4 ms·

Why is Oregon about to re-criminalize psychedelics in response to opioid crisis?

37 points by ojarow 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
armchairhacker 3y ago
Because people are bad at nuance. The entire reason the decriminalization failed was because it had no nuance. It copied something that worked in a much different culture, and didn’t copy the other supports that caused it to work. Nothing to address the other side, the benefits of jailing addicts (i.e. preventing them from committing other crimes).
- karmakaze 3y ago
  OT: I get tired of hearing 'nuance' over-applied. What you're describing is cargo-culting. They missed at least half the picture, that's not a nuance.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- rokkitmensch 3y ago
  Binary crisis!
- Dig1t 3y ago
  Which culture did it copy? Are you talking about Portugal? Last I read they had a similarly disastrous outcome with the policy, though it took a longer to break down.
  - mirashii 3y ago
    On Oregon, it's quite possible that the policy is less a disaster than the implementation and lack of cooperation in enacting the policies. https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2021/10/police-issue-few-tickets-under-new-drug-decriminalization-law-most-people-ignore-court-hotline.html https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2021/10/police-issue-few... On Portugul, it's worth asking why it's failing after many years of being such a success that the model was copied around the world. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-dru... > After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs. The country is now moving to create a new institute aimed at reinvigorating its drug prevention programs. > Twenty years ago, “we were quite successful in dealing with the big problem, the epidemic of heroin use and all the related effects,” Goulão said in an interview with The Washington Post. “But we have had a kind of disinvestment, a freezing in our response … and we lost some efficacy.”
standardUser 3y ago
Decriminalization is a half-measure that's doomed to fail. The drugs are still the same impure crap that they were before decriminalization, leading to the same overdoses and deaths. And the people selling the drugs are the same violent criminal groups that were selling them before decriminalization, except now they are de facto endorsed by the government (where else are people suppose to buy the drugs they are now allowed to legally posses?). The only difference is that drug use becomes more public, to the benefit of absolutely nobody.
- presentation 3y ago
  I’m inclined to think that even if every drug on the street were pure, the problem would remain.
  - standardUser 3y ago
    Overdose deaths would decline dramatically. I think those saved lives are enough justification to give it a try, particularly given the ongoing failure of every other approach.
pton_xd 3y ago
A very tricky situation. On the one hand, I'm very pro-liberty and firmly believe every human has a right to decide what substances to engage with. On the other hand, it may be that the changes in human behavior elicited from consuming some drugs are just fundamentally incompatible with our collective vision of a healthy society. How can this be reconciled? At the very least, anti-social / anti-societal behavior, eg crime, must be dealt with even or especially if the root cause is drug use. But then you get in the argument, well they're sick and addicted, is it really their fault, do they deserve to be punished for the resultant crime? They made the first decision to act so ultimately they have to be held responsible for the downstream consequences, I guess. And then, is being homeless a crime? I don't think so. But how about littering, or using public spaces as urinals? We've decided that, for our vision of society, littering is against the law, and so is public urination / defecation. So why not enforce that, maybe especially if you're addicted to drugs?
- Peregrine1 3y ago
  There are simple, expensive answers: highly diligent social workers focusing on homelessness outreach + massive affordable housing construction that crunches housing prices. Regulate the substances but have them available to addicts, and make sure fentanyl is out of the supply chain, and make selling drugs outside the regulated system a felony. We’re just not willing to pay the bills.
  - DataDive 3y ago
    The people that are proposing the bills are not the same that pay the bills. The same people that talk talk will pull a NIMBY. Same with politicians, propose something bold and daring, just not in their lobbyst backyard.
  - presentation 3y ago
    Not saying you’re wrong in the context of your locale, but there are many places around the world that are not plagued with these problems and have dealt with them in very different ways.
- standardUser 3y ago

37 points by ojarow 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Because people are bad at nuance. The entire reason the decriminalization failed was because it had no nuance. It copied something that worked in a much different culture, and didn’t copy the other supports that caused it to work. Nothing to address the other side, the benefits of jailing addicts (i.e. preventing them from committing other crimes).

karmakaze 3y ago
OT: I get tired of hearing 'nuance' over-applied. What you're describing is cargo-culting. They missed at least half the picture, that's not a nuance.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rokkitmensch 3y ago
Binary crisis!
Dig1t 3y ago
Which culture did it copy? Are you talking about Portugal? Last I read they had a similarly disastrous outcome with the policy, though it took a longer to break down.
- mirashii 3y ago
  On Oregon, it's quite possible that the policy is less a disaster than the implementation and lack of cooperation in enacting the policies. https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2021/10/police-issue-few-tickets-under-new-drug-decriminalization-law-most-people-ignore-court-hotline.html https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2021/10/police-issue-few... On Portugul, it's worth asking why it's failing after many years of being such a success that the model was copied around the world. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-drugs-decriminalization-heroin-crack/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/07/07/portugal-dru... > After years of economic crisis, Portugal decentralized its drug oversight operation in 2012. A funding drop from 76 million euros ($82.7 million) to 16 million euros ($17.4 million) forced Portugal’s main institution to outsource work previously done by the state to nonprofit groups, including the street teams that engage with people who use drugs. The country is now moving to create a new institute aimed at reinvigorating its drug prevention programs. > Twenty years ago, “we were quite successful in dealing with the big problem, the epidemic of heroin use and all the related effects,” Goulão said in an interview with The Washington Post. “But we have had a kind of disinvestment, a freezing in our response … and we lost some efficacy.”

standardUser 3y ago

Decriminalization is a half-measure that's doomed to fail. The drugs are still the same impure crap that they were before decriminalization, leading to the same overdoses and deaths. And the people selling the drugs are the same violent criminal groups that were selling them before decriminalization, except now they are de facto endorsed by the government (where else are people suppose to buy the drugs they are now allowed to legally posses?). The only difference is that drug use becomes more public, to the benefit of absolutely nobody.

presentation 3y ago
I’m inclined to think that even if every drug on the street were pure, the problem would remain.
- standardUser 3y ago
  Overdose deaths would decline dramatically. I think those saved lives are enough justification to give it a try, particularly given the ongoing failure of every other approach.

pton_xd 3y ago

A very tricky situation. On the one hand, I'm very pro-liberty and firmly believe every human has a right to decide what substances to engage with. On the other hand, it may be that the changes in human behavior elicited from consuming some drugs are just fundamentally incompatible with our collective vision of a healthy society. How can this be reconciled? At the very least, anti-social / anti-societal behavior, eg crime, must be dealt with even or especially if the root cause is drug use. But then you get in the argument, well they're sick and addicted, is it really their fault, do they deserve to be punished for the resultant crime? They made the first decision to act so ultimately they have to be held responsible for the downstream consequences, I guess. And then, is being homeless a crime? I don't think so. But how about littering, or using public spaces as urinals? We've decided that, for our vision of society, littering is against the law, and so is public urination / defecation. So why not enforce that, maybe especially if you're addicted to drugs?

Peregrine1 3y ago
There are simple, expensive answers: highly diligent social workers focusing on homelessness outreach + massive affordable housing construction that crunches housing prices. Regulate the substances but have them available to addicts, and make sure fentanyl is out of the supply chain, and make selling drugs outside the regulated system a felony. We’re just not willing to pay the bills.
- DataDive 3y ago
  The people that are proposing the bills are not the same that pay the bills. The same people that talk talk will pull a NIMBY. Same with politicians, propose something bold and daring, just not in their lobbyst backyard.
- presentation 3y ago
  Not saying you’re wrong in the context of your locale, but there are many places around the world that are not plagued with these problems and have dealt with them in very different ways.
standardUser 3y ago