Oregon's first-in-the-nation drug decriminalization law faces growing pushback amid fentanyl crisis
Oregon’s first-in-the-nation law that decriminalized the possession of small amounts of heroin, cocaine and other illicit drugs in favor of an emphasis on addiction treatment is facing strong headwinds in the progressive state after an explosion of public drug use fueled by the proliferation of fentanyl and a surge in deaths from opioids, including those of children.
“The inability for people to live their day-to-day life without encountering open-air drug use is so pressing on urban folks’ minds,” said John Horvick, vice president of polling firm DHM Research. “That has very much changed people’s perspective about what they think Measure 110 is.”
When the law was approved by 58% of Oregon voters three years ago, supporters championed Measure 110 as a revolutionary approach that would transform addiction by minimizing penalties for drug use and investing instead in recovery.
But even top Democratic lawmakers who backed the law, which will likely dominate the upcoming legislative session, say they’re now open to revisiting it after the biggest increase in synthetic opioid deaths among states that have reported their numbers.
And of course nobody even contemplating the idea that they underfunded the resources invested in recovery and that's the change they need to make.
Oregonian here. And... Yep. That's it exactly.
Second Oregonian here, and also yup. We decriminalized but then decided not to require treatment (Portugal method), and then didn't fund treatment anyway.
Portugal doesn't require treatment. I don't know where this idea came from, but this isn't the first time I've seen this misinformation.
Also severe police shortage amidst nationwide increase in crimes. I don't think any of the drug users are getting cited for public drug use at all unless they have to be taken to the hospital.
Edit: I DIDN'T SAY DEFUND. Portland has a massive police shortage. They also STATE that they don't prioritize nonviolent drug use because they don't have manpower.
There isn't a nationwide increase in crime, and there haven't been defundings of the police.
What reality do you live in?
What the fuck happened here?
Portland has had a police shortage since 2020. I never said anything about defunding. Portland Police also have wait times and aren't responding to non violent drug use calls unless life is in danger.
Crimes are also up Only murder went "down" because it was extremely high post pandemic and hasn't gotten down to prepandemic.
No need to be an asshole about it
Have the police tried just working harder, or perhaps pulling themselves up by their bootstraps
What a constructive comment. Thank god we have leftists like you adding so much to our government and our community ethos.
“Nobody wants to police anymore” it’s almost like all the things that make the job what it is make it only a job for shitty people
Why is it that “nobody wants to work” is somehow the workers problem for not accepting poor working conditions but “we have a police shortage” falls on society to make things “easier” for them
Yeah fucking right. I work in downtown Salem. It doesn’t matter if half these people have “resources.” They’re here because they can get their fix without being harassed.
You need repercussions in order for addicts to want to get clean. We don’t have any.
Sick, love to see a fascist thinking about criminalizing those who need help, not punishment, the most.
Massive leap, but typical for a shit for brains. I just work and pay taxes here, but yeah no I’m a fascist because I think people shouldn’t be tweaking on P2P meth in broad daylight in front of our businesses and fucking children.
Are you from Oregon? Do you live here? Do you see it? If not, shut your ignorant fucking mouth. Repercussions include mandatory treatment. I’m not saying we should lock people away in solitary, but the current system of ZERO repercussions whatsoever is not working. Doesn’t make me a fascist to point it out. Go fuck yourself.
You're going to need to cite your sources that repercussions do anything meaningful for addicts to get clean, as opposed to decriminalized but mandatory treatment (a la Portugal).
Source: I live and work here, I voted for the law initially and I have seen it fail. IMO this trumps your “a l portugal” source, you ignorant fucking dunce.
Come live and work in our communities and you will see as virtually everyone here does that the measure has failed because there is ZERO INCENTIVE for anyone selling or using these drugs to do anything but continue to sell and use. As I said in a previous comment, repercussions include mandatory treatment. You people are detached and moronic.
Now this is how you convey your point and have people listen. Take notes boys.
so, Oregon had "the biggest increase in synthetic opioid deaths among states" 😱
"...that have reported their numbers."
I feel like that last phrase is doing a lot of work. I'm not going to put in the work to figure out the numbers, but it's a weird place to end the article.
