17 ms·

Oregon becomes first U.S. state to decriminalize possession of all drugs

315 points by jeremylevy 6y ago

marsrover 6y ago
Come on Georgia...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
JasonHarrison 6y ago
Good. Putting people with addiction issues in jail was the wrong approach. Perhaps the addicted can seek help in other ways without the fear or risk of being incarcerated.
- redwoolf 6y ago
  I don't understand why this is being downvoted. Addiction is a disease and shouldn't be criminalized. Part of the reason the opioid epidemic is so bad is that people don't seek help or call emergency services for fear of criminal punishment.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    Was it downvoted? It's currently top of HN, isn't greyed-out, and is only 2 minutes old.
    - redwoolf 6y ago
      It was when I commented.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    One of the sad realities of American politics is that jailing people, and jailing people under inhumaine circumstances remains very popular. For any given behavior that is socially undesirable it’s easy to find a large enough constituency that says “lock them up and throw away the key”, even if as a society we all agree that our criminal justice system is ineffective and out of control.
    - InitialLastName 6y ago
      Part of the issue is that nobody ever got elected to local law-enforcement/judicial positions (sheriffs, state atty generals, judges) by saying "I'm definitely going to arrest fewer people in your town".
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        This returns to my original point; people win elections promising to lock more people up because locking people up is very popular.
    - SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
      > under inhumane circumstances remains very popular. I recently read an article about the popularity of '/r/justiceserved' type forums (the original tagline of this subreddit was "Now with 40% more police brutality" but was changed as it became more popular). I can't for the life of me find the article, but it was a fairly ambivalent account of how this kind of forum taps into a deeply innate arousal from visceral punishment. Something that the author decides, sadly, appears to be in all of us. > lock them up and throw away the key The "empathy gap" rears its ugly head.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy_gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy_gap
    - derivagral 6y ago
      I'm not familiar with the rest of Altemeyer's work but I found this book fascinating to read; it tries to go into where some of that might come from. https://theauthoritarians.org/options-for-getting-the-book/ https://theauthoritarians.org/options-for-getting-the-book/
  - bertil 6y ago
    The intent expressed is likely laudable, and the helpful approach overall preferred by the HN crowd -- however, the context, specifically associating drug consumption with addiction might not be popular among people who use psychoactive substances occasionally and no see themselves as addicts.
    - draw_down 6y ago
      This isn’t an actual problem though, addiction is. If some people who do acid sometimes get their feelings hurt over something people aren’t even really accusing them of, I’d say that’s acceptable collateral
  - ekianjo 6y ago
    Not every person using drugs is addicted. Let's not make that kind of claim.
  - apexalpha 6y ago
    Yeah, this is a big problem. A few years back there was white heroin being sold as cocaine in Amsterdam. So the Amsterdam government put up signs and issued warnings to call an ambulance immediatly if someone became unwell after using 'cocaine'. Soon after it was discovered that a lot of American and British tourists were not doing this out of fear for getting arrested. The Amsterdam government had to add a specific part to the signs (in English) saying you wouldn't be arrested if you called for help. Creating a atmosphere of fear costs lives. Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/02/you-will-not-be-arrested-for-using-drugs-what-a-sane-drug-policy-looks-like/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/02/you-w... Sign: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/CFDYWJM7HI3ORPVLSMVTGGPPT4.jpg&w=916 https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://... (Bottom part)
- murbard2 6y ago
  Not everyone who consumes drugs, "hard" or otherwise has an addiction issue or needs to seek help, though of course imprisonment is especially cruel when it targets those who do.
  - sneak 6y ago
    [Edit: This comment was an erroneous reply when I misread the comment to which I was replying, and is now removed.]
    - baldfat 6y ago
      People view LSD as a non-addiction drug because it only works bi-weekly is the argument. Drugs legal and illegal might be a ticket item BUT the health issues are still the same, even if they are "non-addictive."
      - scoopdewoop 6y ago
        Baseless Anecdote: I once met a man that claimed he took acid more often than that in the 70s. He said he would get intravenous B vitamin supplements to trip more often. not really arguing anything, I just found his story fascinating.
    - murbard2 6y ago
      Which part?
  - GordonS 6y ago
    You're right, some people simply enjoy occasionally consuming drugs. It's not much different to people consuming alcohol really, the only real differences are alcohol is generally more socially accepted, and that alcohol is generally considered to be more harmful to society. If there was a guaranteed safe supply chain for recreational drugs that are currently illegal, things would be a lot safer too.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
- dheera 6y ago
  At the same time I would have serious concerns about public safety for certain drugs. While I agree jail isn't the answer, I think house arrest or curfews would be a good middle ground for drug abusers to maintain public safety while they engage in rehabilitation programs at the same time.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    There have been attempts to categorize and measure the social harms caused by heavy users of various drugs, and the actual measurable impacts don’t really line up with what people worry about. The study I saw put alcohol at the top of the list, due to the social cost of drunken fights, spousal abuse, and DUIs. I’m sure there are some public safety issues that we should deal with for the various “hard” drugs decriminalized here, but I also find it fascinating how much social desirability affects which drugs we decide are a problem that require special treatment, since I’ve never seen anyone recommend house arrest or curfews for alcoholics.
    - dheera 6y ago
      > alcohol at the top of the list So criminalize alcohol abuse as well. Not jail-criminalize it, that's too expensive for taxpayers. But I sure would love if the streets are clear of drunk, violent people fighting. Impose curfews and cameras in their homes.
      - eloff 6y ago
        I agree something could be done about alcohol abuse. But your last sentence is madness. Unless you mean it sarcastically, which is the only way I can understand it.
        dheera 6y ago
        I don't understand why it is madness. Care to explain? I see violent people on the street. They are a danger to me. I want safe streets. House arrest costs taxpayers very little. If there was an angry bear on the streets threatening people it would probably be relocated, tagged, and confined to the forests as well. Not much different.
- umvi 6y ago
  > Good. Putting people with addiction issues in jail was the wrong approach. A big problem is that addictions are expensive and people are willing to commit crimes to feed addictions when they run out of money. Anecdata of 1, but one of my friends in high school got addicted to heroin, and he ended up in jail not because of possession of heroin, but because he started stealing so he could come up with the money to buy more... so in that sense decriminalization won't necessarily help, but I agree that possession of drugs for personal use should not necessarily result in jail time.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    Addiction is only expensive because drugs are criminalized. The drugs themselves would be cheap if legalized.
    - panzagl 6y ago
      They'll be cheap if sale and distribution is legalized- this just amps up the demand side of the curve.
      - tclancy 6y ago
        That assumes an economic elasticity that I don't think drugs have.
    - umvi 6y ago
      legalization and decriminalization are slightly different. Drugs will only be cheap if: - they are legal to commercially manufacture and distribute (not merely decriminalized) - they aren't taxed excessively Cigarettes, for example, are cheap to manufacture, but still expensive due to high taxes in a lot of places (up to $10+ per pack).
      - jjk166 6y ago
        Yeah, but who's giving handys under the bridge for a carton of cigarettes? If you are already committing crimes every day buying and possessing something, then committing crimes to feed the habit isn't a big jump. Conversely, if you haven't done anything illegal yet, most people will pay a hefty premium to avoid having to do anything illegal.
