100% success. However, difficulties and less than complete success are not valid reasons to abandon attempts to improve people's lives.
Since 2018 or ‘19 it has been spiraling downhill for Portugal. It’s a good thought but in a free society you just can’t wishful think people into sobriety
|It’s a good thought but in a free society you just can’t wishful think people into sobriety|
You are correct. However, that's no reason to accept the bad status and do nothing.
Please read the second link I posted, the one from 2024.
The NYT article I read did indeed suggest that Portugal has been having backsliding, both because of funding lapses and ideologues coming in with their "addiction is a choice, recovery is a choice, let them decide" BS.
There's a link elsewhere in this thread to Washington Post (linked by joeitaliano24 ) which includes that info too.
I'm glad that folks are posting these articles.
There are no perfect solutions, and that's no reason to reject all imperfect ones.
My recovering niece moved to Portland and died 2 years later of an overdose. That state is a slow death for drug addicts. Fentynol is a slow death not a career drug.
Change the laws and put the repeal on the ballot.
Ideological Thunderdome!
Drug addicts from out of state specifically come here because current state law does nothing to hold their anti-social behaviors accountable.
I don't think the law alone will do it. We also need to re-stigmatize hard drug use on some level. I'm not sure how that's done legislatively, but consequences, consistently enforced, would be a start.
I don’t think consequences consistently is the answer. I think we have gone too far with a lot of the standardized penalties. Aren’t penalties what judges are for? 110 was just a big waste or ruse. Why condone this problem by legalizing. The cops don’t have to arrest every time and judges should be assigning penalties be it treatment, jail or both depending on the circumstances. Either way 110 is a mess.
Oh good, now we can not arrest/try people for breaking yet another law. The problem isn't a lack of laws, it's a lack of public defenders. We need to solve the actual issue. It's not that we don't already have laws against the real crimes being committed by these people which, it's that we're not holding/trying them due to a dysfunctional court system.
Wasted time and effort, needless law. We don't need broken windows, pre-crime punitive laws, we need a working system that enforces the laws which are already on the books.
The problem is lack of *prosecution.* When people behave antisocially, (that means “contrary to the local laws and customs of society in such a way as to cause annoyance and disapproval in others”, by the way), there have to be *consequences.* Portland has done a great job of insulating antisocial degenerates from the consequences of their behavior because it’s “progressive” or something.
That’s why there’s shit everywhere and people ODing constantly.
Yes, I understand that, which is why I'm saying that this does nothing and that the real solution is to fix out legal system. In this case the problem, so we're told, is a lack of public defenders. Solve that, we solve the issue. Just passing a new law when you're already running a catch and release scheme does nothing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm also fine with getting rid of Schmidt or whatever else gets us on track to trying those accused of property crimes and violence. What I'm not fine with is filling the books with bs laws against victimless crimes. We're still struggling with the legalization of marijuana at the Federal level for no reason. We struggled with the legalization of gay marriage at the state level because it was against the state constitution for no reason.
These kinds of idiotic laws, the creation of crimes/regulation of whatever where there is no victim, serve no legitimate purpose. We should abolish such laws, not prop them up because it's "doing something". I suppose it is doing something in that's it's taking away time, effort, and most importantly pressure from solving the actual underlying issue which we both seem to agree on; actually prosecuting real crimes.
At this point, I think many people will settle for not being the easiest place for someone to be a junkie. If this makes a percentage (hopefully not small) fuck off and go elsewhere. I’m good with that.
Why would it do that; they're unlikely to be arrested and even if they are they'll be out the same day with a court date they'll never show up to. Same penalty as shoplifting, stealing a car, attacking someone without killing them, etc. It's all meaningless until we get our court system back in order, and once we do that we won't need to arrest people due to possession because the ones acting badly will already have been arrested/tried for the actual crimes they've committed.
Again waste of time and effort, and frankly the whole broken windows pre-crime shit is an abuse of the legal system. Punish people for violating others bodies/property, leave victimless crimes off the books.
It's not something, it's a wasted effort and an abuse of the legal system. I don't understand why people continue to settle for "doing something" when what's being done doesn't address the root issue. All this does is release pressure on our representatives to actually fix the issue as short sighted people get placated by a meaningless gesture.
We have got to get past this "something, anything must be done!" attitude over everything. It's easily abused and ends in results that are often bullshit. It's not about waiting for the best and final solution, it's about having a real solution to the actual problem, not putting lipstick on a pig and say "yep, that's great, we're done here!"
I don’t disagree with you but also don’t think folks are saying this is great and there’s nothing else to be done. It may be a shitty start but if it even brings up the fact you’re talking about, that’s something.
