Saved you a click: is because they started with cops. 🖕🏽
I'm shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked.
The Legislature, the court system and the bureaucracy under two governors ignored or rejected proposed solutions as seemingly straightforward as designing a specialized ticket to highlight treatment information. They declined to fund a proposed $50,000 online course that would have instructed cops how to better use the new law. They took no action on recommendations to get police, whose leaders campaigned against the ballot measure, talking with treatment providers after decriminalization passed.
It's gonna cost money to fix things. Spend a lot of money on trained people for outreach or you didn't do outreach. Counselors, social workers, whatever. You can't fix addiction without investment in the community.
Oh, guaranteed they don't care about the money it would cost. They care about the money for profit prisons would be losing if their cattle were sent to rehab instead of prison.
Oregon doesn't have any for profit prisons. Good job guaranteeing it though.
Yeah, admittedly my comment was a knee jerk reaction and done with complete ignorance of the state. I'll leave it as to not hide me being an idiot though
Oregon gov: "best I can do is no jail, no rehab"
It's a fucking mess. Fentanyl costs less than a dollar. There's open street drug markets. It's not uncommon seeing people shooting up or smoking out of tinfoil. Tents are randomly everywhere with people doing drugs.
Portland used to be vibrant and clean. It's pretty much a toilet for the unhoused. Cleanup crews comb the early streets. I routinely see a guy spraying disinfectant on store fronts because people are peeing and shitting in doorways.
I would guess that half of the businesses have left. Lots of stores are boarded up.
We have had recorded crime the last couple of years. Crime is finally starting to go down, but not as fast as similar cities.
I don't like addicts going to prison, but expecting them to just seek out treatment after getting a $100 ticket is dumb. When incentive is there?
The process failed because it was stupid to begin with. It should have required treatment and training was ready before decriminalizing.
I don't understand how decriminalizing hard drugs is supposed to help. Handing out a fine with a hotline number is laughable. Most addicts aren't going to seek out help on their own. Didn't Maine have a law that forced certain users to go through rehab/therapy? They established a bunch of clinics that constantly reached out to their patients and made sure they were getting treatment. But I'm pretty sure it didn't start with decriminalization.
it's because treating the problem of drugs like a personal moral failing offers nothing but punishment, without addressing the root cause of people with addiction. Instead of putting people in prison for drugs, (in which they still have access to drugs) we would rather help them address the underlying cause of hardship that causes them to want to "check out" so badly. People in poverty, with untreated illness, little to no support system, without access to a safe place to live, are going to want to check out via drug use. Us punishing them isn't going to do anything but give them another reason to shoot up.
work programs, housing programs, food programs, and healthcare is what they truly need to stop. Not us spending the same amount of money it would take to help them, but on the prison industrial complex.
Yeah, I agree putting people in prison won't solve addiction but that's why I mentioned what I somewhat remember Maine doing. It's about having a path towards rehabilitation (not in prison). Essentially you temporarily book offenders, then they get a court mandated ruling to go to these clinics to get better while they have consistent checkups. This way they get to stay out of prison while receiving treatment. I guess what I'm saying is you need the law to allow temporary detainment and to enable court rulings of certain treatments that otherwise many offenders would not receive otherwise. The problem I see isn't with these situations it's that oftentimes legislators are too lazy to implement laws that work to implement steps after being detained/fined. It's lazy to put people in jail and also to simply decriminalize substances. Because when substances are decriminalized you have no legal leg to stand on when you need to force treatment and to your point being sent to prison doesn't help either.
This sounds nice, but addicts don't just stop being addicts. Losing a home may have resulted in someone getting addicted to heroin, but giving them a home won't stop the addiction. Prison isn't the place to treat addiction either though.
You have to address the addiction first though.
work programs, housing programs, food programs, and healthcare is what they truly need to stop.
healthcare includes therapy, mental health, and addiction treatment.
