7 ms·

Oregon governor signs bill recriminalizing drug possession into law

51 points by gmays 3y ago

recursivedoubts 3y ago
"experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other" too bad about all the dead people i guess
ethbr1 3y ago
Two things can both be true: - Decriminalization of drugs creates better health outcomes for drug users. - Criminalization of drugs creates better outcomes for non-drug users. It's unreasonable to ask people to be okay with open drug use, and the consequences thereof, for the good of drug users. A balanced policy between compassionate enforcement and properly funding treatment seems more socially palatable.
- mathgradthrow 3y ago
  What a coincidence, literally 30 minutes ago I saw a man openly smoking something I did not recognize (meth probably?) at a bus stop for the first time. I suppose it beats breaking into cars to do it.
- uoaei 3y ago
  Public use and illicit sale is still illegal even if possession is decriminalized. It's unclear what this recriminalization accomplishes from a legal standpoint to address the primary concerns of the public. Appears to be little more than a shallow political play.
  - chrchr 3y ago
    The Oregon decriminalization experiment had several really puzzling elements. One of them is that isn't clear that public use was illegal, at least not in a way that police could actually enforce. In a fun example of "the exception proves the rule", a few weeks ago the state leg. passed a law criminalizing drug use on public transit. Decriminalization was really badly implemented in Oregon. Part of it was the pandemic. Part of it was the confluence with the fentanyl surge. Part of it was that our public agencies just didn't seem to know how to coordinate with one another on the issues that arose. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/bill-using-drugs-public-transit-passes-oregon-legislature/283-07d60257-42e4-4a28-bfe1-9de94bf8730e https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/bill-using-drugs-p...
- zzzeek 3y ago
  alcohol is perfectly legal, yet it's illegal to walk down a public street with an open can of beer. This all seems to work out fine. Why didnt this work with other kinds of drugs?
  - HEmanZ 3y ago
    In many places it’s perfectly legal to walk down the street with an open containers of alcohol, and there are not the kinds of problems we see with other drugs. Opiates and amphetamines are entirely different animals than drugs like alcohol and weed. You can’t really treat them as the same kind of thing.
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      You've never seen a gaggle of drunks in Vegas or New Orleans? Drinking in public absolutely can be a problem, similar to using opiates or whatever else. I'm not implying the laws should be exactly the same, only that public alcohol consumption also has problems that are visible to non-drinkers/locals.
  - lancesells 3y ago
    Alcohol has bars to go to? Bars have bartenders to cut you off? Drug use doesn't provide a social place. Also, certain drugs are an order of magnitude way worse than having a moderate amount of alcohol. Legalizing public drug use, outside of marijuana, seems idiotic to me.
    - zzzeek 3y ago
      I guess I dont understand what the actual problem was. People were doing drugs on public street corners? this is my question. It's not hard for people to drink alcohol in places other than street corners, even on days that the bars are all closed.
      - thomastjeffery 3y ago
        It's not hart to drink alcohol on the street, but it is easy to drink it indoors. To contrast, people addicted to heroin or meth are much more vulnerable to unemployment, homelessness, etc.; which pushes them into public spaces, and incentivizes them to commit petty and violent crime.
- mjevans 3y ago
  I don't have any data at hand, but prefer 'diversion' / redemption programs. Drug use should happen in safe spaces that don't negatively impact others. For any airborne use, I want a 'fume / chemical hood' like negative draw with scrubbed exhaust.
  - jakupovic 3y ago
    I want the same for tobacco smokers. Also I don't want to see people consuming alcohol nor have it readily available. I'm wondering whether either of us will het what we want.
- mattmaroon 3y ago
  Is it criminalization that is better for non-users or did they just do decriminalization incorrectly? Did they need to decriminalize drugs in all cases? Couldn’t it be legal to do heroin in private but not on the sidewalk? I am afraid they badly implemented a policy that, if implemented correctly, could have made a big difference, and now everyone will think it just doesn’t work.
  - chimeracoder 3y ago
    > Is it criminalization that is better for non-users or did they just do decriminalization incorrectly? They didn't even really do the decriminalization. The full law never came into effect, and the most of the treatment programs they promised to create as an alternative to incarceration were still in the process of being set up. The state never approved the funding for many of them, so they killed the initiative before it ever started. > I am afraid they badly implemented a policy that, if implemented correctly, could have made a big difference, and now everyone will think it just doesn’t work. That's exactly what happened. The funny part is that the evidence has shown quite clearly that criminalization doesn't "work" either. But it's treated as the societal default, that which can be accepted and trusted without any evidence.
    - mattmaroon 3y ago
      Right. Criminalization is entirely illogical since it just exacerbates the root causes and doesn’t even really help with the symptom. And most people can’t even fathom that there’s an alternative.
  - Curvature5868 3y ago