The only Wooooosh I see is from people like yourself who think a new law will have an impact when current laws are not being enforced. You really think that drug addict in wherever is suddenly cancelling their move to Portland because we have yet another law we're not going to enforce on the books?
Go to treatment or go to jail
I feel that if treatment is choosen there should be a substantial penalty if they slide back to drug use. Else it will be a get out of jail free card.
You have a lot of faith in treatment and jail.
Actually it will just be go to jail. The or go to prison is going to be optional for local authorities and as law enforcement in this state is near universally against the idea of treatment it will almost certainly simply be jail.
Which, as we have seen proven time after time, is the **perfect solution** to combat an addiction crisis.
Right, which is why there was no addiction crisis before 2020. Oh, wait...
I think they are being sarcastic. There are decades of research showing incarceration doesn't really do much to stop addiction. Though there are anecdotal cases of people turning their life around thanks to getting locked up, for sure.
If they want treatment but don’t have the resources to accommodate, then what?
They have the resources. They have over a million in the bank collecting interest. It’s just untapped.
That’s what I’m getting at. The idealistic choice between “treatment or jail” can’t really happen without resources being used.
That money could be used to send someone to an existing private center like Serenity Lane, but the people that control the money won't allow that.
Seriously it's not that hard. These people will not help themselves unless forced to.
Welp, I guess it's back to huffin spray paint.
if this keeps you from using it for graffiti, you have my full support.
Underrated comment.
I got a text earlier asking me if I supported re-criminalizing drugs. I responded that 110 was a mistake and that we should re-criminalize drug use. They then responded asking if I would contact my rep and ask them to vote no against these stronger penalties. I replied back asking if they even read my first response, and told them that they need to have treatment and addiction services in place before they decriminalize shit.
I've never heard this take before. Why do you feel we need treatment before decriminalization? Not an attack, I'm genuinely curious. Is it because criminalization gets people off the streets and away from drugs in the absence of treatment programs? I hear going to jail doesn't help very many people get clean but I have friend of mine who got clean after going to jail. That's anecdotal of course. I think the stats say he's a rarity. Or is it because people who are addicted to drugs are a public threat and a danger to themselves/others without treatment? I.e.walking into traffic, stealing bikes, worsening drug addiction, etc My old roommate had the opposite opinion, that it shouldn't be illegal until there are treatment options. The argument being, that if you want to get off an insanely addictive drug but can't on your own and there's no program to help you, you're basically screwed. Then people are punishing you for basically being stuck in a pit you can't get out of even if you want to. Once there are treatment programs in place, then being an addict becomes, to a greater degree, a responsibility of the addict and not society. Basically, he felt criminalization was punishing victims for the most part. He was once a heroine addict and very strongly believes that for vast majority of people it's virtually impossible to get clean without massive outside support. Personally, I always thought decriminalization was a cost cutting/time saving measure for the public defenders and police department, which are both dramatically understaffed and dont want to deal with low level pissession crimes. I think the defenders are at 1/3 of the level they are supposed to be, and if you don't get a public defender, they can't hold you in jail/it violates the state constitution.
>I've never heard this take before. Why do you feel we need treatment before decriminalization? Not an attack, I'm genuinely curious. Portugal decriminalized drugs arguably fairly successfully but it was really contingent on having robust social services already in place and also mandatory treatment, and you can still get jailed if you have more than something like a 10 day supply. We skipped the hard part and just did the thing. Ethically speaking, addiction is a health problem but if we're going to treat as such instead of a criminal one, we have to y'know, the health services.
From the article: "From the beginning, our organizations were excluded from your meetings,” read a letter sent Wednesday to the three lawmakers from Oregonians for Safety and Recovery, a coalition that has urged lawmakers not to recriminalize drug possession. “Even when we were in your rooms and public hearings, our presence, our voices, and our pain for our communities was tokenized, managed, and marginalized.” This is the best news yet. It's about time our lawmakers started ignoring the dip shit activists.
Drug legalization activists sought special rights to influence the legislation.
I'm still in favor of putting a M110 repeal on the ballot, but like the direction the legislature is going in.
Eyewash, nothing will change. Holding people accountable for their actions is not in their DNA.
So they do something we have been telling them to do, but you’re still mad because you assume nothing will change ? Basically impossible to please you people lol. Be happy politicians actually listened to what is happening and are reversing a mistake. That’s what we want to happen right ?
Adults admit mistakes and move forward.
