4 ms·

The article says that opioid overdoses exploded under this legislation, but the impression I've gotten is that that isn't the real driver of this change to the

The article says that opioid overdoses exploded under this legislation, but the impression I've gotten is that that isn't the real driver of this change to the law. The major complaints I've heard are around public drug use. Basically, we don't want to see it, we don't want tourists to see it. Without judgment on that issue, I wonder why they made possession a misdemeanor, rather than public use and distribution. That seems like a less controversial step. I thought the theory behind the original legislation was that we're admitting that criminalizing drugs doesn't stop people from doing them, but it does put a lot of non-violent criminals in jail or prison, ties up the legal system, and costs tax payers a lot of money. I like decriminalization as an approach, and I wish we would do a better job of addressing addiction at the root rather than relying on the threat of punishment. Despite what I hope is only a short-term spike in deaths, I am still more optimistic about decriminalization combined with social and mental health programs over criminalization, at least in the long term. I like that they attached funds for treatment and court programs—$21 million doesn't seem like enough to me, but certainly better than nothing.

chimeracoder 3y ago
> The article says that opioid overdoses exploded under this legislation It actually says the opposite: > Oregon has seen a 1,500% rise in overdose deaths since the pandemic started, the steepest increase in the country, according to recent federal data. In 2022, almost 1,000 people in the state died from opiate overdoses. But research has so far showed no correlation between the rise in overdoses and decriminalization. Overdoses have risen everywhere since the pandemic, and Oregon's rise (like the rest of the country's) predates Measure 110. There's no evidence of any causation between the two.
brnaftr361 3y ago
I think one of the elements at play here is the appeal of not facing criminal charges for use. Because Oregon opted for early adoption, Oregon became a hotspot. It makes some sense that this would create a disproportionate response, and draw in both high-functioning and low-functioning users as well as their counterparties e.g. dealers. Any read taken from Oregon can't really be representative of what a uniform policy would look like if deployed nationally. https://psmag.com/social-justice/people-addiction-simply-grow-widely-denied-91605 https://psmag.com/social-justice/people-addiction-simply-gro... I think that's an interesting take and it's a pattern that I, too, experienced as a young adult. Tossing users into categories of addiction is pretty trivial because, in essence, the current definitions preclude non-addictive use because use itself is illegal and addiction indicates - legally - that actions in violation of the law are characteristic of addiction. All of this really requires an intimate understanding of the individual which is something I don't expect a system-wide approach is ever going to be meaningfully successful at. And additionally I think it serves the point to realize that everybody has a unique relationship with substances, the one-size-fits-all, which is more or less what we have, is only going to exacerbate the severity and elongate the course of suffering inflicted on individuals who would otherwise naturally and of their own volition course-correct because they're put through the same meat grinder as the smaller handful of extreme cases. It's masterful projection, but I bargained drug use for a steep enhancement in my quality of life and a potential future that was less bleak and otherwise easier than a gambling on success and failure in a more challenging and less hospitable existence which would allow me to continue my substance use pattern. In other words I cleaned up for a decent job. There's a lot of places where that simply isn't an accessible option - creating those opportunities is a win-win though. I think that may be the best modality.

chimeracoder 3y ago

> The article says that opioid overdoses exploded under this legislation It actually says the opposite: > Oregon has seen a 1,500% rise in overdose deaths since the pandemic started, the steepest increase in the country, according to recent federal data. In 2022, almost 1,000 people in the state died from opiate overdoses. But research has so far showed no correlation between the rise in overdoses and decriminalization. Overdoses have risen everywhere since the pandemic, and Oregon's rise (like the rest of the country's) predates Measure 110. There's no evidence of any causation between the two.

brnaftr361 3y ago

I think one of the elements at play here is the appeal of not facing criminal charges for use. Because Oregon opted for early adoption, Oregon became a hotspot. It makes some sense that this would create a disproportionate response, and draw in both high-functioning and low-functioning users as well as their counterparties e.g. dealers. Any read taken from Oregon can't really be representative of what a uniform policy would look like if deployed nationally. https://psmag.com/social-justice/people-addiction-simply-grow-widely-denied-91605 https://psmag.com/social-justice/people-addiction-simply-gro... I think that's an interesting take and it's a pattern that I, too, experienced as a young adult. Tossing users into categories of addiction is pretty trivial because, in essence, the current definitions preclude non-addictive use because use itself is illegal and addiction indicates - legally - that actions in violation of the law are characteristic of addiction. All of this really requires an intimate understanding of the individual which is something I don't expect a system-wide approach is ever going to be meaningfully successful at. And additionally I think it serves the point to realize that everybody has a unique relationship with substances, the one-size-fits-all, which is more or less what we have, is only going to exacerbate the severity and elongate the course of suffering inflicted on individuals who would otherwise naturally and of their own volition course-correct because they're put through the same meat grinder as the smaller handful of extreme cases. It's masterful projection, but I bargained drug use for a steep enhancement in my quality of life and a potential future that was less bleak and otherwise easier than a gambling on success and failure in a more challenging and less hospitable existence which would allow me to continue my substance use pattern. In other words I cleaned up for a decent job. There's a lot of places where that simply isn't an accessible option - creating those opportunities is a win-win though. I think that may be the best modality.