    I think your point is well made. Unfortunately, there are a substantial number of drug users in Oregon (and Portland in particular) who do not have a private place to do drugs. They live in tents on the sidewalk[1]. You see people smoking fentanyl on the sidewalk or in parks all over town. One example of how this negatively impacts non-drug using citizens is that summer camps have been having trouble because the kids can't use the bathrooms at the local parks. People are smoking fentanyl in the park bathrooms (which is not currently illegal), and so the kids have no where to do their business. 1: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/08/multnomah-county-purchased-more-than-22000-tents-for-homeless-in-recent-years/ https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/08/multnomah-county-purc...
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  I assume safe public housing and public health care are prerequisites to universal drug decriminalization.
  - nyargh 3y ago
    I wish I could upvote this more. Its proven to be cheaper, too.
  - badwolf 3y ago
    It's bizarre the amount of money and resources we spend in futile efforts towards "solving homelessness" except for just... building homes.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      > just... building homes A component of this is minimum building standards. Homeless is a direct consequence of socially deciding that no new housing under certain standards (and therefore building costs) can be constructed. If we were okay with building cost- and density-optimized cubes, we could probably solve homelessness in a year. Instead, we've decided that it's better to have minimum building standards, with the side effect that some people cannot afford such a dwelling.
      - antisthenes 3y ago
        And minimum building standards are mindlessly being set by local municipalities, who frankly don't have the engineering competence to understand whether it's excessive or should be required in the first place. Just mindlessly chasing "newer code is better", without understanding how it affects housing affordability. Or maybe it's an intentional payout to developers to let them profit from increased complexity?
olliej 3y ago
Drug laws are hard - the reality is that enforcement is extremely biased along race and socioeconomic lines, but at the same time a bunch of drugs have real reasons for being banned. The issue to me is how it becomes penalized - especially given the US response to ex-felons (and its use of felons as a non voting slave class) - it’s very easy for the result of a drug related offense to put people in a position where drugs are functionally the only practical option (either abuse or selling). Wholesale decriminalization seems like a bad response based on the outcomes in many areas, but it really seems like there should be an option that doesn’t result in immediate criminal records for life.
- alwaysrunning 3y ago
  >Wholesale decriminalization seems like a bad response based on the outcomes in many areas, but it really seems like there should be an option that doesn’t result in immediate criminal records for life. Isn't this what the drug diversion programs are for? https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/diversion-programs.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/diversion-programs.h...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
monero-xmr 3y ago
The problem is not using drugs. The problem is committing crimes while using drugs. Some people can use drugs and avoid crime. Others use drugs and commit crime. Therefore, you arrest criminals, and offer them jail or treatment that they must follow or they go straight to jail. Camping on a city sidewalk should be a crime. This is a public space used by everyone, not just one person to make a random house on. Children use sidewalks which are a public good. If someone uses drugs and camps on the sidewalk, they should be arrested and offerred jail or treatment.
- TheHypnotist 3y ago
  The problem is not using drugs. The problem is committing crimes while using drugs. Some people can use drugs and avoid crime. Others use drugs and commit crime. You forgot those who commit crimes in an effort to use drugs. I think treatment inside jail (or some controlled environment) is probably your best bet. If you have someone who's addiction is clouding their judgement, they might say anything just to stay out of jail, but how do you get them to follow through?
- mulmen 3y ago
  See if you agree with that when someone lights up a pipe next to you on a bus and you get to breathe their second hand fentanyl.
- LoganDark 3y ago
  > The problem is committing crimes while using drugs. The problem is also damaging your brain and body with drugs, developing bad habits and/or drug addiction, your supply being contaminated/poisoned, making irresponsible decisions while intoxicated, etc. For example cannabis can be mostly safe for adults, but children or teens who use too much of it can develop neurological defects like short-term memory impairment, depending on the frequency and duration of use.
  - pierat 3y ago
    > The problem is also damaging your brain and body with drugs, developing bad habits and/or drug addiction, your supply being contaminated/poisoned, making irresponsible decisions while intoxicated, etc. We can make the same exact argument about sugar and HFCS. Either of those substances can make people feel extremely hungry even with a full stomach, thus make terrible decisions and damage their bodies. Alcohol's much worse. Yet we tried banning that. Remind me how that went again? Oh thats right, we had federal agents poisoning alcohol to intentionally kill drinkers. Wonderful times. > For example cannabis can be mostly safe for adults, but children or teens who use too much of it can develop neurological defects like short-term memory impairment, depending on the frequency and duration of use. Again, most drugs aren't that bad, regardless what DARE propagandized you into believing. Id advise anyone actually wanting to understand what a drug is like, to go to https://www.erowid.org/ https://www.erowid.org/ and read up about experiences. I've been on damn near every painkiller up to fentanyl. My fav is morphine. Feels like a glowing warmth and "home". I could easily see me doing a small amount on a friday evening after work's done. Id keep it down enough that I wouldn't get a tolerance, and I'd be "sobered" up by next morning. Ive also been on amphetamines, and threw' em away. Made me feel TERRIBLE. The 3 biggest scourge drugs we have are alcohol, tobacco, and sugar. And, when did bans actually accomplish the ban goal?