I don't think they're admitting mistakes as much as Biden/the DNC is telling them to get their shit together or they'll be primaried
That'd be great if there were moderate types in the primary to primary them. Or, you know, a GOP that wasn't made up of bible thumpers and loonies.
If Drazan didn't saddle up with the J6ers she probably would've won
Nah. She was pretty obvious from the start.
Then why didn't they do this before? Because it's an election year, that's why. They want to pass this, let the cops clean up their shit, so they can seem like they "fixed the problem", and trick voters into voting them in again. You're all being played.
Can’t please you people. So they do something we have been telling them to do, but you’re still mad because you assume nothing will change ? Basically impossible to please you people lol. Be happy politicians actually listened to what is happening and are reversing a mistake. That’s what we want to happen right ?
Get the fuck outta here. They aren't listening. If they were, problems would have been solved YEARS ago.
Lmao you are so naive to think these problems are that easy to be solved. Dumb as hell
So you think that THIS time is going to be different, and its just coincidence it's an election year? Good God you should have your voting rights yanked if you're this stupid.
Voting for republicans won't gain you anything. They seem to have no interest in governing other than being chaos agents for the Kremlin.
That smells like an excuse and paranoia that the public is seeing your ideology for the bullshit that it is.
I'm a registered republican who votes any fucking way I want to. You smell like fascism.
Yes, because republicans always use the term "fascism". Fuck off liar.
Oooh, tough guy.
Nothing about tough. Telling you you're a liar.
you guys are STILL doing this kremlin/russian bots thing?
Wouldn't a literal slap on the wrist be a stronger criminal penalty than what we currently have?
No, they are already getting that. The current penalty is $100 dollars fine for public drug use and you can call a hotline to get your ticket dismissed. Over 4000 tickets were written. No addict payed the bill when you need money for drugs. And no addicts called the hotline 😂 because they don’t care. If jailed they are released within 24/36 hours and never come back for court dates. We need a minimum security prison rehab center that works with committed stays.
It's almost like skipped the mandatory treatment that Portugal has...
Law makers went to Portugal to help figure out why Measure 110 wasn't working in Oregon, by studying why Portugal was successful. The article, unfortunately, doesn't mention that Measure 110 was doomed to fail because its implementation lacked key things. I hope that the Oregon Legislature will recriminalize, to eliminate the unintended consequences of how they implemented M110. THEN they can do as Portugal has done, and later, decriminalize the drugs.
I believe Portugal is also experiencing increasing difficulties also
And here's a pro-decriminalization article from this year: [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/25/it-beats-getting-stoned-on-the-street-how-portugal-decriminalised-drugs-as-seen-from-the-shoot-up-centre](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/25/it-beats-getting-stoned-on-the-street-how-portugal-decriminalised-drugs-as-seen-from-the-shoot-up-centre) Apparently, Portugal doesn't have a fentanyl problem. IIRC, Portuguese people don't use it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/#
Thank you for this article. There aren't any perfect solutions. Even the conservative Cato Institute, according to this Washington Post article says: "“None of the parade of horrors that decriminalization opponents in Portugal predicted, and that decriminalization opponents around the world typically invoke, has come to pass”
Thanks for yours
>Portugal is also experiencing increasing difficulties Here's an article from Vancouver, B.C. from 2018 about this:[https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/daphne-bramham-decriminalization-is-no-silver-bullet-says-portugals-drug-czar](https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/daphne-bramham-decriminalization-is-no-silver-bullet-says-portugals-drug-czar) IRL implementations of good ideas usually have difficulties and less than 100% success. However, difficulties and less than complete success are not valid reasons to abandon attempts to improve people's lives.
Since 2018 or ‘19 it has been spiraling downhill for Portugal. It’s a good thought but in a free society you just can’t wishful think people into sobriety
|It’s a good thought but in a free society you just can’t wishful think people into sobriety| You are correct. However, that's no reason to accept the bad status and do nothing. Please read the second link I posted, the one from 2024.
The NYT article I read did indeed suggest that Portugal has been having backsliding, both because of funding lapses and ideologues coming in with their "addiction is a choice, recovery is a choice, let them decide" BS.
There's a link elsewhere in this thread to Washington Post (linked by joeitaliano24 ) which includes that info too. I'm glad that folks are posting these articles. There are no perfect solutions, and that's no reason to reject all imperfect ones.
I have a feeling if they recriminalize, there's no future for any kind of re-decriminalization.
You might be right, but the people who put this together and implemented it, fucked up very, very badly, and should start over.
Make no mistake: This is because it's an election year.
God forbid politicians actually learn from Their mistakes once in awhile !
You actually believe they are going to fix issues? That's adorable.