Same with homeless and gun activity. Some states, exclusively red states, don't share their statistics or just don't want to pay to track them.
They're claiming an "increase" in percentage. But just in LA, they had 1910 Fentanyl ODs last year. As while all of Oregon only had 955. It's bad everywhere
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/sapc/MDU/SpecialReport/FentanylOverdosesInLosAngelesCounty.pdf
https://www.oregon.gov/oha/PH/PREVENTIONWELLNESS/SUBSTANCEUSE/OPIOIDS/Documents/quarterly_opioid_overdose_related_data_report.pdf
I mean, if the people are willing to risk their lives with an overdose, I don't think a criminal penalty is going to scare them very much. So, yeah, more resources for treatment are probably necessary.
It's not that the penalty is effective, it lets law enforcement remove them from the public places.
"go die someplace else. I'm trying to civilized society over here"
One solution's been tried and it didn't work we should just give up.
Did you mean this to sound like it undermines your argument as much as it does?
Yeah, sounds like I'm arguing with fascists.
It sounds like you have poor reading comprehension and don't know who you're arguing with.
Nah, just another literal A-hole I need to block
I don't think fascists support treating addicted members of society and not exporting them elsewhere via final solution methods. I could be wrong, but I don't think that's what they are famous for, compassion towards a health crisis.
It's almost as if the half-assed decriminalization effort was not done in earnest because opponents want to see it fail. We have cops not doing their jobs, government officials not emulating existing models (like Portugal), and recovery clinics that will turn you away if you haven't been doing the "right" opiates.
Seriously. We have models that are proven to work. Just fucking emulate them.
We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!
It's almost as if legalizing the sale of drugs would give a safe place to get drugs that aren't laced with fentanyl.
This helps those with addiction from getting caught up in the prison system, but nothing to make them safer when taking drugs.
Or in some cases you could get Fentanyl but have it correctly labeled, dosed, and administered.
We didn't legalize them, just decriminalized them. Problem is, we didn't follow the Portugal method and require them to get treatment… just not caught up in the system. So of course this was going to happen.
Portugal does not require treatment.
It's the same dumb approach as it is with the "housing first" model. Yes this models work and they work great!
But you actually have to read more than just the headline of the paper. The decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal for example came with a whole bunch of other new regulations and programs. It wasn't "just" decriminalise drugs and be done with it.
We are approaching Idiocracy status fast...
I think we're nose deep in idiocrazy.
Are you saying "housing first" works or not?
Because just labeling something "housing first" without actually providing housing of course doesn't work and that may be what you're say. But a proper "housing first" DOES WORK to significantly improve people's lives and reduce their engagement with emergency services (ie, cops and hospitals), which is quality of life for the rest of us.
Here's a study from the Lancet (n=1103): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(22)00117-1/fulltext
Well, did you read the study you posted?
The Oregon way of doing "Housing First" would be to take the name of the program literally, put people into apartments and expect that now all their problems resolve themselves.
Making treatment optional (unlike Portugal) has been the big disaster here.
16,000 people ticketed under measure 110, less than 1% actively seeking treatment.
https://www.oregonlive.com/health/2022/09/oregons-drug-decriminalization-effort-sends-less-than-1-of-people-to-treatment.html
Meanwhile, drug use is exploding, overdoses are exploding, related thefts and crime are exploding...
https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2022/02/07/oregon-has-worst-drug-addiction-problem-in-the-nation-report-shows/
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/portland-downtown-firefighter-overdose-calls-narcan-deaths/283-a37b7402-c199-40ce-a120-bb6aec149365
"In June alone, firefighters from Station 1 responded to 300 overdoses.
Portland police data shows that back in 2020 nearly 90 people died from overdoses. The number jumped to 135 in 2021, then to 159 in all of 2022. So far this year there have been 151 deaths, all in less than seven months. Police expect that number to be around 300 by year's end."
110 continues to be an utter failure.
And yet recent studies show overdoses have not gone up as a result, and Fentanyl is a growing problem in all US cities. https://www.opb.org/article/2023/09/27/oregon-drug-decriminalization-measure-110-overdose-deaths/
Deaths have not, because the fire department is responding with narcan hundreds of times a month.