Related to my other post, what I'm trying to say is that these programs are all important and I agree that these parts are often overlooked in legislation. My argument though is that these programs by themselves also won't fix these issues. You sometimes need to court mandate these people to use these services. Maybe after being detained for illegal use they are sent to a rehab center for a certain amount of time, then they are released from rehab but need to checkin at a clinic at certain intervals to ensure they're on their meds and so on. There needs to be a legal system in place to ensure these people get the care they need because many don't bother or can't get the care on their own.
It helps because if they know they aren't going to be imprisoned for it, they're more likely to seek help in situations that involve drugs. Getting people to quit drugs requires trust and social outreach. Decriminalization is about making sure that drug users aren't further stigmatized and abused, and thus more able to accept support.
I don't think that this should be a legalization issue. To your point, prison is not the solution. I think its about what you do after a user is detained temporarily. Instead of prison people need to be sent to rehab centers.
You need a legal backing to get these people help. Decriminalization means there's no legal backing to provide services to these people, oftentimes they don't want help. Like the article mentioned, no one ever bothers calling the helpline. Why would they? They either don't want to or cant. With a court order they can be taken care of, usually through tax payer money. Initially this may cost a decent amount of money but could fix the problem over time.
The problem there is a court order is enforced under threat of punishment. One is going to be less likely to seek help if they're subject to physical or sexual abuse if the mere mention of it could land them in legal trouble. Similarly, folks are less likely to seek help in overdose situations under threat of legal consequences.
Okay, so I have been misinterpreting decriminalization. I looked up some statistics and found this website that was helpful. In a nutshell I agree with decriminalization, however it seems like Oregon may not have implemented the law in a meaningful way, in my opinion. It's not a comprehensive approach to getting people help and stops at offering a drug screening (which seems like a non-solution) or a fine. May people never get a screening and many never pay the fine, so nothing actually happens. So on other words, Oregon politicians passed a meaningless bill. Portugal seems to have done a better job with this and it's a shame politicians can't look to places that work to emulate their laws.
There are plenty of addicts that seek out help without legal compulsion. I work in a treatment center in Portland and we have way more people seeking help than we can accommodate. Housing is the biggest problem, often people wouldn't need a residential treatment bed if they had adequate housing.
I can get behind that. But also from the article it says that these people often don't seek out help either. To your point, housing is another part of the problem that these lawmakers failed to address.
Saved you a click: is because they started with cops. 🖕🏽
I'm shocked! Shocked! Well, not that shocked.
It's gonna cost money to fix things. Spend a lot of money on trained people for outreach or you didn't do outreach. Counselors, social workers, whatever. You can't fix addiction without investment in the community.
Oh, guaranteed they don't care about the money it would cost. They care about the money for profit prisons would be losing if their cattle were sent to rehab instead of prison.
Oregon doesn't have any for profit prisons. Good job guaranteeing it though.
Yeah, admittedly my comment was a knee jerk reaction and done with complete ignorance of the state. I'll leave it as to not hide me being an idiot though
Oregon gov: "best I can do is no jail, no rehab"
It's a fucking mess. Fentanyl costs less than a dollar. There's open street drug markets. It's not uncommon seeing people shooting up or smoking out of tinfoil. Tents are randomly everywhere with people doing drugs.
Portland used to be vibrant and clean. It's pretty much a toilet for the unhoused. Cleanup crews comb the early streets. I routinely see a guy spraying disinfectant on store fronts because people are peeing and shitting in doorways. I would guess that half of the businesses have left. Lots of stores are boarded up.
We have had recorded crime the last couple of years. Crime is finally starting to go down, but not as fast as similar cities.
I don't like addicts going to prison, but expecting them to just seek out treatment after getting a $100 ticket is dumb. When incentive is there?
The process failed because it was stupid to begin with. It should have required treatment and training was ready before decriminalizing.