LoganDark 3y ago
This kind of stuff is what makes it safe for me to use LSD recreationally, alone, in my own home- it's nontoxic and I do it on my own time, and I don't glorify its use to others. There should be no reason to send me away for 6 months over this. Yet because all schedule-1 drugs are treated the same, the penalty for LSD possession is the same as the penalty for meth or cocaine possession. I don't get it. (Maybe the moral of the story should be that LSD shouldn't be schedule-1.)
- n1b0m 3y ago
  Do you also make the LSD yourself?
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    Synthesizing LSD is still illegal of course, as is buying it. Coincidental username though, reminds me of "NBOMe" :)
- jakupovic 3y ago
  Meth and cocaine users also want a safe place to use their drug of choice :). The whole issue of drug use should be left to individuals and not mandated by State. If some drugs are more dangerous than others maybe we can provide a safe place for their consumption like hospitals and clinics as we do now for prescription medications. But simply criminalizing all drugs or some drugs doesn't help, as we have seen over and over again.
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    > Meth and cocaine users also want a safe place to use their drug of choice :) Harm reduction in general is a wonderful thing and the solution to drug use is definitely not to make it more dangerous. Making it safer and providing easy access to real, non-propaganda harm reduction resources will help far more people than criminalization ever could. Providing safe, regulated supply that won't be contaminated with adulterants or impure byproducts, allowing people to consult with doctors about it, allowing research to be done on it so that it can be better understood, etc.
moomoo11 3y ago
All the decriminalize crap is pushed by rich liberal types. They live in luxury apartments or out in the burbs. Worst thing they have to dodge is their fav brunch place being full. Ask any poor or working class person. They don’t want this crap. Drugs ravage their communities. They have to deal with these problems. Same thing with the defund the police and other non sense. I grew up in shit areas and went to college in an inner city. Some of my friends, college staff, and my own experiences (been robbed a dozen times) all lived thru this shit. We need police and we need to stop criminals from selling drugs and put career junkies away (they don’t want to get clean, ok go away then) Meanwhile mfs wearing Arcteryx want to lecture people wearing 2nd hand Starter they should just be cool with junkies and destruction.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  Upper class values are not compatible with non-upper class realities. And yet they continue to get forced on people over and over again. People take these values on and then are surprised when they don't work out and everyone feels worse off and things "just keep getting weirder and worse".
  - moomoo11 3y ago
    100%. It’s why I personally stopped entertaining their nonsense and call it out. I’m personally doing okay now but I didn’t grow up with a silver spoon and parents having multiple homes. Some of the things my peers say now makes me roll my eyes and take their other opinions with a grain of salt.
- pierat 3y ago
  You're also wrong. Ive been to the rich liberal types' parties. You know how some of them go? Like this: You'll have a retreat to the den. The host will either send someone out to get "supplies" or they'll already have it. And they'll pull out a few eight-balls, and they'll put up a few hundreds around the room, and everyone will enjoy a few lines. They'll then retreat to the in-house pool or hot tub, and enjoy. I also had a friend who was a retired record exec, and it was routine that during lunchtime, they'd gather money to go down to the street and buy coke. Just because they're rich, doesnt mean they don't do drugs. They likely do, just not on the streets. They do from their mansions. (And its also the middle class who're scared shitless about drugs. My guess is because they don't have the money to hire a lawyer to keep a drug rap off.)
loteck 3y ago
Interesting to me that voter-passed ballot initiatives can simply be repealed by the Oregon legislature. Seems to defeat the point of ballot initiatives.
- alberth 3y ago
  It’s because America is a Republic, not a true democracy. And any democracy traits it might have are representative democracy.
- nyargh 3y ago
  Generally the legislature is loathe to do this, they are elected positions after all, but it does happen.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  Try living in Utah, where that happens before the initiative is even implemented. The people of my state voted to legalize medical cannabis: it was implemented with absurd restrictions. The people of my state voted for a third-party committee to draw our district maps: our representatives chose to implement their own maps instead.
benced 3y ago
I suspect one pro-social thing citizens can do without government action is to be personally less open to drugs. I've noticed in more left leaning space, the consensus has shifted to that drugs are "cool" which is why they should be decriminalized. They're not. Decriminalization is a pragmatic strategy to minimize harm but drugs still create harm.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
nyargh 3y ago