- giantg2 6y ago
  I agree that was not the right approach. I'm not sure this is the right approach either. Keeping it criminalized, but as a summary offense with the punishment being an educational presentation/course on rehab options might provide some better outcomes. There are some tangentially related things to consider here too, like drug convictions preventing addicts from buying weapons.
  - NeutronStar 6y ago
    Can you explain what's wrong with Portugal's approach?
  - giantg2 6y ago
    Why is this downvoted?
  - pstuart 6y ago
    It's a health issue, not a criminal issue. Drug laws cause more crime -- by design.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      How would a summary offense with a punishment of education on rehab options create more crime? How is it necessarily a health issue? Not all drug users are addicts. Edit: And perhaps the most obvious support for it being a criminal issue is that the first time someone does the drug it would only be a criminal issue and could not be a health issue since they had no prior exposure to become addicted.
      - nemothekid 6y ago
        >How is it necessarily a health issue? Not all drug users are addicts. 1. If you are a drug user, not even necessarily an addict (in which your need to consume the drug gets in the way of other life functions), then society is already accepting. Cocaine use, for example, is far less stigmatized in the US and UK. 2. If you step back from your biases and view addiction as a "sickness", then throwing addicts in prison makes as much sense as throwing someone in prison for a broken leg. Sure sometimes it might work, but it's clearly not the most optimal solution. Other countries that have taken this approach have far fewer recidivism rates - which is the metric that should be judged. Finally to answer your point "summary offense with a punishment of education on rehab options create more crime" is not at all what happens in the US today. Drug use & possession carries prision term, in which cutting cold turkey (or, likely more commonly sneaking drugs into prison) is the only option. After which, you are likely to lose your job and turn to more crime to make a living once released from prison. A more realistic counter to your point however is that the current American criminal justice system has little flexibility for nuance, and without major police reform, leaving this issue to police simply does not produce the intended results.
- trentnix 6y ago
  Incarceration is what triggered a family member to finally have success fighting their addiction. Loss of job and family wasn't rock bottom for them. Incarceration was. And they've since rebuilt their life and their family. Incarceration was the trigger that made that possible. I'm sympathetic to your point and to all who are subject to any drug or alcohol addiction. But I feel compelled to comment that incarceration is not always the inhumane dead-end that it's painted as. It's one of many tools that can be used to rehabilitate those in need.
  - MrRiddle 6y ago
    How do you rehabilitate a person if they’re unable to find a reasonable job afterwards?
  - rm_-rf_slash 6y ago
    If incarceration was a common rock bottom that addicts could build up from, I might agree with you, but knowing what we know about recidivism among addicts, it is likelier to be an aggregate negative even if a few people find a way to recover during their sentence.
  - drewcoo 6y ago
    When we can't deal with issues openly, especially mental health issues, we often see the "tough" route promoted. That would be "rock bottom" in your anecdote. Consider how PTSD used to be treated back when it was "shell shock" and considered a personal moral failure. People were told there was nothing wrong. Many of those people "recovered," too. But was that the right way to treat people facing real problems?
  - aaomidi 6y ago
    Did this person have a home to get back to? People to support them financially once he was out? The way incarceration impacts people is extremely different.
  - carapace 6y ago
    Thousands of people have had their lives ruined by being incarcerated for possession of cannabis. Hundreds of thousands maybe. Most of them weren't addicts, or committing other crimes, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time with a bag of weed in their pockets or whatever. It's good that your family member finally had success fighting their addiction, but at what price?
- frankfrankfrank 6y ago
  I agree with the general sentiment of that, however the nuanced reality is far more complex than that. For many people the only treatment that actually worked is precisely prison. The reality of the rehabilitation industry across the board is not exactly a shining example of success, while prison does seem to show significant advantages. The question we have to ask ourselves these is essentially this one; what is better, someone that goes to prison for 5 years and gets treatment and comes out with a higher likelihood of recovery, or someone that spends 5 years in and out of treatment and living in drug addiction misery of exploitation and abuse and with a notably lower likelihood of permanent recovery? Of the two examples the former is obviously better, even though a third, hybrid option that no one talks about is likely the best; a kind of reform complex/community akin to boot camp of the past broken people are broken down and rebuilt into new, functioning adults. For anyone who knows anything about the military, especially of the past, will know that in treatment of people, the bootcamp model is the very best option. It builds character, it shatters bad habits and compulsions, it builds support structures and deep bonds, it creates a pathway to hope, success, and achievement, it uses sticks and carrots to set people on a graduated path. It's literally everything that drug addicts need if one actually cares about them getting the devil off their back, and is not just interested in trying to feel good about themselves.
- tmaly 6y ago
  On the flip side, I can see some potential bad outcomes for young children being exposed to this.
  - sesteel 6y ago
    While you chose not to share what poor outcomes you are considering; your comment compels me to state the obvious: nearly all choices have trade offs.
    - tmaly 6y ago
      I thought it was obvious. Young kids are easily influenced. If you create an environment where there are no restrictions on drug usage, kids get exposure to it.
- simonh 6y ago
  Agreed. I do not agree with decriminalising the trade in drugs, but criminalising their possession for personal use is a really important practical step in fighting the trade in hard drugs and reducing addiction rates for many reasons. It decouples the interests of drug traffickers from those of users making users more likely to cooperate with law enforcement, frees up social workers and medical professionals from the risk of criminal liability for associating with drug users in possession of or using drugs. It also makes it easier to address incidental associated health issue such as infections from dirty needles. Treating it as a health issue destigmatises it making it easier for users to talk about it and seek help. This is not theoretical, this is from actual findings from countries like Portugal the Netherlands and Norway where trading in hard drugs is still illegal but possession and use are treated as public health issues. This is a policy that works.
  - dotandgtfo 6y ago
    Fully agree with you, I just want to point out that Norway has a very strict stance against all drugs, so much so that you can lose your drivers license for having cannabis metabolites in your blood due too a lack of "soberness". It's mental.
    - simonh 6y ago
      I think it's really important to dissociate supporting decriminalisation of possession and use from being "pro drugs". They are very much not the same thing.
  - wayneftw 6y ago
    > I do not agree with decriminalising the trade in drugs. Why not? Do you support criminal cartels making lots of money off of them or do you think that the War on Drugs will actually get rid of that criminal element which profits from them at some point? I don't see a problem with anyone putting anything they want into their own body. Arrest them when they commit an actual victim-ful crime like stealing but not before that. To that end, I say sell them with regulation just like Alcohol. Keeping sales illegal means questionable sources, questionable quality and enormous profits for criminal gangs.
0xcafecafe 6y ago
So possession is decriminalized but what about sale and distribution? Also is this in direct conflict with federal law prohibiting the same?
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  Nothing is changed for federal law. if you were in Oregon and some federal agent catches you with drugs, you will be facing charges.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- onetimemanytime 6y ago
  >>but what about sale and distribution? No El Chapo Shacks: "the state’s residents will no longer face arrests or prison sentences for carrying small amounts of drugs like cocaine, heroin, oxycontin and methamphetamine. "
  - dahdum 6y ago