All your data posted above apart from a single anecdote from a firefighter are from before this law even passed at the end of 2020. Seems like you're arguing the old way wasn't working.
"In June alone, firefighters from Station 1 responded to 300 overdoses."
That's this year.
We've had as many as 8 in a single event:
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/portland-drug-overdoses/283-78be019c-cef8-4c73-b2e8-24fd69fd9308
People are probably more likely to call for their help if they don't have to fear being thrown in jail.
You can't force treatment on someone who doesn't want help and expect results. Just like throwing them in jail until they're sober doesn't stop them from using as soon as they get released.
Not ruining people's lives further with jail and criminal records for personal use is better than what we were doing before, even if it's not perfect.
Addicts won't volunteer for help, that's part of the addiction.
Rehab only works if the person wants to get clean. Otherwise it's just incarceration. There needs to be more support for those that want to get clean, but decriminalizing drugs also has to be done so that they can feel safe to seek treatment without fear of punishment.
We are trying decriminalization, it's not working.
The reason it works in Portugal is a) treatment is not optional and b) Nationalized health care.
Absent those two things, decriminalization is a disaster.
Treatment isn't mandatory in Portugal. Rather, they expanded treatment services, increased point for positive intervention and interactions with healthcare provider and social workers, and focused on harm reduction.
Learn about the practices and not the misinformation. You can read more in the wikipedia entry under regulations.
In Oregon, it's a $100 fine, waived if they seek treatment. The fines are being ignored. Treatment is being ignored. That's the end of it. There are no hearings, no encouragement, and nothing like this from Portugal:
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/09/18/oregon-measure-110-portugal/
"In Portugal, drug users must appear before a commission that determines whether the person needs treatment or should pay a civil penalty.
“They don’t just assume that everybody will pop into treatment on their own,” Humphreys said.
And the system includes other measures that don’t exist in Oregon. For example, the commission could suspend the driver’s license of a cab driver until after treatment, he said, giving state officials leverage over users."
I don't disagree that there are a lot of problems with Measure 110 and there are a lot of differences between Oregon's roll out and Portugal's roll out. Additionally, the problems faced by both states are unique in many ways. This Oregonian article highlights some of the differences.
However, their solution doesn't, as you said, mandate treatment. I don't know where people got this idea, but it is spread uncritically as some sort of major failure in the Oregon system. If we are to mimic the Portugal system, mandatory treatment is not it.
Of course, this isn't what I read when I see people comparing Oregon to Portugal. What people what is to force treatment through some sort of threat like taking away a cab license. I don't think we are concerned with the cabbies who are using drugs. We care about the chronically houseless people who we have very little leverage over. We don't want our downtowns to have open drug users. We also, to some degree, to get the help they need. But that takes trust and building trust takes time.
The mandatory part is the court review to decide if they need treatment or a fine. Here, we just cite them a $100 ticket (which they ignore) and turn them loose. There's no sort of a review.
Obviously if someone is passing out in the street from fentanyl or overdosing multiple times resulting in over burdening the 911 system, that's a call for mandatory treatment. They have abdicated personal responsibility at that point and are burdening the community at large with their bullshit.
I'm all for letting people deal with their personal problems on their own, but when their problems suddenly become OUR problems, that's where the professionals need to step in.
It's not a court. It's a commission made up of three people: A social worker, a psychiatrist, and an attorney. The mandatory part is to appear in front of the commission, not as you originally said, to engage in treatment. They can decide that they need treatment, but addicts don't need to go.
At heart, in my opinion, is trust in the commission to center the addicts needs.
I'm no defending or critiquing Oregon's program. I am saying that you are misinformed and have confidently spread that misinformation.
And it's more than what Oregon does...
I'm no defending or critiquing Oregon's program. I am saying that you are misinformed and have confidently spread that misinformation. I don't care about what Oregon does or doesn't do in this conversation. I care about people spreading misinformation.
I hope we can end with that.
We do sometimes. The point is to make sure the help is there if and when we decide to.
It's crass and probably juvenile but honestly just let them filter themselves out.
This tells me the voluntary approach does not work. I'm going to guess those citations do not get paid either.