The main issue is that Portland was ground zero for a lot of the BLM protests and defund the police campaigns - not without good reason, either. The cops, who mostly live in the suburbs, essentially threw a collective tantrum and refused to do their jobs in Portland. This coincided with covid, newly decriminalized "hard" drugs, the rise of cheap fentanyl, and created a an explosion unprosecuted property and nuisance crimes. Fundamentally the justice system is just broken in Oregon, and this is merely a political move to please cops and conservatives, that won't fix anything. The state just released a report that they will be short 1800 public defenders due to just this law alone. "Catch and release" will continue, cops will cry for more budget and less oversight and the human misery of those caught up in addiction will just increase with further legal entanglements.
badwolf 3y ago
A big issue with a lot of decriminalize campaigns and policies, is there is generally not additional funding and resources for rehab and recovery paired with it. It's just "well, go out in the street and do whatever" and police depts deciding to throw their hands up in the air and act like assault and other physical or violent crimes can no longer be enforced.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
alistairSH 3y ago
So, Oregon decriminalized in 2020, but failed to stand up treatment and diversion programs as promised. And instead of doing that, they've decided it's easier to just jail addicts again? Sounds like a total failure of government in both cases. Note: I'm not claiming decriminalization is a panacea. But, decriminalizing without robust diversion/treatment options is bound to fail just as badly as tossing all the addicts in jail.
- chrchr 3y ago
  Oregon's decriminalization was really badly fumbled, but it's not clear to me that it would have succeeded in the best of circumstances. Vancouver,B.C. has all the diversion/treatment options and legal use sites you could want, and they're having a lot of problems with the fentanyl wave too. They're also experiencing sky high overdose rates. I'm an Oregonian. I would have preferred that the state enacted robust enforcement of bans on public use and stood up legal use sites rather than recriminalize. I'm not sure that would be politically viable though, and "stand up legal use sites" is easy to write in a law, but it's exactly the kind of thing our public agencies have been utterly incapable of doing in recent years. Where would these legal use sites be? Near which schools, homes, and businesses? Which agency would administer them? Or rather, which agency would administer the contract to a grant-supported non-profit entity (because that's how these things work here)? How would you convince qualified people to work there? Can't be done in Oregon on any kind of timeline that would address the present crisis.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    > Where would these legal use sites be? Near which schools, homes, and businesses? Which agency would administer them? Or rather, which agency would administer the contract to a grant-supported non-profit entity (because that's how these things work here)? How would you convince qualified people to work there? Watching The Wire Season 3 play out in real life has been unfortunate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wire#Season_3 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wire#Season_3
spxneo 3y ago
[flagged]
xoa 3y ago
I'm pretty bummed we've ended up in a place in this country where there is this strict extreme binary dichotomy of "fully legal do whatever you want" on one end vs "criminal, and if a felony you are likely somewhat fucked for life long after your sentence is over too" on the other. There are lots of medical in human existence, including drugs and certain mental illness, that can render someone a serious problem to the rights of others yet aren't criminal, that do require forceful intervention whether someone wants it or not but don't involve criminal intent and shouldn't result in prison and permanent records. There should be some middle category where force can be used to compel treatment until someone is well enough to return to society, but not be fed into the prison-industrial complex. Instead we've witnessed these wild pendulum swings, with major harm at each extreme. It's a real shame.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
whatindaheck 3y ago
I hate to say it but I’m somewhat glad as a resident. This isn’t the right move, or the moral move, but taking decriminalization to mean “do nothing” was equally immoral in its own way. No drug user was ever helped by a jail cell. Nor was any drug user helped by this free-for-all policy. Oregon allowed users to suffer the same as before and cause unsafe situations for the general populace. Smoking meth in a sidewalk tent should get your ass sent to a care facility. For help. Oregon ran with the headlines from Portugal but never bothered to read the actual article. Now I doubt decriminalization will be tried again on this level in this country. And with the drug epidemic still in full swing we badly need a policy that isn’t criminalization. It almost feels like it was meant to fail. Time and time again the people of Oregon (and specifically Portland) try to show goodwill towards their fellow man. Raising taxes on ourselves is a hobby. Time and time again the legislature makes the money disappear, implements XYZ poorly, and engineers failure.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  > Time and time again the people of Oregon (and specifically Portland) try to show goodwill towards their fellow man. Raising taxes on ourselves is a hobby. Time and time again the legislature makes the money disappear, implements XYZ poorly, and creates a failure. That feels like this policy in an ouroboros-esque nutshell -- doing something for just reasons, but without working through the realpolitik implementation details.
friend_and_foe 3y ago
Good god the abysmal failure. All they had to do was prosecute people using drugs in the street.