    This does mean dealers can hold small amounts for sale at lower risk than before. Portland is already pretty accepting of open air drug markets though, so in reality not much may change.
    - onetimemanytime 6y ago
      True, but cops know them and will wait till they have more than the limit. Or the narcs can be helpful and add a few grams....who's watching? :)
    - hajile 6y ago
      It means delivery boys won't be at risk, but someone along the line has to have a large supply or shipping costs become untenable. Since almost all the risk goes away, those delivery boys pay will drop drastically too. I wonder what effect that will have? I suspect like all organized crimee that they'll move on to other rackets.
jliptzin 6y ago
Turns out liberal states, not conservatives ones, are the ones in favor of personal freedoms and less intrusive government.
- xfitm3 6y ago
  Except when it comes to speech
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    And firearms.
    - whoknew1122 6y ago
      Unless it's Black people carrying firearms. Then conservatives love gun control: https://theweek.com/articles/582926/how-ronald-reagan-learned-love-gun-control https://theweek.com/articles/582926/how-ronald-reagan-learne... Reagan started modern gun control legislation, because Black Panthers were exercising their rights to open carry.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        This is a mischaracterization of an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. Even the NRA has pushed for protections that would benefit groups who may be discriminated against, such as promoting shall-issue or constitutional carry.
        icandoit 6y ago
        I didn't see anything like that on their Wikipedia page. Perhaps you could share it here. I remember several years ago there were self-defense classes hosted by gay men, for other gay people in my city. Pre gay-marriage and post Matthew Shepard, obviously. My recollection was that it was entirely the gay community and no NRA outreach. It would dramatically improve my opinion of the NRA to learn that they sponsored or materially supported such an effort.
excalibur 6y ago
Why link to a tweet of the article rather than the article itself?
- karlzt 6y ago
  Remember to flag it.
question000 6y ago
I wonder what kind of commercial avenues this opens up, not obviously the illegal sale of drugs, but products aimed directly and openly at heavy users. Not to mention the marketing potential, "hey if you like cocaine, you're going to love X,Y,Z impulse buy!", "Hey here's Arby's with the Stoner Burger, for those with the munchies." Etc
- adolph 6y ago
  The differences in state and federal law will probably mute many second order commercial effects since any success will draw the attention of the feds either in the form of DEA customer scrutiny or commercial banking problems. Maybe it could lead to some additional interest in cryptocurrency but the last mile of exchange between fiat and crypto has a dependency on the feds.
  - question000 6y ago
    There's already a strong market for drug paraphernalia, which technically legal because it can be used for tobacco, I think this might be a boon for eye drops for example because I noticed stoners tend to use them a lot and would likely prioritize buying a brand marketed directly to them. Not stuff which could really catch the ire of authorities. Though that's a good point about crypto.
    - TwoBit 6y ago
      In California glass shops I've seen crack pipes in addition to the cannabis water pipes.
    - adolph 6y ago
      While there is a market servicing paraphernalia demand I'd not classify it as a strong market in that many competitors such as large retailers, distributors and manufacturers cannot enter it despite persistent demand. That is great for localism/small business and it acts as a tax on paraphernalia that limits demand.
- shrimpx 6y ago
beamatronic 6y ago
Hey Ferb, I know what we’re gonna do today!
adolph 6y ago
The passage of Oregon’s Measure 110 means the state’s residents will no longer face arrests or prison sentences for carrying small amounts of drugs like cocaine, heroin, oxycontin and methamphetamine. The measure, which passed by almost 60 percent, also lays out groundwork for people with addictions to receive treatment as opposed to jail time. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/04/election-drugs-oregon-new-jersey/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/04/election-dr...
- giantg2 6y ago
  Thanks! This is much more informative than a Twitter link.
  - adolph 6y ago
    Here is more real information: https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_110,_Drug_Decriminalization_and_Addiction_Treatment_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_110,_Drug_Decriminali...
karlzt 6y ago
Other discussions:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24986517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24986517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24987903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24987903
hourislate 6y ago
Although I really like the idea that $100k of my tax dollars are not going to be spent housing and prosecuting someone for having $20 of crack or meth or whatever. My worry is this will attract an influx of people with addiction problems and a list of unintended consequences that could come with legalizing all drugs. I remember reading/hearing(NPR maybe), that when Florida took a harder stance against Doctors prescribing Oxycontin making it more difficult for people to acquire and abuse, there was an exodus of people to states that had more relaxed laws. These folks basically moved to a different state where they could support their addiction. People don't become addicts because it's fun, something typically leads them down that road and perhaps the best strategy is to help them with their mental health issues and heavily prosecute the enablers/dealers/suppliers whether it's some guy down the street or a country like China.
- TwoBit 6y ago
  Well this may be a good test of your theory. I'd rather try a theory than speculate forever.
- megaman821 6y ago
  I don't think this changes much for addicts directly. Just because possession is legal doesn't mean public intoxication or driving under the influence laws are void. The law will still have a way to deal with the worst offenders, without ruining the life of some college-age party-goer. I agree there are great secondary effects of having more drugs available, and hope Oregon invests the necessary resources to curb illegal distribution of drugs.
- ngold 6y ago
  Suck it up and stop being a coward. If we don't break the mold no one else will. We already get everyones homeless. Nothing will change except us saving money.
- SippinLean 6y ago
  > when Florida took a harder stance against Doctors prescribing Oxycontin making it more difficult for people to acquire and abuse, there was an exodus of people to states that had more relaxed laws Is there a source for this? Florida was a MAJOR supplier of Oxycontin for other states near and far until the crackdown in 2011. Prescription monitoring reduced pill smuggling to other states. Addicts didn't move to other states, they moved to another drug--heroin. Heroin is covered by the new Oregon legislation. https://heroin.palmbeachpost.com/florida-cuts-off-oxycodone-death-devastation-follow/ https://heroin.palmbeachpost.com/florida-cuts-off-oxycodone-...
PIKAL 6y ago
Does this mean all drugs or just all the common street drugs? What about precursors and obscure phenethylamines?
- Lambdanaut 6y ago
  Hello PIKAL. Great name. Yes, it means all drugs. It specifically decriminalizes all drugs whether they're class I, II, III, or IV. It only doesn't decriminalize more-than-personal amounts of specifically named popular "street drugs" as the article refers to them.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  AFAIK, the truly "obscure" phenethylamines (ie, not 2C-I, 2C-E, 2C-B) were never illegal to begin with in the US.
  - amanaplanacanal 6y ago
    There is the analogues act but it is unclear to me whether or how often that gets enforced.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      you would have to have in-depth chemistry and legal knowledge to know exactly what is illegal under the US analogues act. but if you can't show that a substance is closely related to something already under schedule I or II, it is legal (or at least not illegal) by default. now that the popular 2C-x's have been explicitly added to schedule I, my guess is that the whole family is on thin ice, if not unambiguously illegal.
ryanmarsh 6y ago
Sedate yourself citizen.
austincheney 6y ago
I see this as having positive results minimizing drug trafficking and reducing petty crime but I don’t this having any impact on addiction. I have family with severe addiction problems and criminality is completely orthogonal to the behavior. You can make the argument that it’s cruel to imprison somebody for addiction problems but that doesn’t address the addiction.
- elil17 6y ago
  The measure also included additional funding for addiction treatment.
  - onecommentman 6y ago
    If money alone could fix the problem in the US, it would have disappeared a long time ago...
