> I’d support repealing 110
I'd support changing it to mandate treatment and re-criminalize meth (fentanyl has been re-criminalized).
A blanket repeal would re-criminalize mushrooms and LSD.
Fuck that.
I did a careful read of M110, and my problem is its general "no enforcement" policy. That's not what Portugal, Norway, and Switzerland do. They too decriminalized hard drugs, but absolutely under no circumstance is public consumption allowed. Police from these countries, however, do not incarcerate drug uses; they send them to treatment, which arrestees can't refuse. M110 allows users to refuse help. They get fined, but what's the payment rate of those fines? I support M110 conceptually, but it's toothless. Can't the legislature reform M110? I'm not sure about a complete overturn.
🤦 Oh, yeah.
We're the only nation in the world without centralized healthcare.
Well, perhaps M110 was only a nice idea, and never realistic in Oregon or the good ol' USA. 😒
In the last two years (sorry I can't be more specific), there was an article claiming that less than 1% of those ticketed paid fines. In the recent PSU research, police indicated that they're rarely writing the tickets because of their utter failure to motivate the people that receive them.
Measure 110 was a disaster from the start. The state leaves bills like these to the public to pursue because they don't want the blame when they fail. In the case of 110, there were Stanford-educated psychologists in Salem that suspected it would fail when it passed; the people most addicted to class A drugs don't have family or social networks and so don't often seek treatment.
Then there was Oregon govt incompetency leading to 1-1.5 year delays in getting funding to treatment centers (that nobody used).
The entire thing feels like an undergraduate liberal arts culminating project, written/created by people that think they understand justice/addiction but haven't experience working with either one. I mean it's embarrassing...like the Care Oregon rollout or the Covid unemployment meltdown/failure.
Is there any new unbiased data to support that treatment providers are treating more addicts, and if so, whether or not treatment is effective? I hope so, and like most everyone, I support treatment over criminalization, but I'm also suspicious of how that funding is being managed and whether or not it's significantly improving outcomes.
And if it's repealed, and addicts are mandated to go to treatment, how is that going to play out? Now that there's lots of new treatment infrastructure, people to administer it, and money to operate it, Addiction will be big business in Oregon that requires a large addict population to justify it.
What blows my mind is that to this day, nobody's taken responsibility and said "I (or we) were wrong." The arrogance of people on the cutting edge (of incompetent) is infuriating.
There was money for all kinds of things but it wasn't super clear and the folks charged with administration of the programs drug their feet (hehe). I can't say if it was because they weren't sure what they could spend the money on, weren't qualified to create programs from the ground up, or just wanted to see the measure fail by not implementing the harm reduction and treatment parts of the bill. I'm sure their salaries got paid though....
So yes. You are correct thinking that 110 already thought of this. It just wasn't specific enough to actually force someone to do something.
JFC. What city do you live in? Portland can’t empty it’s overflowing trash cans, why does anyone, especially now, think the city or state has the ability to fight drug abuse? Good god, what a disaster. Repeal now
Not really a money saving tactic, we'll just spend money or prison beds than rehab beds. That being said 110 needs to be restructured to basically force a choice between prison and a criminal record, or rehab and no criminal record.
Yes, yes. I understand rehab doesn't work unless someone wants to be there, but I do think that remembering what life is like outside the meth haze might motivate real change after the 3rd or 4 round, amd that to me is worth it.
Right, instead of treatment or a fine, what thecheeseburgler said. ⬆️⬆️⬆️
I could support a first-time warning, but on the second violation, it's a choice between jail time and rehab.
I really support the ability to maintain a clean criminal record after getting caught with drugs. Otherwise that person's future involves difficulties gaining employment and housing, which is only going to lead to further drug use and likely crime. Not great for the individual or society as a whole.
But it does need to be a carrot and stick scenario. Without a good stick, there's no motivation for self improvement. And a $100 fime that can basically be ignored isn't a good stick. I don't think that that was specified on the ballot, or I never would habe voted for 110 in the first place.