51 points by gmays 3y ago

"experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other" too bad about all the dead people i guess

Two things can both be true: - Decriminalization of drugs creates better health outcomes for drug users. - Criminalization of drugs creates better outcomes for non-drug users. It's unreasonable to ask people to be okay with open drug use, and the consequences thereof, for the good of drug users. A balanced policy between compassionate enforcement and properly funding treatment seems more socially palatable.

mathgradthrow 3y ago
What a coincidence, literally 30 minutes ago I saw a man openly smoking something I did not recognize (meth probably?) at a bus stop for the first time. I suppose it beats breaking into cars to do it.
uoaei 3y ago
Public use and illicit sale is still illegal even if possession is decriminalized. It's unclear what this recriminalization accomplishes from a legal standpoint to address the primary concerns of the public. Appears to be little more than a shallow political play.
- chrchr 3y ago
  The Oregon decriminalization experiment had several really puzzling elements. One of them is that isn't clear that public use was illegal, at least not in a way that police could actually enforce. In a fun example of "the exception proves the rule", a few weeks ago the state leg. passed a law criminalizing drug use on public transit. Decriminalization was really badly implemented in Oregon. Part of it was the pandemic. Part of it was the confluence with the fentanyl surge. Part of it was that our public agencies just didn't seem to know how to coordinate with one another on the issues that arose. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/bill-using-drugs-public-transit-passes-oregon-legislature/283-07d60257-42e4-4a28-bfe1-9de94bf8730e https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/bill-using-drugs-p...
zzzeek 3y ago
alcohol is perfectly legal, yet it's illegal to walk down a public street with an open can of beer. This all seems to work out fine. Why didnt this work with other kinds of drugs?
- HEmanZ 3y ago
  In many places it’s perfectly legal to walk down the street with an open containers of alcohol, and there are not the kinds of problems we see with other drugs. Opiates and amphetamines are entirely different animals than drugs like alcohol and weed. You can’t really treat them as the same kind of thing.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    You've never seen a gaggle of drunks in Vegas or New Orleans? Drinking in public absolutely can be a problem, similar to using opiates or whatever else. I'm not implying the laws should be exactly the same, only that public alcohol consumption also has problems that are visible to non-drinkers/locals.
- lancesells 3y ago
  Alcohol has bars to go to? Bars have bartenders to cut you off? Drug use doesn't provide a social place. Also, certain drugs are an order of magnitude way worse than having a moderate amount of alcohol. Legalizing public drug use, outside of marijuana, seems idiotic to me.
  - zzzeek 3y ago
    I guess I dont understand what the actual problem was. People were doing drugs on public street corners? this is my question. It's not hard for people to drink alcohol in places other than street corners, even on days that the bars are all closed.
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      It's not hart to drink alcohol on the street, but it is easy to drink it indoors. To contrast, people addicted to heroin or meth are much more vulnerable to unemployment, homelessness, etc.; which pushes them into public spaces, and incentivizes them to commit petty and violent crime.
mjevans 3y ago
I don't have any data at hand, but prefer 'diversion' / redemption programs. Drug use should happen in safe spaces that don't negatively impact others. For any airborne use, I want a 'fume / chemical hood' like negative draw with scrubbed exhaust.
- jakupovic 3y ago
  I want the same for tobacco smokers. Also I don't want to see people consuming alcohol nor have it readily available. I'm wondering whether either of us will het what we want.
mattmaroon 3y ago
Is it criminalization that is better for non-users or did they just do decriminalization incorrectly? Did they need to decriminalize drugs in all cases? Couldn’t it be legal to do heroin in private but not on the sidewalk? I am afraid they badly implemented a policy that, if implemented correctly, could have made a big difference, and now everyone will think it just doesn’t work.
- chimeracoder 3y ago
  > Is it criminalization that is better for non-users or did they just do decriminalization incorrectly? They didn't even really do the decriminalization. The full law never came into effect, and the most of the treatment programs they promised to create as an alternative to incarceration were still in the process of being set up. The state never approved the funding for many of them, so they killed the initiative before it ever started. > I am afraid they badly implemented a policy that, if implemented correctly, could have made a big difference, and now everyone will think it just doesn’t work. That's exactly what happened. The funny part is that the evidence has shown quite clearly that criminalization doesn't "work" either. But it's treated as the societal default, that which can be accepted and trusted without any evidence.
  - mattmaroon 3y ago
    Right. Criminalization is entirely illogical since it just exacerbates the root causes and doesn’t even really help with the symptom. And most people can’t even fathom that there’s an alternative.
- Curvature5868 3y ago
  I think your point is well made. Unfortunately, there are a substantial number of drug users in Oregon (and Portland in particular) who do not have a private place to do drugs. They live in tents on the sidewalk[1]. You see people smoking fentanyl on the sidewalk or in parks all over town. One example of how this negatively impacts non-drug using citizens is that summer camps have been having trouble because the kids can't use the bathrooms at the local parks. People are smoking fentanyl in the park bathrooms (which is not currently illegal), and so the kids have no where to do their business. 1: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/08/multnomah-county-purchased-more-than-22000-tents-for-homeless-in-recent-years/ https://www.opb.org/article/2022/12/08/multnomah-county-purc...
teaearlgraycold 3y ago
I assume safe public housing and public health care are prerequisites to universal drug decriminalization.
- nyargh 3y ago
  I wish I could upvote this more. Its proven to be cheaper, too.
- badwolf 3y ago
  It's bizarre the amount of money and resources we spend in futile efforts towards "solving homelessness" except for just... building homes.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    > just... building homes A component of this is minimum building standards. Homeless is a direct consequence of socially deciding that no new housing under certain standards (and therefore building costs) can be constructed. If we were okay with building cost- and density-optimized cubes, we could probably solve homelessness in a year. Instead, we've decided that it's better to have minimum building standards, with the side effect that some people cannot afford such a dwelling.
    - antisthenes 3y ago
      And minimum building standards are mindlessly being set by local municipalities, who frankly don't have the engineering competence to understand whether it's excessive or should be required in the first place. Just mindlessly chasing "newer code is better", without understanding how it affects housing affordability. Or maybe it's an intentional payout to developers to let them profit from increased complexity?