    - elil17 6y ago
      I think that it’s a combination of well placed money and good policy. If drug use gives someone a felony conviction, it doesn’t matter how many times you send them to rehab, they’re not going to be able to hold down a job because almost no one hires people with records. Without the element of criminalization, tools like rehab provide a way more effective path to being a functional member of society. Obviously it’s not a silver bullet, but it does make sense as a strategy.
Lambdanaut 6y ago
As someone who has witnessed and taken part in great healing from the use of plant healers, I'm glad to see that we're moving away from putting people in cages for seeking them.
11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
It would seem that decriminalizing will attract more addicted users to the state. If that happens, does Oregon have plans for expanding social services to assist addicts and treatment resources to help them back into society? Portugal can provide some insight: https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/ https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalizatio...
- elil17 6y ago
  Yes they do have a plan, the measure included additional budgeting for social services.
  - j_walter 6y ago
    They have a plan, but for anyone that knows Oregon politics it's doomed to have high overhead costs and government inefficiencies built in. I mean they couldn't adapt to the extra $600/wk federal unemployment or not having a waiting period because their systems were still programmed in COBOL...despite getting $80M set aside for upgrading the system almost a decade ago there has been no progress. Also see: Cover Oregon debacle
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > It would seem that decriminalizing will attract more addicted users to the state. I don't think this will be the case. But even if you assume it may, you can't let that possibility be a bugbear and that scares you away from doing what is right.
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    You put up a strawman. The OP wasn't saying they were against the ruling, but asking if the state is ready for the possible effects of it.
- HaloZero 6y ago
  I'm curious if there was any evidence of people moving to Portugal after they decriminalized things? Or any evidence of people moving to avoid the law when it comes to drugs like this. It probably won't be 1-1 b/c of language barriers. I don't have as much experience with addicted users but my understanding is that they tend to stay closer to their remaining social networks. Moving to a new state just to avoid criminalization seems like a lot.
throwawaysea 6y ago
This is just going to result in increased blight and crime in Portland as it attracts larger and larger numbers of drug addicted homeless and jobless people. Not that Portland or Oregon actually charges criminals anyways, but the deterrence of criminality does matter. I feel bad for the Portland residents who didn’t vote for this.
- onecommentman 6y ago
  One of the wonders of the Federation of States in the US is a ready source of beta testers for new governance ideas. A majority of voters in Oregon in this election have voted to decriminalize all drugs. The rest of the States get to see if that was a good idea and decide if they should consider it. There are enough legal backstops at the Federal level to snap this back to criminalization, well, instantly. Citizens in those other States who see the Oregon model as a better deal for them have the opportunity to move there. And probably will. Drugs “are a hell of a drug” and moving will sound a lot easier to many heavy users than doing the hard work of breaking an addiction. That migration legacy won’t change so quickly. I also feel for those who are being put in the middle of this social experiment against their individual will, especially the kids. But kids survived the communes of the 60s and, ironically, probably some of these now-adults are the sort who will be motivated by this. If the 60s-80s were the California period, and 90s-10s the PNW period (starting with grunge), this might be a big, long nail that seals the PNW period in its coffin. PS: If I were a cynical sort, I would wonder if CA and WA were working behind the scenes to make this happen. What an elegant way to offload a social burden and deflect attention onto someone else. “You think parts of SF are bad, well check out today’s Portland. SF doesn’t look so bad now, eh?”
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  They could probably move across the river if they really hated it. I doubt many will, though. Portland is a pretty nice city.
- gdubs 6y ago
  Well, we’ll see. But it’s not like our current way of dealing with drugs is working in this country, no matter how you look at it. But this argument feels like a lot of pearl-clutching without basis in science. Point to the research, don’t just scare people that drug addicts are going to descend in droves upon neighborhoods and ruin them with crime. Separate point: This new law has generated a lot of memes from people who didn’t bother to read past the headline. But to me, the forgotten element here is that in the United States, drug laws are wielded disproportionately against people of color, who end up in jail at much higher rates for similar offenses as white people. [1] Want to talk about crime? Our current way of doing things creates criminals. It puts people in jail, who can’t afford to get out, who then struggle to repair their lives and get hired in decent jobs. It’s a downward cycle of despair and — I would argue — one of the clearest examples of racial disparity we have. 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/
nikolay 6y ago
It's a nice excuse for dealers to say they are just addicts and this is their own stash.
- lukifer 6y ago
  It's always been the case that "intent to distribute" is not decided by quantity alone. Merely the presence of something like multiple plastic bags can tip the scales into "intent", even if the quantity of the drug is below the decriminalization threshold. And because this isn't full legalization, possession of any amount can still be sufficient grounds to get a warrant for further investigation.
  - nikolay 6y ago
    How would they prove it? Dealers have always been having small amounts in them and going to their stash between sales. They can always claim they bought 2-3 doses so that they don't have to look for dealers a few times a day/week.
cletus 6y ago
I'm honestly torn on this. The hammer of justice approach of the 20th century was _clearly_ a huge mistake that disproportionately punished minorities. The fact that people could 10+ year sentences for possession of cannabis (with no charge of intent to distribute) through a combination of mandatory minimum sentences and so-called three strikes laws was and is a massive travesty of justice. I 100% support the legalization of recreational cannabis use. I also support not criminalizing addiction. That all being said, if you look at cities like Seattle or San Francisco (eg the Tenderloin) you see the negative externalities that a lack of enforcement brings. People open shooting heroin in the streets doesn't seem like a good outcome. For anyone. I honestly don't know where the happy middle ground is here.
- Twixes 6y ago
  These people won't get much better if they go to prison though. Well, yeah, they'll have difficulty shooting heroin, but they definitely won't get better. They need healthcare and at the very least a safe roof over their heads.
- mythrwy 6y ago
  Things go too far one way, then they go too far the other way, finally balance becomes closer.
humanistbot 6y ago
Decriminalized != legal. Personal possession is still illegal, but the maximum penalty is a $100 fine, making it like a parking ticket. You now can't be arrested or jailed for personal possession, like you currently can't be arrested or jailed for a parking violation. Edit: And these possession tickets won't count as having a criminal record. > A "yes" vote supports making personal non-commercial possession of a controlled substance no more than a Class E violation (max fine of $100 fine) and establishing a drug addiction treatment and recovery program funded in part by the state's marijuana tax revenue and state prison savings. See: https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_110,_Drug_Decriminalization_and_Addiction_Treatment_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_110,_Drug_Decriminali...
ElijahLynn 6y ago
I am looking for how the decriminalization part of this bill is different than Oregon HB 2355, https://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2017/HB2355/ https://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2017/HB2355/, that was signed into law on August 15, 2017. It seems to have the same language and amounts in the bill as Measure 110. p.s. I live in Oregon and voted "yes" on measure 110 to decriminalize all drugs here!
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mleonhard 6y ago
This is a good first step in reducing suffering for the people of northern Mexico, Colombia, Afghanistan, and other places with brutal cartels supported by American drug users.

