With the historic passing of Measure 110 in Oregon, the state becomes the first to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of heroin, methamphetamine, LSD, and oxycodone among other hard drugs. The measure states that persons found in possession of such drugs would either pay a fine or attend one of the new “addiction recovery centers” that will be open by next October rather than facing imprisonment. While the legislation does not undo current drug-related convictions, there is a budding effort to erase some of those records.
With a restorative “health-based” approach to drug use rather than one of criminal punishment, the measure addresses the nuances of race and socioeconomic factors that have been long associated with the prevalence of drug use by challenging the normalization of criminalizing the poor or people of color due to a lack of systemic support. According to the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, with Measure 110, “racial disparities in drug arrests could drop by 95 percent, and...convictions of Black and Indigenous Oregonians could drop by a staggering 94 percent.” Moreover, because incarceration increases the risk of overdose in those struggling with substance abuse, the legislation works to break the cycle that exacerbates fatal drug use. Hence, the measure sets significant precedent in both ending the “war on drugs” as well as bringing reform to the policing system in America by redirecting funds towards addiction recovery and efforts to support mental health.
While some may believe this measure will encourage drug use by eliminating the semblance of consequence, other countries with similar regulation have had results that imply the opposite. For instance, Portugal has seen “no surge” in drug use since decriminalizing hard drugs in 2000 and in fact has had a 20% increase in the number of people being treated for addiction and a decrease in drug related deaths.
True success in Oregon will only come with the appropriate combination of support services from the public health system along with this decriminalization. And with the proper support, the Washington Post offers that “recovering drug users” can both break out of the cycle of “drug-related criminality” and prevent stigmatization from “employers, lenders, and landlords.” Instead of giving up on the people struggling with substance abuse, the measure pushes forward a path for reintegration that encourages and opens up growth and opportunity.
13 comments:
I think decriminalizing hard drugs, even in small quantity, is a interesting and controversial decision. Depending on how they are used (medically vs recreationally), they could have different impacts. In terms of recreational use, I could see this being both good and bad, and legalizing hard drugs could help remove some of the black market/illegal buying threat, but also could cause easy access, and therefore more addiction problems for people who may not have been susceptible before. Overall, I think that the only way to see whether legalizing hard drugs is a good or bad thing (for the most part) is to see how it affects Oregon and its population over the next few months/years. Thank you for sharing!
The decriminalization of hard drugs in Oregon is definitely a measure that will have many interesting repercussions on the state. For example, with possession of drugs no longer carrying a jail sentence with it, could that lead to people moving to Oregon or even traveling there temporarily to take advantage of the changed laws? I have no idea how realistic this is, but could Oregon become a kind of haven for people who use hard drugs recreationally, knowing that they won't face jail time for it? Aside from the what-ifs of that topic, what about people who are already in Oregon and do drugs? Will this measure truly be able to help them? The only way we'll know whether or not this works is if the state government puts enough resources into helping the drug addicts recover, and only time will tell if they can follow up this bold measure with adequate recovery and rehabilitation programs.
I think that this controversial decision to decriminalize hard drugs is one to monitor closely for other states. If the majority outcome of this "test" is positive, I do think that it would be a step in the right direction to the rehabilitation of America's struggle with drug use. Many people have been hypothetically teasing with this idea of rehab instead of punishment in jail for many different crimes as well and it's going to be really interesting to see what direction this goes in. I just hope that people don't abuse this new decision, but I think that attempting to address the different socioeconomic and race factors is a smart step that Oregon has taken.
To both Liam and Lindsey—I agree—somewhat contrary to my very idealistic conclusion, I think it would be premature to say that the measure will bring definitive change, at least in the near future, without seeing how relevant parties react to it first; e.g., the health care system, the police system, and drug users themselves. I do think that it is very easy to see how the legislation could somewhat be abused, but seeing that it is not a "blanket" decriminalization, I think drug-related activity beyond recreational/medicinal use (like widespread distribution) would still rightfully be punished. I think this legislation instead aims to bring change on a more individual than systemic level, although if successful, would definitely have implications on implementing such programs on a wider scale.
This decision would be controversial in any other time, all the events that have happened this year, especially in Oregon, will most likely cause people to focus on other issues. This kind of decriminalization will be very interesting to see the results of. There are so many perspectives that can be taken on it; on one hand, I really hate the fact that legalization would at least encourage some who may not have otherwise done it, but on the other hand, it does open an avenue for a different approach to the drug problem considering that the war on drugs has failed for several decades. I think it makes no sense to punish people when they're actively harming only themselves; this new measure redirects the money towards actually fixing the problem. As stated with previous comments, the results will likely set precedent for the decision of future states.
I also simply hate government telling us what to do, so there is a small win there.
Similar to other commenters above, I agree that the decriminalization of these hard drugs in Oregon could have varying results. I do also believe that the funding of these “support services,” could potentially be extremely beneficial, as seen through successes Niyati mentioned in Portugal and other countries we’ve observed with comparable legislation. I wonder, however, if in providing a choice between paying the “$100 fine,” rather than engaging in a “health assessment” (Lennard), individuals might be encouraged down somewhat of a disheartening path leading to a greater cycle of criminal activity, as those struggling to cope with drug addiction choose to avoid the “‘health-based’ approach.” Even so, as Oregon is the first state in our country to take on this experiment of decriminalization on hard drugs, I do believe this measure increases the possibility of facing the “war on drugs” with more success in the future.