olliej 3y ago

Drug laws are hard - the reality is that enforcement is extremely biased along race and socioeconomic lines, but at the same time a bunch of drugs have real reasons for being banned. The issue to me is how it becomes penalized - especially given the US response to ex-felons (and its use of felons as a non voting slave class) - it’s very easy for the result of a drug related offense to put people in a position where drugs are functionally the only practical option (either abuse or selling). Wholesale decriminalization seems like a bad response based on the outcomes in many areas, but it really seems like there should be an option that doesn’t result in immediate criminal records for life.

alwaysrunning 3y ago
>Wholesale decriminalization seems like a bad response based on the outcomes in many areas, but it really seems like there should be an option that doesn’t result in immediate criminal records for life. Isn't this what the drug diversion programs are for? https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/diversion-programs.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/diversion-programs.h...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

monero-xmr 3y ago

The problem is not using drugs. The problem is committing crimes while using drugs. Some people can use drugs and avoid crime. Others use drugs and commit crime. Therefore, you arrest criminals, and offer them jail or treatment that they must follow or they go straight to jail. Camping on a city sidewalk should be a crime. This is a public space used by everyone, not just one person to make a random house on. Children use sidewalks which are a public good. If someone uses drugs and camps on the sidewalk, they should be arrested and offerred jail or treatment.

TheHypnotist 3y ago
The problem is not using drugs. The problem is committing crimes while using drugs. Some people can use drugs and avoid crime. Others use drugs and commit crime. You forgot those who commit crimes in an effort to use drugs. I think treatment inside jail (or some controlled environment) is probably your best bet. If you have someone who's addiction is clouding their judgement, they might say anything just to stay out of jail, but how do you get them to follow through?
mulmen 3y ago
See if you agree with that when someone lights up a pipe next to you on a bus and you get to breathe their second hand fentanyl.
LoganDark 3y ago
> The problem is committing crimes while using drugs. The problem is also damaging your brain and body with drugs, developing bad habits and/or drug addiction, your supply being contaminated/poisoned, making irresponsible decisions while intoxicated, etc. For example cannabis can be mostly safe for adults, but children or teens who use too much of it can develop neurological defects like short-term memory impairment, depending on the frequency and duration of use.
- pierat 3y ago
  > The problem is also damaging your brain and body with drugs, developing bad habits and/or drug addiction, your supply being contaminated/poisoned, making irresponsible decisions while intoxicated, etc. We can make the same exact argument about sugar and HFCS. Either of those substances can make people feel extremely hungry even with a full stomach, thus make terrible decisions and damage their bodies. Alcohol's much worse. Yet we tried banning that. Remind me how that went again? Oh thats right, we had federal agents poisoning alcohol to intentionally kill drinkers. Wonderful times. > For example cannabis can be mostly safe for adults, but children or teens who use too much of it can develop neurological defects like short-term memory impairment, depending on the frequency and duration of use. Again, most drugs aren't that bad, regardless what DARE propagandized you into believing. Id advise anyone actually wanting to understand what a drug is like, to go to https://www.erowid.org/ https://www.erowid.org/ and read up about experiences. I've been on damn near every painkiller up to fentanyl. My fav is morphine. Feels like a glowing warmth and "home". I could easily see me doing a small amount on a friday evening after work's done. Id keep it down enough that I wouldn't get a tolerance, and I'd be "sobered" up by next morning. Ive also been on amphetamines, and threw' em away. Made me feel TERRIBLE. The 3 biggest scourge drugs we have are alcohol, tobacco, and sugar. And, when did bans actually accomplish the ban goal?