315 points by jeremylevy 6y ago

marsrover 6y ago

Come on Georgia...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

JasonHarrison 6y ago

Good. Putting people with addiction issues in jail was the wrong approach. Perhaps the addicted can seek help in other ways without the fear or risk of being incarcerated.

redwoolf 6y ago
I don't understand why this is being downvoted. Addiction is a disease and shouldn't be criminalized. Part of the reason the opioid epidemic is so bad is that people don't seek help or call emergency services for fear of criminal punishment.
- judge2020 6y ago
  Was it downvoted? It's currently top of HN, isn't greyed-out, and is only 2 minutes old.
  - redwoolf 6y ago
    It was when I commented.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  One of the sad realities of American politics is that jailing people, and jailing people under inhumaine circumstances remains very popular. For any given behavior that is socially undesirable it’s easy to find a large enough constituency that says “lock them up and throw away the key”, even if as a society we all agree that our criminal justice system is ineffective and out of control.
  - InitialLastName 6y ago
    Part of the issue is that nobody ever got elected to local law-enforcement/judicial positions (sheriffs, state atty generals, judges) by saying "I'm definitely going to arrest fewer people in your town".
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      This returns to my original point; people win elections promising to lock more people up because locking people up is very popular.
  - SoSoRoCoCo 6y ago
    > under inhumane circumstances remains very popular. I recently read an article about the popularity of '/r/justiceserved' type forums (the original tagline of this subreddit was "Now with 40% more police brutality" but was changed as it became more popular). I can't for the life of me find the article, but it was a fairly ambivalent account of how this kind of forum taps into a deeply innate arousal from visceral punishment. Something that the author decides, sadly, appears to be in all of us. > lock them up and throw away the key The "empathy gap" rears its ugly head.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy_gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy_gap
  - derivagral 6y ago
    I'm not familiar with the rest of Altemeyer's work but I found this book fascinating to read; it tries to go into where some of that might come from. https://theauthoritarians.org/options-for-getting-the-book/ https://theauthoritarians.org/options-for-getting-the-book/
- bertil 6y ago
  The intent expressed is likely laudable, and the helpful approach overall preferred by the HN crowd -- however, the context, specifically associating drug consumption with addiction might not be popular among people who use psychoactive substances occasionally and no see themselves as addicts.
  - draw_down 6y ago
    This isn’t an actual problem though, addiction is. If some people who do acid sometimes get their feelings hurt over something people aren’t even really accusing them of, I’d say that’s acceptable collateral
- ekianjo 6y ago
  Not every person using drugs is addicted. Let's not make that kind of claim.
- apexalpha 6y ago
  Yeah, this is a big problem. A few years back there was white heroin being sold as cocaine in Amsterdam. So the Amsterdam government put up signs and issued warnings to call an ambulance immediatly if someone became unwell after using 'cocaine'. Soon after it was discovered that a lot of American and British tourists were not doing this out of fear for getting arrested. The Amsterdam government had to add a specific part to the signs (in English) saying you wouldn't be arrested if you called for help. Creating a atmosphere of fear costs lives. Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/02/you-will-not-be-arrested-for-using-drugs-what-a-sane-drug-policy-looks-like/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/02/you-w... Sign: https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/CFDYWJM7HI3ORPVLSMVTGGPPT4.jpg&w=916 https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://... (Bottom part)
murbard2 6y ago
Not everyone who consumes drugs, "hard" or otherwise has an addiction issue or needs to seek help, though of course imprisonment is especially cruel when it targets those who do.
- sneak 6y ago
  [Edit: This comment was an erroneous reply when I misread the comment to which I was replying, and is now removed.]
  - baldfat 6y ago
    People view LSD as a non-addiction drug because it only works bi-weekly is the argument. Drugs legal and illegal might be a ticket item BUT the health issues are still the same, even if they are "non-addictive."
    - scoopdewoop 6y ago
      Baseless Anecdote: I once met a man that claimed he took acid more often than that in the 70s. He said he would get intravenous B vitamin supplements to trip more often. not really arguing anything, I just found his story fascinating.
  - murbard2 6y ago
    Which part?
- GordonS 6y ago
  You're right, some people simply enjoy occasionally consuming drugs. It's not much different to people consuming alcohol really, the only real differences are alcohol is generally more socially accepted, and that alcohol is generally considered to be more harmful to society. If there was a guaranteed safe supply chain for recreational drugs that are currently illegal, things would be a lot safer too.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
dheera 6y ago
At the same time I would have serious concerns about public safety for certain drugs. While I agree jail isn't the answer, I think house arrest or curfews would be a good middle ground for drug abusers to maintain public safety while they engage in rehabilitation programs at the same time.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  There have been attempts to categorize and measure the social harms caused by heavy users of various drugs, and the actual measurable impacts don’t really line up with what people worry about. The study I saw put alcohol at the top of the list, due to the social cost of drunken fights, spousal abuse, and DUIs. I’m sure there are some public safety issues that we should deal with for the various “hard” drugs decriminalized here, but I also find it fascinating how much social desirability affects which drugs we decide are a problem that require special treatment, since I’ve never seen anyone recommend house arrest or curfews for alcoholics.
  - dheera 6y ago
    > alcohol at the top of the list So criminalize alcohol abuse as well. Not jail-criminalize it, that's too expensive for taxpayers. But I sure would love if the streets are clear of drunk, violent people fighting. Impose curfews and cameras in their homes.
    - eloff 6y ago
      I agree something could be done about alcohol abuse. But your last sentence is madness. Unless you mean it sarcastically, which is the only way I can understand it.
      - dheera 6y ago
        I don't understand why it is madness. Care to explain? I see violent people on the street. They are a danger to me. I want safe streets. House arrest costs taxpayers very little. If there was an angry bear on the streets threatening people it would probably be relocated, tagged, and confined to the forests as well. Not much different.
umvi 6y ago
> Good. Putting people with addiction issues in jail was the wrong approach. A big problem is that addictions are expensive and people are willing to commit crimes to feed addictions when they run out of money. Anecdata of 1, but one of my friends in high school got addicted to heroin, and he ended up in jail not because of possession of heroin, but because he started stealing so he could come up with the money to buy more... so in that sense decriminalization won't necessarily help, but I agree that possession of drugs for personal use should not necessarily result in jail time.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Addiction is only expensive because drugs are criminalized. The drugs themselves would be cheap if legalized.
  - panzagl 6y ago
    They'll be cheap if sale and distribution is legalized- this just amps up the demand side of the curve.
    - tclancy 6y ago
      That assumes an economic elasticity that I don't think drugs have.
  - umvi 6y ago
    legalization and decriminalization are slightly different. Drugs will only be cheap if: - they are legal to commercially manufacture and distribute (not merely decriminalized) - they aren't taxed excessively Cigarettes, for example, are cheap to manufacture, but still expensive due to high taxes in a lot of places (up to $10+ per pack).
    - jjk166 6y ago
