3 ms·

I don't know the specifics in Oregon, but in many places (especially bigger cities) that stopped prosecuting drugs and prostitution, "throwing everyone in jail"

I don't know the specifics in Oregon, but in many places (especially bigger cities) that stopped prosecuting drugs and prostitution, "throwing everyone in jail" was not the previous scenario. People were arrested then put into diversionary programs that were enforced by the courts. It worked much better than just letting people stay on the streets as the process acted as a wake up call for many (of course, not all).

EricDeb 3y ago
Yea not jail but supervised programs makes sense.
j_walter 3y ago
Oregon basically made it a $100 fine or you could get treatment...<5% of the people arrested chose treatment. Portugal had more rules requiring treatment which is what made it effective...Oregon did not choose that route. https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2023/04/22/economist-magazine-a-longtime-proponent-of-drug-decriminalization-says-measure-110-is-struggling/ https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2023/04/22/economist-magazi...
- chimeracoder 3y ago
  > Portugal had more rules requiring treatment which is what made it effective...Oregon did not choose that route. As I explained in a sibling comment, requiring treatment is not the difference. Very few people who use drugs in Portugal are subject to mandatory drug treatment. The key difference is that Portugal has a radically different housing policy than Oregon. As of 2019, housing is a formal legal right (and even before 2019, it was much closer to a de facto right than it was to Oregon's current model, which is "if you can't pay for a roof, pitch your tent over there, and hope we don't arrest you for vagrancy"). Most people who use drugs do not meet clinical criteria for addiction, so drug treatment programs are irrelevant and a waste of money for them. For those who do, drug treatment programs are still a waste of money unless they have stable housing, because it is essentially impossible to achieve and maintain sobriety without stable housing.
chimeracoder 3y ago
> I don't know the specifics in Oregon, but in many places (especially bigger cities) that stopped prosecuting drugs and prostitution, "throwing everyone in jail" was not the previous scenario. People were arrested then put into diversionary programs that were enforced by the courts. The big difference between Oregon and the other cities/countries that tried this approach successfully is not diversionary programs - it's housing. In Oregon, housing is not guaranteed, which means any money spent on mandatory treatment programs for people without stable housing is essentially wasted. Diversionary programs and rehabilitation are a waste of time and money if the recipient does not have guaranteed access to stable housing. It's virtually impossible to achieve and maintain sobriety in those circumstances.

EricDeb 3y ago

Yea not jail but supervised programs makes sense.

j_walter 3y ago

Oregon basically made it a $100 fine or you could get treatment...<5% of the people arrested chose treatment. Portugal had more rules requiring treatment which is what made it effective...Oregon did not choose that route. https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2023/04/22/economist-magazine-a-longtime-proponent-of-drug-decriminalization-says-measure-110-is-struggling/ https://www.wweek.com/news/state/2023/04/22/economist-magazi...

chimeracoder 3y ago
> Portugal had more rules requiring treatment which is what made it effective...Oregon did not choose that route. As I explained in a sibling comment, requiring treatment is not the difference. Very few people who use drugs in Portugal are subject to mandatory drug treatment. The key difference is that Portugal has a radically different housing policy than Oregon. As of 2019, housing is a formal legal right (and even before 2019, it was much closer to a de facto right than it was to Oregon's current model, which is "if you can't pay for a roof, pitch your tent over there, and hope we don't arrest you for vagrancy"). Most people who use drugs do not meet clinical criteria for addiction, so drug treatment programs are irrelevant and a waste of money for them. For those who do, drug treatment programs are still a waste of money unless they have stable housing, because it is essentially impossible to achieve and maintain sobriety without stable housing.

chimeracoder 3y ago

> I don't know the specifics in Oregon, but in many places (especially bigger cities) that stopped prosecuting drugs and prostitution, "throwing everyone in jail" was not the previous scenario. People were arrested then put into diversionary programs that were enforced by the courts. The big difference between Oregon and the other cities/countries that tried this approach successfully is not diversionary programs - it's housing. In Oregon, housing is not guaranteed, which means any money spent on mandatory treatment programs for people without stable housing is essentially wasted. Diversionary programs and rehabilitation are a waste of time and money if the recipient does not have guaranteed access to stable housing. It's virtually impossible to achieve and maintain sobriety in those circumstances.