Similar to other commenters, I agree that there’s no way to tell yet if this will end up having a positive impact or not. Either way, I think it’s good that the state voted to pass this measure. I’m not very informed about the War on Drugs, but my impression is that it hasn’t been a success. Seeing that the decriminalization of hard drugs in Portugal hasn’t led to an increase in usage and appears to have had positive effects, I’m glad that Oregon has taken the leap in experimenting with this kind of policy. While I see how the fears about this measure could come true, my prediction is that the decriminalization will work as intended, and in following elections, we may even see other states adopt similar policies, sort of like what we’ve seen with marijuana legalization.
When I first saw this law pass, I was bit skeptical but looking at the research and its results from other countries, it seems like it could be a positive landmark law. An important emphasis is that decriminalization does not mean legalization, which means possessing large amounts of hard drugs would probably still mean jail time because of intent to distribute. I think this law could be the right step on the "war against drugs" as the traditional approach that the U.S. has gone for has obviously not worked very effectively. However, we'll only be able to see the effectiveness of this law through time, many years even. Although I see the issue that this law could encourage drug use, I still think the possible pros do outweigh the possible cons. This law focuses more on rehabilitation than punishment, which I think is a good stance to take on drug addiction and use.
Oregon's choice to decriminalize some small amounts of hard drugs is a step in the right direction towards decreasing the racial inequality in the "war on drugs" and in the criminal justice system as a whole, but cannot be expected to solve all of the problems. I think this is the point that many of the previous commentators chose to focus on, how this single law will not end the addiction/use of hard drugs nor will it likely exponentially increase it. Measure 110 will hopefully help rehabilitate and get the care to the people that need it most, but there still should be some skepticism. This measure is followed in just one state and Oregon is already dealing with some pretty serious other issues, that might be taking much of the state's attention and budget. Portland has become a main site for ongoing protests against police brutality and in support of BLM. Unfortunately some of these protests turned violent, and the National Guard has been in and out of Portland in the last couple of months "dealing" with these demonstrations. While I doubt the unrest in Portland is the only focus on the Oregon state government, I think it must be recognized in setting the stage of when this measure passed. For the sake of all involved in these drug crimes, hopefully this measure will result in positive change, even at the lower level.
Oregon choosing to decriminalize hard drugs was bound to be controversial. I think that there will be drawbacks and benefits to it, there will be people who follow this program and increase people going through rehabilitation, which is a step. By also legalizing a small amount of hard drugs, it could decrease the amount of black market/illegal selling that happens. Despite wanting to be hopeful that it will push more people towards rehabilitation, it most likely will only push a small number of people that way. If getting people to recover from addictions could be done with just one law it would have been implemented already, but other states should see how it works in Oregon and with their results choose to implement and improve this law.
As the Washington Post article linked by Niyati highlighted, with the current criminalization system, former addicts who have sought rehabilitation and become clean would still face negative stigma from society, preventing them from finding jobs and places to rent when they rebuild their lives. With this being said, I think this measure is a step in the right direction in giving addicts the opportunities they need to recover, as seeking treatment in itself is not enough for criminalized addicts to fully engage in society. However, many claim that criminalization helps deter people from abusing hard substances in the first place. With this measure certainly being a controversial one, turning towards other countries like Portugal may shed some light on how effective decriminalization would be. Overall, I see this measure as a promising one, but only time will tell.
I really like Oregon's approach to drug usage and I feel like all of the U.S. should follow along if the results come back like Portugal's. It does not promote anyone to take them and rather focuses on helping people who are addicted to these hard drugs and trying to reduce the stigma surrounding addicts. Hopefully decriminalizing it will also help these people not land in jail all the time because they do not receive the proper care when they are locked up and I do not think that hardcore addicts would stop anyways and face terrible withdrawals. Continuing on, while this may not stop all drug usage, it is definitely a step in the right direction because at least addicts are not separated from care facilities but still have to pay a fine so they are reprimanded in some way.
I have always been of the opinion that the issue with drug usage in the U.S. is not that there is now a lack of enforcement with drug laws but that said drug laws do nothing to actually stem the issue of drug usage in this country because those laws don't address addiction and systemic issues that lead people to continue using illegal drugs. One can put away a drug felon for a couple years as per a mandatory minimum sentence, but there's nothing preventing said drug felon from using drugs again after they leave because of a physical or emotional dependence on those substances, and as many countries such as the Netherlands and Portugal have shown, there are much better alternatives to criminalizing drugs. By treating people involved in drugs as mental patients that need help rather than criminals, we can actually proactively work towards a long-term solution to the issue of dangerous drug usage by breaking the cycle of dependency and gain a deeper understanding of external issues that lead people to start using and selling drugs in order to prevent the issue in the future. It might be wishful thinking, but I hope that more states consider employing similar policies as Ohio, such that the issue can be solved on a more nationwide scale.
Post a Comment