      Yeah, but who's giving handys under the bridge for a carton of cigarettes? If you are already committing crimes every day buying and possessing something, then committing crimes to feed the habit isn't a big jump. Conversely, if you haven't done anything illegal yet, most people will pay a hefty premium to avoid having to do anything illegal.
giantg2 6y ago
I agree that was not the right approach. I'm not sure this is the right approach either. Keeping it criminalized, but as a summary offense with the punishment being an educational presentation/course on rehab options might provide some better outcomes. There are some tangentially related things to consider here too, like drug convictions preventing addicts from buying weapons.
- NeutronStar 6y ago
  Can you explain what's wrong with Portugal's approach?
- giantg2 6y ago
  Why is this downvoted?
- pstuart 6y ago
  It's a health issue, not a criminal issue. Drug laws cause more crime -- by design.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    How would a summary offense with a punishment of education on rehab options create more crime? How is it necessarily a health issue? Not all drug users are addicts. Edit: And perhaps the most obvious support for it being a criminal issue is that the first time someone does the drug it would only be a criminal issue and could not be a health issue since they had no prior exposure to become addicted.
    - nemothekid 6y ago
      >How is it necessarily a health issue? Not all drug users are addicts. 1. If you are a drug user, not even necessarily an addict (in which your need to consume the drug gets in the way of other life functions), then society is already accepting. Cocaine use, for example, is far less stigmatized in the US and UK. 2. If you step back from your biases and view addiction as a "sickness", then throwing addicts in prison makes as much sense as throwing someone in prison for a broken leg. Sure sometimes it might work, but it's clearly not the most optimal solution. Other countries that have taken this approach have far fewer recidivism rates - which is the metric that should be judged. Finally to answer your point "summary offense with a punishment of education on rehab options create more crime" is not at all what happens in the US today. Drug use & possession carries prision term, in which cutting cold turkey (or, likely more commonly sneaking drugs into prison) is the only option. After which, you are likely to lose your job and turn to more crime to make a living once released from prison. A more realistic counter to your point however is that the current American criminal justice system has little flexibility for nuance, and without major police reform, leaving this issue to police simply does not produce the intended results.
trentnix 6y ago
Incarceration is what triggered a family member to finally have success fighting their addiction. Loss of job and family wasn't rock bottom for them. Incarceration was. And they've since rebuilt their life and their family. Incarceration was the trigger that made that possible. I'm sympathetic to your point and to all who are subject to any drug or alcohol addiction. But I feel compelled to comment that incarceration is not always the inhumane dead-end that it's painted as. It's one of many tools that can be used to rehabilitate those in need.
- MrRiddle 6y ago
  How do you rehabilitate a person if they’re unable to find a reasonable job afterwards?
- rm_-rf_slash 6y ago
  If incarceration was a common rock bottom that addicts could build up from, I might agree with you, but knowing what we know about recidivism among addicts, it is likelier to be an aggregate negative even if a few people find a way to recover during their sentence.
- drewcoo 6y ago
  When we can't deal with issues openly, especially mental health issues, we often see the "tough" route promoted. That would be "rock bottom" in your anecdote. Consider how PTSD used to be treated back when it was "shell shock" and considered a personal moral failure. People were told there was nothing wrong. Many of those people "recovered," too. But was that the right way to treat people facing real problems?
- aaomidi 6y ago
  Did this person have a home to get back to? People to support them financially once he was out? The way incarceration impacts people is extremely different.
- carapace 6y ago
  Thousands of people have had their lives ruined by being incarcerated for possession of cannabis. Hundreds of thousands maybe. Most of them weren't addicts, or committing other crimes, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time with a bag of weed in their pockets or whatever. It's good that your family member finally had success fighting their addiction, but at what price?
frankfrankfrank 6y ago
I agree with the general sentiment of that, however the nuanced reality is far more complex than that. For many people the only treatment that actually worked is precisely prison. The reality of the rehabilitation industry across the board is not exactly a shining example of success, while prison does seem to show significant advantages. The question we have to ask ourselves these is essentially this one; what is better, someone that goes to prison for 5 years and gets treatment and comes out with a higher likelihood of recovery, or someone that spends 5 years in and out of treatment and living in drug addiction misery of exploitation and abuse and with a notably lower likelihood of permanent recovery? Of the two examples the former is obviously better, even though a third, hybrid option that no one talks about is likely the best; a kind of reform complex/community akin to boot camp of the past broken people are broken down and rebuilt into new, functioning adults. For anyone who knows anything about the military, especially of the past, will know that in treatment of people, the bootcamp model is the very best option. It builds character, it shatters bad habits and compulsions, it builds support structures and deep bonds, it creates a pathway to hope, success, and achievement, it uses sticks and carrots to set people on a graduated path. It's literally everything that drug addicts need if one actually cares about them getting the devil off their back, and is not just interested in trying to feel good about themselves.
tmaly 6y ago
On the flip side, I can see some potential bad outcomes for young children being exposed to this.
- sesteel 6y ago
  While you chose not to share what poor outcomes you are considering; your comment compels me to state the obvious: nearly all choices have trade offs.
  - tmaly 6y ago
    I thought it was obvious. Young kids are easily influenced. If you create an environment where there are no restrictions on drug usage, kids get exposure to it.
simonh 6y ago
Agreed. I do not agree with decriminalising the trade in drugs, but criminalising their possession for personal use is a really important practical step in fighting the trade in hard drugs and reducing addiction rates for many reasons. It decouples the interests of drug traffickers from those of users making users more likely to cooperate with law enforcement, frees up social workers and medical professionals from the risk of criminal liability for associating with drug users in possession of or using drugs. It also makes it easier to address incidental associated health issue such as infections from dirty needles. Treating it as a health issue destigmatises it making it easier for users to talk about it and seek help. This is not theoretical, this is from actual findings from countries like Portugal the Netherlands and Norway where trading in hard drugs is still illegal but possession and use are treated as public health issues. This is a policy that works.
- dotandgtfo 6y ago
  Fully agree with you, I just want to point out that Norway has a very strict stance against all drugs, so much so that you can lose your drivers license for having cannabis metabolites in your blood due too a lack of "soberness". It's mental.
  - simonh 6y ago
    I think it's really important to dissociate supporting decriminalisation of possession and use from being "pro drugs". They are very much not the same thing.
- wayneftw 6y ago
  > I do not agree with decriminalising the trade in drugs. Why not? Do you support criminal cartels making lots of money off of them or do you think that the War on Drugs will actually get rid of that criminal element which profits from them at some point? I don't see a problem with anyone putting anything they want into their own body. Arrest them when they commit an actual victim-ful crime like stealing but not before that. To that end, I say sell them with regulation just like Alcohol. Keeping sales illegal means questionable sources, questionable quality and enormous profits for criminal gangs.

