6 ms·

Oregon abandoned its drug law. Then came the mass arrests

34 points by c420 2y ago

josefritzishere 2y ago
This seems like a very expensive way to govern. Prison is not cheap.
- nxobject 2y ago
  Someone attached to Oregon here – it isn't, and it's even harder to retain people at current pay grades in state corrections medical. (Let alone public defense, which the article mentions means that people are being let go in many counties before non-drug-related charges are tried.) https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2025/02/03/amid-mounting-scrutiny-oregon-department-of-corrections-shakes-up-health-care-division/ https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2025/02/03/amid-mounting-...
  - josefritzishere 2y ago
    You inspired me to go looking for cost analysis. It's worse than I thought. Oregon is about 79k per year, per person, based on 2024 numbers in this pretty infogrpahic. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cost-per-prisoner-in-us-states/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cost-per-prisoner-in-us-sta...
- nathancahill 2y ago
  This is the US in a nutshell. And then they wonder why the deficit is so high? Most expensive healthcare. Most expensive incarceration. Most expensive childcare. Most expensive infrastructure projects. Endless list.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    The "deficit" is high because USD is the world reserve currency, and the government policy is to prevent natural deflation. The "deficit" should really be called the surplus as it represents the centralized gains of progress from everybody who is still willing to invest in America despite that collection. The popular political movement aimed at reducing the "deficit" is really just part of the larger global movement to destroy the US's world leadership position, hence the related goal of ruining our relationships with our allies and whatnot. Having said that, I agree that the dynamic here is a horrible waste of resources. Housing someone in an SRO (single room occupancy) without guards would cost like one quarter of what jail/prison costs.
ThrowOregonAway 2y ago
[dead]
spicyusername 2y ago
A hard problem with nothing but bad options. Feels like our choices are either to reduce incarceration, which is cheaper and less harsh on drug users, but does nothing to reduce drug use in a given community, or to continue to arrest drug users, which removes them from the community, but is expensive and morally questionable. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The real solution probably takes decades to see results and requires changes in multiple different places to generally reduce the likelihood that a society produces drug users in the first place, which given the current cultural and political environment feels impossible.
givemeethekeys 2y ago
They realized that they don't stand a chance against the cartels, so they're trying to scare the populace instead.
- zombiwoof 2y ago
  What? Scare the criminals breaking the law using drugs? Kinda what Cops are supposed to do? Should they say “please stop breaking the law” ?
  - givemeethekeys 2y ago
    The cops will enforce the laws. I'm talking about the lawmakers - decriminalization failed repealed because Oregon failed at stopping cartels. Whats the point of decriminalizing if it won't achieve the goal of reducing drug use? In order to stop drugs, you have to either kill supply, demand, or both.
    - Spivak 2y ago
      > if it won't achieve the goal of reducing drug use? If they tried decriminalization with the specific goal of reducing drug use then uhh yeah that was doomed from the start. You decriminalize certain drugs because you want to reduce possession/use arrests and view the treatment as worse than the disease. Arrests for use/possession serve one important function for people which is getting users out of public view even if it doesn't reduce drug use or work at all to get people off them. And Oregon found out how many people value clean streets at the expense of drug users. Can't really blame them.
    - 9x39 2y ago
      I don't think the goal was to reduce drug use, it was to create a legal marijuana industry and reduce policing which was a broadly popular sentiment in 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_110,_Drug_Decriminalization_and_Addiction_Treatment_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_110,_Drug_Decriminali... I don't have a copy of the original voters pamphlet with all the pro and against arguments, but I don't recall this ever being advertised as reducing drug use. I think it did succeed in its goals of legitimizing marijuana in the state, and it did succeed in reducing police involvement in drug enforcement. Whether consequences emerged from these goals is another topic.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
orygun 2y ago
[dead]
verteu 2y ago
It doesn't seem like the law worked very well. Overdoses went up, and while this was largely due to covid & fent trends, it certainly was not an obvious success: https://imgur.com/a/45WAB6F https://imgur.com/a/45WAB6F https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.cfsecosystem.com/m110/Presentations/Panel+1_Joshi.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.cfsecosystem.com/m110/Presen... https://www.rti.org/event/oregons-ballot-measure-110-symposium https://www.rti.org/event/oregons-ballot-measure-110-symposi...
- verteu 2y ago
  See also: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2823254 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
  - verteu 2y ago
    And https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37556870/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37556870/
- nxobject 2y ago
  The article mentions a very important decriminalization-agnostic reason why no changes in outcomes were found within their analytic period: treatment took a really, really, really long time to set up, with funding only going out by the time decriminalization was rolled back. There was lack of capacity both in terms of staffing the actual programs, but as well in reviewing the programs. https://www.opb.org/article/2024/02/14/oregon-drug-decriminalization-plan-measure-110-leadership-failures/ https://www.opb.org/article/2024/02/14/oregon-drug-decrimina... Second, M110 funding comes from marijuana taxes, and a significant downturn in funding is anticipated this FY – I don't know the specific numbers, but it's on the magnitude of 25%. This is the context of the article's observations that treatment _still_ is impossible to find. As a result, I'd argue that Oregon's not going to see many changes in health-related outcomes.
- aredox 2y ago
  It also didn't worsen things... There is no clear relationship between the passing of the law and any trend.
timewizard 2y ago
> “Until the person truly wants to quit, they’re not going to. Forcing people into treatment, it’s against our will and unjust.” I agree, but the policy should be, confiscation and destruction of drugs and no charges. Allowing dealers to take advantage of and profit off of a vulnerable is against the public will and is unjust.
- magicalhippo 2y ago
  To me that's an argument for the gov't providing controlled doses that must be taken at the location. This undercuts the illegal drug economy, reduce theft and other related crime, as well as reducing risk of ODs as they'll get proper doses of good quality. That said, I'm not sure if ease of access will exacerbate the problem. Which would be an argument against.
  - nxobject 2y ago
    Canada has/had? a similar pilot program, but for alcohol use where you get a drink every hour: it might be a good comparison re: health outcomes alone. Let me find a link. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/26/homeless-shelter-ottawa-gives-wine-to-alcoholics https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/26/homeless-she...
  - sightbroke 2y ago
    Why would the illegal drug economy ever let politicians that would implement this get into positions of power to do so?
    - timewizard 2y ago
      I think the legal drug economy has a hand in it as well.
      - sightbroke 2y ago
        Wouldn't they presumably be the ones selling crack, meth, heroin , etc to the government?
acidmath 2y ago
Many of the addicts are long past the mission of "trying to feel good" but are trying to stave off horrible withdrawal symptoms. Ibogaine clinics can help a lot of people. Ibogaine clinics don't work for everybody, and won't work for those who don't want to change their lifestyle, but can help bring back something resembling an okay life for a lot of people.

34 points by c420 2y ago

josefritzishere 2y ago

This seems like a very expensive way to govern. Prison is not cheap.

nxobject 2y ago
Someone attached to Oregon here – it isn't, and it's even harder to retain people at current pay grades in state corrections medical. (Let alone public defense, which the article mentions means that people are being let go in many counties before non-drug-related charges are tried.) https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2025/02/03/amid-mounting-scrutiny-oregon-department-of-corrections-shakes-up-health-care-division/ https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2025/02/03/amid-mounting-...
- josefritzishere 2y ago
  You inspired me to go looking for cost analysis. It's worse than I thought. Oregon is about 79k per year, per person, based on 2024 numbers in this pretty infogrpahic. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cost-per-prisoner-in-us-states/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cost-per-prisoner-in-us-sta...
nathancahill 2y ago
This is the US in a nutshell. And then they wonder why the deficit is so high? Most expensive healthcare. Most expensive incarceration. Most expensive childcare. Most expensive infrastructure projects. Endless list.
- mindslight 2y ago
  The "deficit" is high because USD is the world reserve currency, and the government policy is to prevent natural deflation. The "deficit" should really be called the surplus as it represents the centralized gains of progress from everybody who is still willing to invest in America despite that collection. The popular political movement aimed at reducing the "deficit" is really just part of the larger global movement to destroy the US's world leadership position, hence the related goal of ruining our relationships with our allies and whatnot. Having said that, I agree that the dynamic here is a horrible waste of resources. Housing someone in an SRO (single room occupancy) without guards would cost like one quarter of what jail/prison costs.

ThrowOregonAway 2y ago

[dead]

spicyusername 2y ago

A hard problem with nothing but bad options. Feels like our choices are either to reduce incarceration, which is cheaper and less harsh on drug users, but does nothing to reduce drug use in a given community, or to continue to arrest drug users, which removes them from the community, but is expensive and morally questionable. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The real solution probably takes decades to see results and requires changes in multiple different places to generally reduce the likelihood that a society produces drug users in the first place, which given the current cultural and political environment feels impossible.

givemeethekeys 2y ago

They realized that they don't stand a chance against the cartels, so they're trying to scare the populace instead.

zombiwoof 2y ago
What? Scare the criminals breaking the law using drugs? Kinda what Cops are supposed to do? Should they say “please stop breaking the law” ?
- givemeethekeys 2y ago
  The cops will enforce the laws. I'm talking about the lawmakers - decriminalization failed repealed because Oregon failed at stopping cartels. Whats the point of decriminalizing if it won't achieve the goal of reducing drug use? In order to stop drugs, you have to either kill supply, demand, or both.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    > if it won't achieve the goal of reducing drug use? If they tried decriminalization with the specific goal of reducing drug use then uhh yeah that was doomed from the start. You decriminalize certain drugs because you want to reduce possession/use arrests and view the treatment as worse than the disease. Arrests for use/possession serve one important function for people which is getting users out of public view even if it doesn't reduce drug use or work at all to get people off them. And Oregon found out how many people value clean streets at the expense of drug users. Can't really blame them.
  - 9x39 2y ago
    I don't think the goal was to reduce drug use, it was to create a legal marijuana industry and reduce policing which was a broadly popular sentiment in 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_110,_Drug_Decriminalization_and_Addiction_Treatment_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Measure_110,_Drug_Decriminali... I don't have a copy of the original voters pamphlet with all the pro and against arguments, but I don't recall this ever being advertised as reducing drug use. I think it did succeed in its goals of legitimizing marijuana in the state, and it did succeed in reducing police involvement in drug enforcement. Whether consequences emerged from these goals is another topic.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

orygun 2y ago

[dead]

verteu 2y ago

It doesn't seem like the law worked very well. Overdoses went up, and while this was largely due to covid & fent trends, it certainly was not an obvious success: https://imgur.com/a/45WAB6F https://imgur.com/a/45WAB6F https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.cfsecosystem.com/m110/Presentations/Panel+1_Joshi.pdf https://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.cfsecosystem.com/m110/Presen... https://www.rti.org/event/oregons-ballot-measure-110-symposium https://www.rti.org/event/oregons-ballot-measure-110-symposi...

verteu 2y ago
See also: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2823254 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
- verteu 2y ago
  And https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37556870/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37556870/
nxobject 2y ago
The article mentions a very important decriminalization-agnostic reason why no changes in outcomes were found within their analytic period: treatment took a really, really, really long time to set up, with funding only going out by the time decriminalization was rolled back. There was lack of capacity both in terms of staffing the actual programs, but as well in reviewing the programs. https://www.opb.org/article/2024/02/14/oregon-drug-decriminalization-plan-measure-110-leadership-failures/ https://www.opb.org/article/2024/02/14/oregon-drug-decrimina... Second, M110 funding comes from marijuana taxes, and a significant downturn in funding is anticipated this FY – I don't know the specific numbers, but it's on the magnitude of 25%. This is the context of the article's observations that treatment _still_ is impossible to find. As a result, I'd argue that Oregon's not going to see many changes in health-related outcomes.
aredox 2y ago
It also didn't worsen things... There is no clear relationship between the passing of the law and any trend.

timewizard 2y ago

> “Until the person truly wants to quit, they’re not going to. Forcing people into treatment, it’s against our will and unjust.” I agree, but the policy should be, confiscation and destruction of drugs and no charges. Allowing dealers to take advantage of and profit off of a vulnerable is against the public will and is unjust.

magicalhippo 2y ago
To me that's an argument for the gov't providing controlled doses that must be taken at the location. This undercuts the illegal drug economy, reduce theft and other related crime, as well as reducing risk of ODs as they'll get proper doses of good quality. That said, I'm not sure if ease of access will exacerbate the problem. Which would be an argument against.
- nxobject 2y ago
  Canada has/had? a similar pilot program, but for alcohol use where you get a drink every hour: it might be a good comparison re: health outcomes alone. Let me find a link. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/26/homeless-shelter-ottawa-gives-wine-to-alcoholics https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/26/homeless-she...
- sightbroke 2y ago
  Why would the illegal drug economy ever let politicians that would implement this get into positions of power to do so?
  - timewizard 2y ago
    I think the legal drug economy has a hand in it as well.
    - sightbroke 2y ago
      Wouldn't they presumably be the ones selling crack, meth, heroin , etc to the government?

acidmath 2y ago

Many of the addicts are long past the mission of "trying to feel good" but are trying to stave off horrible withdrawal symptoms. Ibogaine clinics can help a lot of people. Ibogaine clinics don't work for everybody, and won't work for those who don't want to change their lifestyle, but can help bring back something resembling an okay life for a lot of people.