I don't understand how decriminalizing hard drugs is supposed to help. Handing out a fine with a hotline number is laughable. Most addicts aren't going to seek out help on their own. Didn't Maine have a law that forced certain users to go through rehab/therapy? They established a bunch of clinics that constantly reached out to their patients and made sure they were getting treatment. But I'm pretty sure it didn't start with decriminalization.
it's because treating the problem of drugs like a personal moral failing offers nothing but punishment, without addressing the root cause of people with addiction. Instead of putting people in prison for drugs, (in which they still have access to drugs) we would rather help them address the underlying cause of hardship that causes them to want to "check out" so badly. People in poverty, with untreated illness, little to no support system, without access to a safe place to live, are going to want to check out via drug use. Us punishing them isn't going to do anything but give them another reason to shoot up.
work programs, housing programs, food programs, and healthcare is what they truly need to stop. Not us spending the same amount of money it would take to help them, but on the prison industrial complex.
Yeah, I agree putting people in prison won't solve addiction but that's why I mentioned what I somewhat remember Maine doing. It's about having a path towards rehabilitation (not in prison). Essentially you temporarily book offenders, then they get a court mandated ruling to go to these clinics to get better while they have consistent checkups. This way they get to stay out of prison while receiving treatment. I guess what I'm saying is you need the law to allow temporary detainment and to enable court rulings of certain treatments that otherwise many offenders would not receive otherwise. The problem I see isn't with these situations it's that oftentimes legislators are too lazy to implement laws that work to implement steps after being detained/fined. It's lazy to put people in jail and also to simply decriminalize substances. Because when substances are decriminalized you have no legal leg to stand on when you need to force treatment and to your point being sent to prison doesn't help either.
This sounds nice, but addicts don't just stop being addicts. Losing a home may have resulted in someone getting addicted to heroin, but giving them a home won't stop the addiction. Prison isn't the place to treat addiction either though.
You have to address the addiction first though.
healthcare includes therapy, mental health, and addiction treatment.
Related to my other post, what I'm trying to say is that these programs are all important and I agree that these parts are often overlooked in legislation. My argument though is that these programs by themselves also won't fix these issues. You sometimes need to court mandate these people to use these services. Maybe after being detained for illegal use they are sent to a rehab center for a certain amount of time, then they are released from rehab but need to checkin at a clinic at certain intervals to ensure they're on their meds and so on. There needs to be a legal system in place to ensure these people get the care they need because many don't bother or can't get the care on their own.
It helps because if they know they aren't going to be imprisoned for it, they're more likely to seek help in situations that involve drugs. Getting people to quit drugs requires trust and social outreach. Decriminalization is about making sure that drug users aren't further stigmatized and abused, and thus more able to accept support.
I don't think that this should be a legalization issue. To your point, prison is not the solution. I think its about what you do after a user is detained temporarily. Instead of prison people need to be sent to rehab centers.
You need a legal backing to get these people help. Decriminalization means there's no legal backing to provide services to these people, oftentimes they don't want help. Like the article mentioned, no one ever bothers calling the helpline. Why would they? They either don't want to or cant. With a court order they can be taken care of, usually through tax payer money. Initially this may cost a decent amount of money but could fix the problem over time.
The problem there is a court order is enforced under threat of punishment. One is going to be less likely to seek help if they're subject to physical or sexual abuse if the mere mention of it could land them in legal trouble. Similarly, folks are less likely to seek help in overdose situations under threat of legal consequences.
Okay, so I have been misinterpreting decriminalization. I looked up some statistics and found this website that was helpful. In a nutshell I agree with decriminalization, however it seems like Oregon may not have implemented the law in a meaningful way, in my opinion. It's not a comprehensive approach to getting people help and stops at offering a drug screening (which seems like a non-solution) or a fine. May people never get a screening and many never pay the fine, so nothing actually happens. So on other words, Oregon politicians passed a meaningless bill. Portugal seems to have done a better job with this and it's a shame politicians can't look to places that work to emulate their laws.
https://www.publichealthdegrees.org/resources/drugs-decriminalization-and-public-health/
There are plenty of addicts that seek out help without legal compulsion. I work in a treatment center in Portland and we have way more people seeking help than we can accommodate. Housing is the biggest problem, often people wouldn't need a residential treatment bed if they had adequate housing.
I can get behind that. But also from the article it says that these people often don't seek out help either. To your point, housing is another part of the problem that these lawmakers failed to address.