0xcafecafe 6y ago

So possession is decriminalized but what about sale and distribution? Also is this in direct conflict with federal law prohibiting the same?

SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
Nothing is changed for federal law. if you were in Oregon and some federal agent catches you with drugs, you will be facing charges.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
onetimemanytime 6y ago
>>but what about sale and distribution? No El Chapo Shacks: "the state’s residents will no longer face arrests or prison sentences for carrying small amounts of drugs like cocaine, heroin, oxycontin and methamphetamine. "
- dahdum 6y ago
  This does mean dealers can hold small amounts for sale at lower risk than before. Portland is already pretty accepting of open air drug markets though, so in reality not much may change.
  - onetimemanytime 6y ago
    True, but cops know them and will wait till they have more than the limit. Or the narcs can be helpful and add a few grams....who's watching? :)
  - hajile 6y ago
    It means delivery boys won't be at risk, but someone along the line has to have a large supply or shipping costs become untenable. Since almost all the risk goes away, those delivery boys pay will drop drastically too. I wonder what effect that will have? I suspect like all organized crimee that they'll move on to other rackets.

jliptzin 6y ago

Turns out liberal states, not conservatives ones, are the ones in favor of personal freedoms and less intrusive government.

xfitm3 6y ago
Except when it comes to speech
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  And firearms.
  - whoknew1122 6y ago
    Unless it's Black people carrying firearms. Then conservatives love gun control: https://theweek.com/articles/582926/how-ronald-reagan-learned-love-gun-control https://theweek.com/articles/582926/how-ronald-reagan-learne... Reagan started modern gun control legislation, because Black Panthers were exercising their rights to open carry.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      This is a mischaracterization of an entire group of people based on the actions of a few. Even the NRA has pushed for protections that would benefit groups who may be discriminated against, such as promoting shall-issue or constitutional carry.
      - icandoit 6y ago
        I didn't see anything like that on their Wikipedia page. Perhaps you could share it here. I remember several years ago there were self-defense classes hosted by gay men, for other gay people in my city. Pre gay-marriage and post Matthew Shepard, obviously. My recollection was that it was entirely the gay community and no NRA outreach. It would dramatically improve my opinion of the NRA to learn that they sponsored or materially supported such an effort.

excalibur 6y ago

Why link to a tweet of the article rather than the article itself?

karlzt 6y ago
Remember to flag it.

question000 6y ago

I wonder what kind of commercial avenues this opens up, not obviously the illegal sale of drugs, but products aimed directly and openly at heavy users. Not to mention the marketing potential, "hey if you like cocaine, you're going to love X,Y,Z impulse buy!", "Hey here's Arby's with the Stoner Burger, for those with the munchies." Etc

adolph 6y ago
The differences in state and federal law will probably mute many second order commercial effects since any success will draw the attention of the feds either in the form of DEA customer scrutiny or commercial banking problems. Maybe it could lead to some additional interest in cryptocurrency but the last mile of exchange between fiat and crypto has a dependency on the feds.
- question000 6y ago
  There's already a strong market for drug paraphernalia, which technically legal because it can be used for tobacco, I think this might be a boon for eye drops for example because I noticed stoners tend to use them a lot and would likely prioritize buying a brand marketed directly to them. Not stuff which could really catch the ire of authorities. Though that's a good point about crypto.
  - TwoBit 6y ago
    In California glass shops I've seen crack pipes in addition to the cannabis water pipes.
  - adolph 6y ago
    While there is a market servicing paraphernalia demand I'd not classify it as a strong market in that many competitors such as large retailers, distributors and manufacturers cannot enter it despite persistent demand. That is great for localism/small business and it acts as a tax on paraphernalia that limits demand.
shrimpx 6y ago

beamatronic 6y ago

Hey Ferb, I know what we’re gonna do today!

adolph 6y ago

The passage of Oregon’s Measure 110 means the state’s residents will no longer face arrests or prison sentences for carrying small amounts of drugs like cocaine, heroin, oxycontin and methamphetamine. The measure, which passed by almost 60 percent, also lays out groundwork for people with addictions to receive treatment as opposed to jail time. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/04/election-drugs-oregon-new-jersey/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/11/04/election-dr...

giantg2 6y ago
Thanks! This is much more informative than a Twitter link.
- adolph 6y ago
  Here is more real information: https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_110,_Drug_Decriminalization_and_Addiction_Treatment_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_110,_Drug_Decriminali...

karlzt 6y ago

Other discussions:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24986517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24986517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24987903 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24987903

hourislate 6y ago

Although I really like the idea that $100k of my tax dollars are not going to be spent housing and prosecuting someone for having $20 of crack or meth or whatever. My worry is this will attract an influx of people with addiction problems and a list of unintended consequences that could come with legalizing all drugs. I remember reading/hearing(NPR maybe), that when Florida took a harder stance against Doctors prescribing Oxycontin making it more difficult for people to acquire and abuse, there was an exodus of people to states that had more relaxed laws. These folks basically moved to a different state where they could support their addiction. People don't become addicts because it's fun, something typically leads them down that road and perhaps the best strategy is to help them with their mental health issues and heavily prosecute the enablers/dealers/suppliers whether it's some guy down the street or a country like China.

TwoBit 6y ago
Well this may be a good test of your theory. I'd rather try a theory than speculate forever.
megaman821 6y ago
I don't think this changes much for addicts directly. Just because possession is legal doesn't mean public intoxication or driving under the influence laws are void. The law will still have a way to deal with the worst offenders, without ruining the life of some college-age party-goer. I agree there are great secondary effects of having more drugs available, and hope Oregon invests the necessary resources to curb illegal distribution of drugs.
ngold 6y ago
Suck it up and stop being a coward. If we don't break the mold no one else will. We already get everyones homeless. Nothing will change except us saving money.
SippinLean 6y ago
> when Florida took a harder stance against Doctors prescribing Oxycontin making it more difficult for people to acquire and abuse, there was an exodus of people to states that had more relaxed laws Is there a source for this? Florida was a MAJOR supplier of Oxycontin for other states near and far until the crackdown in 2011. Prescription monitoring reduced pill smuggling to other states. Addicts didn't move to other states, they moved to another drug--heroin. Heroin is covered by the new Oregon legislation. https://heroin.palmbeachpost.com/florida-cuts-off-oxycodone-death-devastation-follow/ https://heroin.palmbeachpost.com/florida-cuts-off-oxycodone-...

PIKAL 6y ago

Does this mean all drugs or just all the common street drugs? What about precursors and obscure phenethylamines?

Lambdanaut 6y ago
Hello PIKAL. Great name. Yes, it means all drugs. It specifically decriminalizes all drugs whether they're class I, II, III, or IV. It only doesn't decriminalize more-than-personal amounts of specifically named popular "street drugs" as the article refers to them.
leetcrew 6y ago
AFAIK, the truly "obscure" phenethylamines (ie, not 2C-I, 2C-E, 2C-B) were never illegal to begin with in the US.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  There is the analogues act but it is unclear to me whether or how often that gets enforced.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    you would have to have in-depth chemistry and legal knowledge to know exactly what is illegal under the US analogues act. but if you can't show that a substance is closely related to something already under schedule I or II, it is legal (or at least not illegal) by default. now that the popular 2C-x's have been explicitly added to schedule I, my guess is that the whole family is on thin ice, if not unambiguously illegal.

ryanmarsh 6y ago

Sedate yourself citizen.

austincheney 6y ago

I see this as having positive results minimizing drug trafficking and reducing petty crime but I don’t this having any impact on addiction. I have family with severe addiction problems and criminality is completely orthogonal to the behavior. You can make the argument that it’s cruel to imprison somebody for addiction problems but that doesn’t address the addiction.

elil17 6y ago
The measure also included additional funding for addiction treatment.
- onecommentman 6y ago
  If money alone could fix the problem in the US, it would have disappeared a long time ago...
  - elil17 6y ago
    I think that it’s a combination of well placed money and good policy. If drug use gives someone a felony conviction, it doesn’t matter how many times you send them to rehab, they’re not going to be able to hold down a job because almost no one hires people with records. Without the element of criminalization, tools like rehab provide a way more effective path to being a functional member of society. Obviously it’s not a silver bullet, but it does make sense as a strategy.

