Oregon and drugs

The bill would recriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs as a low-level misdemeanor, enabling police to confiscate them and crack down on their use on sidewalks and in parks, its authors said. It also aims to make it easier to prosecute dealers, to access addiction treatment medication, and to obtain and keep housing without facing discrimination for using that medication.



To me, this was the problem with their plan. It should never have been allowed in those settings (at least for the hard stuff). The state should have made dedicated spaces for it where it was legal and where the state could act to help those individuals instead of turning them rampant on the streets.


Some cities have tried setting up “safe” injection sites. Of course, there is blistering pushback that the cities are “enabling” or “encouraging” drug use. But by outlawing the trade, they are “enabling” and “empowering” organized crime.



I am just glad they learned from their mistake. I do not have problems with people trying different ways to solve problems as long as they learn from their mistakes. But I think most logical people would have seen the problems they encountered.



Are they more successful bringing in addicts for treatment with these laws (as liberals hoped)?

No, the problem continues to be, lack of mental health services (including drug addiction treatment), lack of affordable housing, and lack of homeless shelters. All of this costs money which city leaders (and taxpayers) are reluctant to pay

Portland could legally clear all the tent camping out this afternoon, if they had housing and shelter space to place the people in.



And it runs counter to the USian “traditional value” of making people suffer for their failings, That puritanical, punishment culture that I have commented about before, makes it very easy to be a selfish brute.



De-criminalizing stupid harmful use of addictive drugs is marginally useful, because

criminalization only minimally deters drug abuse while increasing the dependency of addicts on
criminals and criminal haunts, thereby
increasing the profits and corruptive power of criminals;
decriminalization without funding and
coordinating intervention by
teams of social workers, police and medical workers
is destructive of precious shared civil space and is an abandonment of the addicts.

Half hearted do good is just as poisonous as vindictive suppression.

david fb


People will disagree. I saw an article listing three classes of homeless. Short term recent arrivals often with family. Those with addiction or mental health issues. And the long term homeless. Some of which do not like shelters and will not go unless forced. Shelters are often drug infested–well served by dealers. Little privacy. And your “stuff” may be at risk of theft. We need strategies for each group of homeless.



When I was rescuing thrown-awayed/run-awayed*** kids from the streets of Los Angeles it was brutally obvious how little anyone cared about them, or even were willing to give a few moments of time to barely beginning to think about them. They were simply a problem to be solved by being stuck somewhere invisible.

They were all different, with radically different needs once you got beyond a meal, clean underwear, and a safe place to sleep. And people at least pretend they have compassion for street kids. A newly jobless middle aged woman who desperately needs a safe shower? Forget about it.

d fb

*** When you talk to them you quickly come to the realization that very very few 13 - 16 year olds are self-motivated runaways, they are overwhelmingly pushed away and thrown away or abandoned)


The bill now heads to the desk of Gov. Tina Kotek, who said in January that she is open to signing a bill that would roll back decriminalization…

Decriminalization of personal-use amounts of drugs, OK’d by voters in 2020 under Ballot Measure 110, was supposed to move hundreds of millions of dollars of marijuana tax revenues into drug treatment and harm reduction programs. That didn’t translate into an improved care network for a state with the second-highest rate of substance use disorder in the nation and ranked 50th for access to treatment…


I doubt it. Idealism meet reality. What cities in attractive areas are finding is that the more services they provide for the homeless, the more homeless will come to their cities. Provide affordable housing in cities with high real estate prices and demand for that housing will either make them scarce or unaffordable.

That’s why places like Seattle, Portland, and SF can’t win on this issue. Whatever amount of services they provide will soon be inadequate. The reality is that for cities that attract people, the well-meaning liberal approach to homelessness typically results in budget deficits and significantly reducing the quality of life for everyone else.

I think a major problem with our mental health and addiction programs is that for the most part, participation has to be voluntary. That’s irrational if you think about it, asking people with mental health and addiction problems to make good decisions. While I understand the potential for abuse, I don’t think we can solve the problem without giving doctors and judges more leeway to compel treatment and involuntary commitment on those with such problems. Otherwise it will be the same old same old.


Making it legal raises the prices and increases the number of people using it.

Medical treatment is a better way to reduce usage.

The same rationale applies to health care. Any city/state providing effective healthcare to the homeless, the more homeless will move there.

1 Like

It is only partially true.

States with possibly a lot fewer benefits in the Rockies have high homeless rates. Southern states and Midwestern states have lower homeless rates.

The Rockies are frugal states. The Midwestern states are not nearly as frugal.

Not really. The more-northern Rockies states have climates that are known to be unsafe to most homeless. So, the homeless MOSTLY LEAVE and go to another state–either temporarily or permanently. We see that here in MN every year. Some people are here all year. Others leave in the fall and return in the spring. Most that stay are in the metro area–it is warmer than rural areas AND the govt provides temporary shelter in really bad weather.

1 Like

Yup. This is why I don’t think any of these programs can work without a quid pro quo relationship with the recipients. For example, you get the health care or affordable home if you take regular drug tests and go to treatment if you test positive.

State support of an addict without treating the addiction comes very close to enabling.


So why does Mississippi have the lowest homeless rate?

Do you think they left for CA? LOL

More like if you are black you are not even counted.

1 Like

Most southern states are relatively warm all year 'round. So if you do not own/rent your residence, the state has minimal interest in trying to get people into housing. Ignoring the issue is SOP for the southern states.

1 Like

From January 2023:

From this week:

Public drug use became illegal in British Columbia once again on Tuesday, after the federal government granted the province’s request to scale back its drug decriminalization pilot.

The change represents a major policy climbdown for the provincial NDP government more than a year into the three-year pilot program with Ottawa that is aimed at tackling the deadly overdose crisis.


1 Like