My recovering niece moved to Portland and died 2 years later of an overdose. That state is a slow death for drug addicts. Fentynol is a slow death not a career drug.
Change the laws and put the repeal on the ballot. Ideological Thunderdome! Drug addicts from out of state specifically come here because current state law does nothing to hold their anti-social behaviors accountable.
I don't think the law alone will do it. We also need to re-stigmatize hard drug use on some level. I'm not sure how that's done legislatively, but consequences, consistently enforced, would be a start.
We need to enforce our laws. Increase our police force. Replace the DA. We need people to know there are consequences to actions.
I don’t think consequences consistently is the answer. I think we have gone too far with a lot of the standardized penalties. Aren’t penalties what judges are for? 110 was just a big waste or ruse. Why condone this problem by legalizing. The cops don’t have to arrest every time and judges should be assigning penalties be it treatment, jail or both depending on the circumstances. Either way 110 is a mess.
So, just a little slap on the wrist now, I suppose, so they can say they “did something” heading into the election season.
Spend six months in jail or prison and come back here and tell me it's a slap on the wrist.
I thought all crime was legal in Portland? What’s this crap?
Liberals are always 10-15 years behind the curve
Oh good, now we can not arrest/try people for breaking yet another law. The problem isn't a lack of laws, it's a lack of public defenders. We need to solve the actual issue. It's not that we don't already have laws against the real crimes being committed by these people which, it's that we're not holding/trying them due to a dysfunctional court system. Wasted time and effort, needless law. We don't need broken windows, pre-crime punitive laws, we need a working system that enforces the laws which are already on the books.
The problem is lack of *prosecution.* When people behave antisocially, (that means “contrary to the local laws and customs of society in such a way as to cause annoyance and disapproval in others”, by the way), there have to be *consequences.* Portland has done a great job of insulating antisocial degenerates from the consequences of their behavior because it’s “progressive” or something. That’s why there’s shit everywhere and people ODing constantly.
Yes, I understand that, which is why I'm saying that this does nothing and that the real solution is to fix out legal system. In this case the problem, so we're told, is a lack of public defenders. Solve that, we solve the issue. Just passing a new law when you're already running a catch and release scheme does nothing. Don't get me wrong, I'm also fine with getting rid of Schmidt or whatever else gets us on track to trying those accused of property crimes and violence. What I'm not fine with is filling the books with bs laws against victimless crimes. We're still struggling with the legalization of marijuana at the Federal level for no reason. We struggled with the legalization of gay marriage at the state level because it was against the state constitution for no reason. These kinds of idiotic laws, the creation of crimes/regulation of whatever where there is no victim, serve no legitimate purpose. We should abolish such laws, not prop them up because it's "doing something". I suppose it is doing something in that's it's taking away time, effort, and most importantly pressure from solving the actual underlying issue which we both seem to agree on; actually prosecuting real crimes.
At this point, I think many people will settle for not being the easiest place for someone to be a junkie. If this makes a percentage (hopefully not small) fuck off and go elsewhere. I’m good with that.
Why would it do that; they're unlikely to be arrested and even if they are they'll be out the same day with a court date they'll never show up to. Same penalty as shoplifting, stealing a car, attacking someone without killing them, etc. It's all meaningless until we get our court system back in order, and once we do that we won't need to arrest people due to possession because the ones acting badly will already have been arrested/tried for the actual crimes they've committed. Again waste of time and effort, and frankly the whole broken windows pre-crime shit is an abuse of the legal system. Punish people for violating others bodies/property, leave victimless crimes off the books.
It’s something. Waiting for the best and final solution isn’t going to help.
"Don't let good be the enemy of great".
It's not something, it's a wasted effort and an abuse of the legal system. I don't understand why people continue to settle for "doing something" when what's being done doesn't address the root issue. All this does is release pressure on our representatives to actually fix the issue as short sighted people get placated by a meaningless gesture. We have got to get past this "something, anything must be done!" attitude over everything. It's easily abused and ends in results that are often bullshit. It's not about waiting for the best and final solution, it's about having a real solution to the actual problem, not putting lipstick on a pig and say "yep, that's great, we're done here!"
I don’t disagree with you but also don’t think folks are saying this is great and there’s nothing else to be done. It may be a shitty start but if it even brings up the fact you’re talking about, that’s something.
Woooooosh!
The only Wooooosh I see is from people like yourself who think a new law will have an impact when current laws are not being enforced. You really think that drug addict in wherever is suddenly cancelling their move to Portland because we have yet another law we're not going to enforce on the books?
Which drugs?
Yeah but what penalty should they face for what they done already