3 ms·

How do you explain the failed drug decriminalization in Oregon?

bsder 2y ago
No funding ever materialized for the support and treatment programs that were supposed to be part and parcel of the decriminalization. You can't solely decriminalize drugs, throw everybody to the wolves and expect a good outcome.
- bermuda4you 2y ago
  Oregon already has a large number of safe injection sites, support groups, rehabs, soup kitchens, etc. Like the failed homelessness industrial complex - it's never enough, we just need to spend a few more billions, and then just a few more.
jrflowers 2y ago
What was your personal experience with decriminalization in Oregon?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- bermuda4you 2y ago
  I have no personal experience with decriminalization in Oregon. What's your point?
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    This is a good point. Firsthand experience and secondhand opinion are interchangeable so why would anyone ask a question like that
    - bermuda4you 2y ago
      Totally agree with you - great point! HN is known as the hub for drug addicted homeless people from Portland, OR. I should probably find a different forum since I don't share this experience first hand.
pfisch 2y ago
Because they actually have a homeless problem and it was conflated with drugs. They are unwilling to run homeless people out of their cities. San Francisco has the same issues but drugs aren't legal there.
- crooked-v 2y ago
  Run them out... where? Into the woods? Into other cities? This whole "just make homeless people go somewhere else" mindset is part of why things are screwed on the national level. It just results in money being set on fire to bus people around in giant circles.
  - pfisch 2y ago
    To a place with cheaper cost of living. There shouldn't be any homeless people in California. It doesn't make economic sense. They will never be able to get back on their feet again. Tons of homeless people gathering in any place that has a good social safety net and draining it ruins any city's ability to have a good social safety net. It punishes and ruins the cities that try to lead with compassion.
    - crooked-v 2y ago
      > It doesn't make economic sense. The motivation isn't 'economic sense', it's not dying when sleeping outside in a cold snap. > Tons of homeless people gathering in any place that has a good social safety net Maybe the answer here is to actually have a social safety net at the national level, instead of trying to shuffle people around in exactly the same way that hasn't accomplished anything useful since before the Dust Bowl.
      - pfisch 2y ago
        >Maybe the answer here is to actually have a social safety net at the national level, instead of trying to shuffle people around in exactly the same way that hasn't accomplished anything useful since before the Dust Bowl. This is not a realistic goal, and it would still result in homeless people gathering in cities. >The motivation isn't 'economic sense', it's not dying when sleeping outside in a cold snap. There is an entire southern half of the country where that won't happen.
pfisch 2y ago
Also decriminalization doesn't solve the fentanyl problem. That would require regulating drugs and selling them legally.
Clubber 2y ago
>How do you explain the failed drug decriminalization in Oregon? Oh it will take a generation. Most people who are currently heavily addicted to fentanyl, meth, crack or even alcohol are lost causes. I think 10% of current addicts getting into recovery is extremely optimistic. The objective is to reduce addiction in future generations. At our current trajectory, the next generation will be more addicted than the current. The last 10 years after the crackdown have been an utter disaster with drug deaths doubling in that time and opioid deaths quadrupling. https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overd...

No funding ever materialized for the support and treatment programs that were supposed to be part and parcel of the decriminalization. You can't solely decriminalize drugs, throw everybody to the wolves and expect a good outcome.

bermuda4you 2y ago
Oregon already has a large number of safe injection sites, support groups, rehabs, soup kitchens, etc. Like the failed homelessness industrial complex - it's never enough, we just need to spend a few more billions, and then just a few more.

jrflowers 2y ago

What was your personal experience with decriminalization in Oregon?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
bermuda4you 2y ago
I have no personal experience with decriminalization in Oregon. What's your point?
- jrflowers 2y ago
  This is a good point. Firsthand experience and secondhand opinion are interchangeable so why would anyone ask a question like that
  - bermuda4you 2y ago
    Totally agree with you - great point! HN is known as the hub for drug addicted homeless people from Portland, OR. I should probably find a different forum since I don't share this experience first hand.

pfisch 2y ago

Because they actually have a homeless problem and it was conflated with drugs. They are unwilling to run homeless people out of their cities. San Francisco has the same issues but drugs aren't legal there.

crooked-v 2y ago
Run them out... where? Into the woods? Into other cities? This whole "just make homeless people go somewhere else" mindset is part of why things are screwed on the national level. It just results in money being set on fire to bus people around in giant circles.
- pfisch 2y ago
  To a place with cheaper cost of living. There shouldn't be any homeless people in California. It doesn't make economic sense. They will never be able to get back on their feet again. Tons of homeless people gathering in any place that has a good social safety net and draining it ruins any city's ability to have a good social safety net. It punishes and ruins the cities that try to lead with compassion.
  - crooked-v 2y ago
    > It doesn't make economic sense. The motivation isn't 'economic sense', it's not dying when sleeping outside in a cold snap. > Tons of homeless people gathering in any place that has a good social safety net Maybe the answer here is to actually have a social safety net at the national level, instead of trying to shuffle people around in exactly the same way that hasn't accomplished anything useful since before the Dust Bowl.
    - pfisch 2y ago
      >Maybe the answer here is to actually have a social safety net at the national level, instead of trying to shuffle people around in exactly the same way that hasn't accomplished anything useful since before the Dust Bowl. This is not a realistic goal, and it would still result in homeless people gathering in cities. >The motivation isn't 'economic sense', it's not dying when sleeping outside in a cold snap. There is an entire southern half of the country where that won't happen.

pfisch 2y ago

Also decriminalization doesn't solve the fentanyl problem. That would require regulating drugs and selling them legally.

Clubber 2y ago

>How do you explain the failed drug decriminalization in Oregon? Oh it will take a generation. Most people who are currently heavily addicted to fentanyl, meth, crack or even alcohol are lost causes. I think 10% of current addicts getting into recovery is extremely optimistic. The objective is to reduce addiction in future generations. At our current trajectory, the next generation will be more addicted than the current. The last 10 years after the crackdown have been an utter disaster with drug deaths doubling in that time and opioid deaths quadrupling. https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overd...