LoganDark 3y ago

This kind of stuff is what makes it safe for me to use LSD recreationally, alone, in my own home- it's nontoxic and I do it on my own time, and I don't glorify its use to others. There should be no reason to send me away for 6 months over this. Yet because all schedule-1 drugs are treated the same, the penalty for LSD possession is the same as the penalty for meth or cocaine possession. I don't get it. (Maybe the moral of the story should be that LSD shouldn't be schedule-1.)

n1b0m 3y ago
Do you also make the LSD yourself?
- LoganDark 3y ago
  Synthesizing LSD is still illegal of course, as is buying it. Coincidental username though, reminds me of "NBOMe" :)
jakupovic 3y ago
Meth and cocaine users also want a safe place to use their drug of choice :). The whole issue of drug use should be left to individuals and not mandated by State. If some drugs are more dangerous than others maybe we can provide a safe place for their consumption like hospitals and clinics as we do now for prescription medications. But simply criminalizing all drugs or some drugs doesn't help, as we have seen over and over again.
- LoganDark 3y ago
  > Meth and cocaine users also want a safe place to use their drug of choice :) Harm reduction in general is a wonderful thing and the solution to drug use is definitely not to make it more dangerous. Making it safer and providing easy access to real, non-propaganda harm reduction resources will help far more people than criminalization ever could. Providing safe, regulated supply that won't be contaminated with adulterants or impure byproducts, allowing people to consult with doctors about it, allowing research to be done on it so that it can be better understood, etc.

moomoo11 3y ago

All the decriminalize crap is pushed by rich liberal types. They live in luxury apartments or out in the burbs. Worst thing they have to dodge is their fav brunch place being full. Ask any poor or working class person. They don’t want this crap. Drugs ravage their communities. They have to deal with these problems. Same thing with the defund the police and other non sense. I grew up in shit areas and went to college in an inner city. Some of my friends, college staff, and my own experiences (been robbed a dozen times) all lived thru this shit. We need police and we need to stop criminals from selling drugs and put career junkies away (they don’t want to get clean, ok go away then) Meanwhile mfs wearing Arcteryx want to lecture people wearing 2nd hand Starter they should just be cool with junkies and destruction.

nemo44x 3y ago
Upper class values are not compatible with non-upper class realities. And yet they continue to get forced on people over and over again. People take these values on and then are surprised when they don't work out and everyone feels worse off and things "just keep getting weirder and worse".
- moomoo11 3y ago
  100%. It’s why I personally stopped entertaining their nonsense and call it out. I’m personally doing okay now but I didn’t grow up with a silver spoon and parents having multiple homes. Some of the things my peers say now makes me roll my eyes and take their other opinions with a grain of salt.
pierat 3y ago
You're also wrong. Ive been to the rich liberal types' parties. You know how some of them go? Like this: You'll have a retreat to the den. The host will either send someone out to get "supplies" or they'll already have it. And they'll pull out a few eight-balls, and they'll put up a few hundreds around the room, and everyone will enjoy a few lines. They'll then retreat to the in-house pool or hot tub, and enjoy. I also had a friend who was a retired record exec, and it was routine that during lunchtime, they'd gather money to go down to the street and buy coke. Just because they're rich, doesnt mean they don't do drugs. They likely do, just not on the streets. They do from their mansions. (And its also the middle class who're scared shitless about drugs. My guess is because they don't have the money to hire a lawyer to keep a drug rap off.)

loteck 3y ago

Interesting to me that voter-passed ballot initiatives can simply be repealed by the Oregon legislature. Seems to defeat the point of ballot initiatives.

alberth 3y ago
It’s because America is a Republic, not a true democracy. And any democracy traits it might have are representative democracy.
nyargh 3y ago
Generally the legislature is loathe to do this, they are elected positions after all, but it does happen.
thomastjeffery 3y ago
Try living in Utah, where that happens before the initiative is even implemented. The people of my state voted to legalize medical cannabis: it was implemented with absurd restrictions. The people of my state voted for a third-party committee to draw our district maps: our representatives chose to implement their own maps instead.

