189
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Four years ago, the state decriminalized all drugs. Now it’s trying to course-correct — and might make a mistake in the process.

In 2020, it looked as though the war on drugs would begin to end in Oregon. 

After Measure 110 was passed that year, Oregon became the first state in the US to decriminalize personal possession of all drugs that had been outlawed by the Controlled Substances Act in 1970, ranging from heroin and cocaine to LSD and psychedelic mushrooms. When it went into effect in early 2021, the move was celebrated by drug reform advocates who had long been calling for decriminalization in the wake of President Nixon’s failed war on drugs.

Now, amid a spike in public drug use and overdoses, Oregon is in the process of reeling back its progressive drug laws, with a new billthat aims to reinstate lighter criminal penalties for personal drug possession. And while the target is deadly drugs like fentanyl, the law would also result in banning non-clinical use of psychedelics like MDMA, DMT, or psilocybin — drugs that are unconnected to the current overdose epidemic and the public displays of drug use.

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 82 points 8 months ago

Decriminalisation goes hand in hand with support for drug addicts, drug centers and healthcare in general. You can't just decriminalise and call it a day.

[-] Altofaltception@lemmy.world 43 points 8 months ago

Exactly. Oregon remains next to last in terms of availability of drug treatment.

People cite the Portuguese example of how decriminalization of drugs resulted in an overall reduction of addiction, etc., but fail to include how the Portuguese expanded drug rehabilitation services for its citizens.

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 10 points 8 months ago

I think they did add funding to drug centers and healthcare. The issue is that they did not force anyone to go there. They handed out fines of $100 and said they would waive the fine of the person checked into a addiction support center. Only 1% of them did. People were just getting fined multiple times and ignoring it. There was not really any incentive for people to actually get help.

[-] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 5 points 8 months ago

Helping people by punishing them sounds pretty flawed indeed... The problem is that this failed attempt will be used by detractors as an example now..

[-] hudson@sh.itjust.works 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

They never actually rolled out any of the support programs, the rehabs, or any of the alternative legal programs that were in the bill. The funding was there, but nothing was really done with it. The whole thing was flawed from the start and was set to fail because it wasn’t actually implemented as it should have been. The 110 bill laid out plans for this huge support system and infrastructure that never materialized.

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago

I guess a better way to do it might be to fund support first and then do decriminalization.

[-] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

The decriminalization started pretty soon after the measure was passed. The disbursement for the fund was delay and, apparently, a mess. Building something takes time and handing buckets of money to existing facilities who have only ever run on a shoe string budget was doom to be overwhelmed.

The citations were for a maximum of $100 or complete a health assessment in 45 days by calling the addiction recovery hotline. The problem here is the citations were never alter to include the phone number to schedule an assessment.

Getting help, as I understand the prevailing sentiment of those who work in the system, is the constant signal that the system exists and won't screw you over. When you're ready, we are here.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 points 8 months ago

They never actually doled out any of the money to anyone in order to actually expand or open more treatment centers. This voter-passed law was doomed from the start because neither Democratic or Republican leaders wanted this. Now, they've rolled the law back and given more funding to police. Both these parties are garbage.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 63 points 8 months ago

You cannot successfully decriminalize all drugs in a for-profit health care system.

You will never stop an epidemic of opioid abuse unless you can address chronic pain because many of those people have legitimate chronic pain issues that they can't afford to deal with medically.

I have a nerve disorder and a neurologist tried treating it unsuccessfully with different opioids for a while. I didn't get hooked enough that I couldn't quit cold turkey, but the withdrawal was two very bad days. As I said, it was unsuccessful and we have decent insurance. But if it worked and we lost our insurance? I would absolutely be one of those people. The disorder is completely under control now, by the way, so no pity is necessary.

[-] htrayl@lemmy.world 37 points 8 months ago

Disingenuous attribution of a local environmental variable to a national crisis is pretty pathetic. Oregon isn't even exceptionally high on the opiod death rate.

[-] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 points 8 months ago

The dems here were more concerned about the upcoming election and the homeless/drug issues being blamed on them as a lot of locals like to do. This is yet another example of their so called ideals being sacrificed in order to maintain power. Now all that rehab funding that they never even began distributing ver the last four years will be going to police and jails.

[-] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 5 points 8 months ago

Almost as though making big sweeping policy changes without properly thinking through the consequences can be destructive to society.

[-] phoneymouse@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

Drugs are bad mkay

this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
189 points (98.0% liked)

News

23409 readers
1807 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS