The article mentions a very important decriminalization-agnostic reason why no changes in outcomes were found within their analytic period: treatment took a rea

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.