benced 3y ago

I suspect one pro-social thing citizens can do without government action is to be personally less open to drugs. I've noticed in more left leaning space, the consensus has shifted to that drugs are "cool" which is why they should be decriminalized. They're not. Decriminalization is a pragmatic strategy to minimize harm but drugs still create harm.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

nyargh 3y ago

The main issue is that Portland was ground zero for a lot of the BLM protests and defund the police campaigns - not without good reason, either. The cops, who mostly live in the suburbs, essentially threw a collective tantrum and refused to do their jobs in Portland. This coincided with covid, newly decriminalized "hard" drugs, the rise of cheap fentanyl, and created a an explosion unprosecuted property and nuisance crimes. Fundamentally the justice system is just broken in Oregon, and this is merely a political move to please cops and conservatives, that won't fix anything. The state just released a report that they will be short 1800 public defenders due to just this law alone. "Catch and release" will continue, cops will cry for more budget and less oversight and the human misery of those caught up in addiction will just increase with further legal entanglements.

badwolf 3y ago

A big issue with a lot of decriminalize campaigns and policies, is there is generally not additional funding and resources for rehab and recovery paired with it. It's just "well, go out in the street and do whatever" and police depts deciding to throw their hands up in the air and act like assault and other physical or violent crimes can no longer be enforced.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

alistairSH 3y ago

So, Oregon decriminalized in 2020, but failed to stand up treatment and diversion programs as promised. And instead of doing that, they've decided it's easier to just jail addicts again? Sounds like a total failure of government in both cases. Note: I'm not claiming decriminalization is a panacea. But, decriminalizing without robust diversion/treatment options is bound to fail just as badly as tossing all the addicts in jail.

chrchr 3y ago
Oregon's decriminalization was really badly fumbled, but it's not clear to me that it would have succeeded in the best of circumstances. Vancouver,B.C. has all the diversion/treatment options and legal use sites you could want, and they're having a lot of problems with the fentanyl wave too. They're also experiencing sky high overdose rates. I'm an Oregonian. I would have preferred that the state enacted robust enforcement of bans on public use and stood up legal use sites rather than recriminalize. I'm not sure that would be politically viable though, and "stand up legal use sites" is easy to write in a law, but it's exactly the kind of thing our public agencies have been utterly incapable of doing in recent years. Where would these legal use sites be? Near which schools, homes, and businesses? Which agency would administer them? Or rather, which agency would administer the contract to a grant-supported non-profit entity (because that's how these things work here)? How would you convince qualified people to work there? Can't be done in Oregon on any kind of timeline that would address the present crisis.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  > Where would these legal use sites be? Near which schools, homes, and businesses? Which agency would administer them? Or rather, which agency would administer the contract to a grant-supported non-profit entity (because that's how these things work here)? How would you convince qualified people to work there? Watching The Wire Season 3 play out in real life has been unfortunate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wire#Season_3 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wire#Season_3

spxneo 3y ago

[flagged]

xoa 3y ago

I'm pretty bummed we've ended up in a place in this country where there is this strict extreme binary dichotomy of "fully legal do whatever you want" on one end vs "criminal, and if a felony you are likely somewhat fucked for life long after your sentence is over too" on the other. There are lots of medical in human existence, including drugs and certain mental illness, that can render someone a serious problem to the rights of others yet aren't criminal, that do require forceful intervention whether someone wants it or not but don't involve criminal intent and shouldn't result in prison and permanent records. There should be some middle category where force can be used to compel treatment until someone is well enough to return to society, but not be fed into the prison-industrial complex. Instead we've witnessed these wild pendulum swings, with major harm at each extreme. It's a real shame.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

whatindaheck 3y ago

I hate to say it but I’m somewhat glad as a resident. This isn’t the right move, or the moral move, but taking decriminalization to mean “do nothing” was equally immoral in its own way. No drug user was ever helped by a jail cell. Nor was any drug user helped by this free-for-all policy. Oregon allowed users to suffer the same as before and cause unsafe situations for the general populace. Smoking meth in a sidewalk tent should get your ass sent to a care facility. For help. Oregon ran with the headlines from Portugal but never bothered to read the actual article. Now I doubt decriminalization will be tried again on this level in this country. And with the drug epidemic still in full swing we badly need a policy that isn’t criminalization. It almost feels like it was meant to fail. Time and time again the people of Oregon (and specifically Portland) try to show goodwill towards their fellow man. Raising taxes on ourselves is a hobby. Time and time again the legislature makes the money disappear, implements XYZ poorly, and engineers failure.

ethbr1 3y ago
> Time and time again the people of Oregon (and specifically Portland) try to show goodwill towards their fellow man. Raising taxes on ourselves is a hobby. Time and time again the legislature makes the money disappear, implements XYZ poorly, and creates a failure. That feels like this policy in an ouroboros-esque nutshell -- doing something for just reasons, but without working through the realpolitik implementation details.

friend_and_foe 3y ago

Good god the abysmal failure. All they had to do was prosecute people using drugs in the street.