3 ms·
Evidence from Portland, which decriminalized all drugs via Measure 101, the answer is, "Whatever crimes are necessary to enable people to afford their drug of c
by swearwolf 4y ago
Evidence from Portland, which decriminalized all drugs via Measure 101, the answer is, "Whatever crimes are necessary to enable people to afford their drug of choice."
Not all drugs are equal. You can't drink your way into effectively schizophrenia, but you can get there in no time with the currently available super-potent variety of meth. Some drugs completely wreck your ability to live in a way compatible with holding down a job, which means that you'll pretty quickly have to turn to crime if you want to keep doing them.
- m0llusk 4y agoIs there any evidence that Measure 101 was a pivot? My limited understanding is that drugs and craziness were pervasive and on the rise in Portland well before that. The idea that criminalization controls drug use isn't clearly supported by historical evidence at this point.
- rybosworld 4y agoI think the problem is decriminalization is just one half of the solution. It doesn't make the supply of drugs more available, it just removes a penalty for the people who are caught with possession. What's worked very well in other nations is to literally supply people with as many drugs as they'd like. The government handles the manufacture and distribution. All of it for free. In return: 1. The government knows who and how many drug users there are 2. Rehabilitation services can be provided. They may even be a requirement for someone to obtain the drugs. 3. Addicts can begin to lead a much more stable life due to a consistent supply. This has positive impacts on the society for many obvious reasons (e.g. little incentive for crime) 4. It is much easier for someone to ween off a drug if quality/supply is consistent.