Lambdanaut 6y ago

As someone who has witnessed and taken part in great healing from the use of plant healers, I'm glad to see that we're moving away from putting people in cages for seeking them.

11thEarlOfMar 6y ago

It would seem that decriminalizing will attract more addicted users to the state. If that happens, does Oregon have plans for expanding social services to assist addicts and treatment resources to help them back into society? Portugal can provide some insight: https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/ https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalizatio...

elil17 6y ago
Yes they do have a plan, the measure included additional budgeting for social services.
- j_walter 6y ago
  They have a plan, but for anyone that knows Oregon politics it's doomed to have high overhead costs and government inefficiencies built in. I mean they couldn't adapt to the extra $600/wk federal unemployment or not having a waiting period because their systems were still programmed in COBOL...despite getting $80M set aside for upgrading the system almost a decade ago there has been no progress. Also see: Cover Oregon debacle
ogre_codes 6y ago
> It would seem that decriminalizing will attract more addicted users to the state. I don't think this will be the case. But even if you assume it may, you can't let that possibility be a bugbear and that scares you away from doing what is right.
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  You put up a strawman. The OP wasn't saying they were against the ruling, but asking if the state is ready for the possible effects of it.
HaloZero 6y ago
I'm curious if there was any evidence of people moving to Portugal after they decriminalized things? Or any evidence of people moving to avoid the law when it comes to drugs like this. It probably won't be 1-1 b/c of language barriers. I don't have as much experience with addicted users but my understanding is that they tend to stay closer to their remaining social networks. Moving to a new state just to avoid criminalization seems like a lot.

throwawaysea 6y ago

This is just going to result in increased blight and crime in Portland as it attracts larger and larger numbers of drug addicted homeless and jobless people. Not that Portland or Oregon actually charges criminals anyways, but the deterrence of criminality does matter. I feel bad for the Portland residents who didn’t vote for this.

onecommentman 6y ago
One of the wonders of the Federation of States in the US is a ready source of beta testers for new governance ideas. A majority of voters in Oregon in this election have voted to decriminalize all drugs. The rest of the States get to see if that was a good idea and decide if they should consider it. There are enough legal backstops at the Federal level to snap this back to criminalization, well, instantly. Citizens in those other States who see the Oregon model as a better deal for them have the opportunity to move there. And probably will. Drugs “are a hell of a drug” and moving will sound a lot easier to many heavy users than doing the hard work of breaking an addiction. That migration legacy won’t change so quickly. I also feel for those who are being put in the middle of this social experiment against their individual will, especially the kids. But kids survived the communes of the 60s and, ironically, probably some of these now-adults are the sort who will be motivated by this. If the 60s-80s were the California period, and 90s-10s the PNW period (starting with grunge), this might be a big, long nail that seals the PNW period in its coffin. PS: If I were a cynical sort, I would wonder if CA and WA were working behind the scenes to make this happen. What an elegant way to offload a social burden and deflect attention onto someone else. “You think parts of SF are bad, well check out today’s Portland. SF doesn’t look so bad now, eh?”
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
They could probably move across the river if they really hated it. I doubt many will, though. Portland is a pretty nice city.
gdubs 6y ago
Well, we’ll see. But it’s not like our current way of dealing with drugs is working in this country, no matter how you look at it. But this argument feels like a lot of pearl-clutching without basis in science. Point to the research, don’t just scare people that drug addicts are going to descend in droves upon neighborhoods and ruin them with crime. Separate point: This new law has generated a lot of memes from people who didn’t bother to read past the headline. But to me, the forgotten element here is that in the United States, drug laws are wielded disproportionately against people of color, who end up in jail at much higher rates for similar offenses as white people. [1] Want to talk about crime? Our current way of doing things creates criminals. It puts people in jail, who can’t afford to get out, who then struggle to repair their lives and get hired in decent jobs. It’s a downward cycle of despair and — I would argue — one of the clearest examples of racial disparity we have. 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5614457/

nikolay 6y ago

It's a nice excuse for dealers to say they are just addicts and this is their own stash.

lukifer 6y ago
It's always been the case that "intent to distribute" is not decided by quantity alone. Merely the presence of something like multiple plastic bags can tip the scales into "intent", even if the quantity of the drug is below the decriminalization threshold. And because this isn't full legalization, possession of any amount can still be sufficient grounds to get a warrant for further investigation.
- nikolay 6y ago
  How would they prove it? Dealers have always been having small amounts in them and going to their stash between sales. They can always claim they bought 2-3 doses so that they don't have to look for dealers a few times a day/week.

cletus 6y ago

I'm honestly torn on this. The hammer of justice approach of the 20th century was _clearly_ a huge mistake that disproportionately punished minorities. The fact that people could 10+ year sentences for possession of cannabis (with no charge of intent to distribute) through a combination of mandatory minimum sentences and so-called three strikes laws was and is a massive travesty of justice. I 100% support the legalization of recreational cannabis use. I also support not criminalizing addiction. That all being said, if you look at cities like Seattle or San Francisco (eg the Tenderloin) you see the negative externalities that a lack of enforcement brings. People open shooting heroin in the streets doesn't seem like a good outcome. For anyone. I honestly don't know where the happy middle ground is here.

Twixes 6y ago
These people won't get much better if they go to prison though. Well, yeah, they'll have difficulty shooting heroin, but they definitely won't get better. They need healthcare and at the very least a safe roof over their heads.
mythrwy 6y ago
Things go too far one way, then they go too far the other way, finally balance becomes closer.

humanistbot 6y ago

Decriminalized != legal. Personal possession is still illegal, but the maximum penalty is a $100 fine, making it like a parking ticket. You now can't be arrested or jailed for personal possession, like you currently can't be arrested or jailed for a parking violation. Edit: And these possession tickets won't count as having a criminal record. > A "yes" vote supports making personal non-commercial possession of a controlled substance no more than a Class E violation (max fine of $100 fine) and establishing a drug addiction treatment and recovery program funded in part by the state's marijuana tax revenue and state prison savings. See: https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_110,_Drug_Decriminalization_and_Addiction_Treatment_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_110,_Drug_Decriminali...

ElijahLynn 6y ago

I am looking for how the decriminalization part of this bill is different than Oregon HB 2355, https://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2017/HB2355/ https://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2017/HB2355/, that was signed into law on August 15, 2017. It seems to have the same language and amounts in the bill as Measure 110. p.s. I live in Oregon and voted "yes" on measure 110 to decriminalize all drugs here!

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mleonhard 6y ago

This is a good first step in reducing suffering for the people of northern Mexico, Colombia, Afghanistan, and other places with brutal cartels supported by American drug users.