4 ms·

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’

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...
- chimeracoder 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. Yes, and that's why the state also needs to provide injection sites, non-shelter housing, and all sorts of other programs that were supposed to happen under Measure 110, and which the state refused to fund, and which never had the time to get off the ground before this bill was passed. > 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. There are lots of ways to solve that issue without criminalizing drugs. And in fact, as proven by countless other cities across the country, criminalizing drugs doesn't even solve that problem either.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    > And in fact, as proven by countless other cities across the country, criminalizing drugs doesn't even solve that problem either. It doesn't solve the problem. However, criminalization may be a less worse way to mitigate the impacts of the problem. This feels like "no true Scotsman" at policy-scale: it's unscientific to point out the flaws in actual sausage making as the reason the Platonically ideal sausage turned out poorly in reality. Those political characteristics are inherent to the process! If one path to utopia requires pissing voters off, then it's more logical to engineer a different path to get there while placating voters, because the former in untenable in a democracy.
    - chimeracoder 3y ago
      > However, criminalization may be a less worse way to mitigate the impacts of the problem. There's no data to support this claim, and copious evidence against it. > This feels like "no true Scotsman" at policy-scale: it's unscientific to point out the flaws in actual sausage making as the reason the Platonically ideal sausage turned out poorly in reality. Those political characteristics are inherent to the process! If one path to utopia requires pissing voters off, then it's more logical to engineer a different path to get there while placating voters, because the former in untenable in a democracy. It's not a "no true Scotsman" to point out that the measure that voters passed was never actually implemented. Some of the provisions weren't even due to kick in until later this year! Ironically, your statement is a great example of begging the question (in the correct usage of the term): by your logic, any world in which decriminalization is not already implemented is "proof" that it's a bad policy, because if it were, the Logical Politicians™ would implement it, as that would surely appease voters. In reality, what happened is simple: voters approved an initiative, elected officials didn't like what voters chose, so they just refused to implement it, then called it a "failure".

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...

chimeracoder 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. Yes, and that's why the state also needs to provide injection sites, non-shelter housing, and all sorts of other programs that were supposed to happen under Measure 110, and which the state refused to fund, and which never had the time to get off the ground before this bill was passed. > 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. There are lots of ways to solve that issue without criminalizing drugs. And in fact, as proven by countless other cities across the country, criminalizing drugs doesn't even solve that problem either.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  > And in fact, as proven by countless other cities across the country, criminalizing drugs doesn't even solve that problem either. It doesn't solve the problem. However, criminalization may be a less worse way to mitigate the impacts of the problem. This feels like "no true Scotsman" at policy-scale: it's unscientific to point out the flaws in actual sausage making as the reason the Platonically ideal sausage turned out poorly in reality. Those political characteristics are inherent to the process! If one path to utopia requires pissing voters off, then it's more logical to engineer a different path to get there while placating voters, because the former in untenable in a democracy.
  - chimeracoder 3y ago
    > However, criminalization may be a less worse way to mitigate the impacts of the problem. There's no data to support this claim, and copious evidence against it. > This feels like "no true Scotsman" at policy-scale: it's unscientific to point out the flaws in actual sausage making as the reason the Platonically ideal sausage turned out poorly in reality. Those political characteristics are inherent to the process! If one path to utopia requires pissing voters off, then it's more logical to engineer a different path to get there while placating voters, because the former in untenable in a democracy. It's not a "no true Scotsman" to point out that the measure that voters passed was never actually implemented. Some of the provisions weren't even due to kick in until later this year! Ironically, your statement is a great example of begging the question (in the correct usage of the term): by your logic, any world in which decriminalization is not already implemented is "proof" that it's a bad policy, because if it were, the Logical Politicians™ would implement it, as that would surely appease voters. In reality, what happened is simple: voters approved an initiative, elected officials didn't like what voters chose, so they just refused to implement it, then called it a "failure".