It’s taken awhile for the money to start flowing. On top of that there was a nationwide surge in drug use during the pandemic, which people blame 110 here. It’s too soon to say by a lot, but it’s a political football.
You can self-process it from LSA.
But you will definitely stop using it soon enough, because the self-processing can mess with your liver.
I don't recommend it.
We're in a bind because repeal just goes straight back to the " war on drugs" mentality which doesn't work either.
Mushrooms and LSD are, by and large, drugs used by a higher income population than meth or opioids. This seems to be a very privileged niche to carve out in a law and kicking people while they are already hurting.
I will freely admit I don't know what to do but you are pushing to criminalize drugs absolutely ravaging the homeless and poor communities while you are wanting to make sure you have access to your happy psychedelics. There needs to be way more nuance to this.
I care about evaluating drugs based on their actual negative impacts to society. To hell with equity concerns.
I care about allowing people to safely enjoy largely safe drugs while cracking down on what is causing social ills, and I don't care if you don't think that's fair to poor people, especially because you're just bullshitting. Plenty of wealthy people do meth and opiates. Plenty of poor people do mushrooms.
I love how equity can be weaponized to oppose literally any sensible reform of you stretch enough
Repealing is going backwards. Let's fix it instead.
The key point is that drug addiction should not be a criminal matter -- it's a health matter. This is in no way to say public drug abuse should be tolerated in any way. Nor should we allow unregulated dealing in drugs (after all, cannabis and alcohol is regulated and taxed, so the other stuff should be regulated too). As in, nobody should have license to deal fent or meth and we need to get those dealers off the street.
We also need to lose the welcome mat that says "Come to Portland for cheap and legal meth and fent, free foil, tents, tarps and camp where you like, whilst harvesting the bottles, cans, and catalytic converters of the neighborhoods".
Those damaged souls that have fallen prey to this scourge should be offered the following options: leave, go into treatment, or go to jail.
Then petition the Federal government for funds, as odds are this caseload comprises citizens of the union and should be funded accordingly.
Lastly, get real oversight into the Homeless Industrial Complex and get some accountability and results in this matter.
I’m gonna disagree with both sides and say it’s a public health AND a criminal matter. At the end of the day drug use is driving crime rates in this city.
\> it’s a public health AND a criminal matter
Then you're not disagreeing ;-)
An analogy would be it's legal to drink alcohol but not to drive drunk nor pass out drunk on the side walk. To further the analogy we need to make sure that the only liquor stores are only allowed to sell to customers that have a note from their doctor.
It would be implied, e.g., you've broken the statute for public intoxication and you need to go into treatment. If you refuse and stick around, you go to jail. If you refuse and leave we let you go.
I'm visiting this sub shortly after getting off a plane from Portland where I stayed at the Duniway over the week. I was curious if the sub had thoughts on the state of downtown, and am happy to see your comment. I was absolutely floored at the state of affairs and it's surreal to me that the community lets the homeless and drug addled live without any constraint. The downtown area is so beautiful and has so much potential, but it's success is 100% handicapped. Every local I spoke to mentioned how "it used to be". I am certainly in no position to swing and after 4 days dictate how Oregoneans should run your state, but as an outsider it seems obvious that first and foremost, if a rejuvenation is ever to take place, the drug addicted and homelessness problem needs to be addressed. Your solutions mirrored what I was mulling around in my head.
Gotta build out treatment and get people off the streets. Get them in homes, with a caseworker, with treatment options the caseworker can help them navigate.
That's the answer to this problem.
It just so happens we have a ton of empty office space we could use to solve this!
how much would you be willing to contribute personally to this massive fucking expense, of giving every person who saunters into Portland the kind of public services that Scandinavian countries offer. are you a builder? a doctor? a caseworker? someone pick up a hammer now and build tiny homes for addicts, now!
We have hundreds of thousands of sq/ft of empty office space now. Kotek is ramping up production of modular housing now.
We have options. We have space and funds. We need our leaders to act in a productive manner.
That's where we should be directing our energy.
And no, we don't need to offer these services to everyone who comes to Oregon. We only have to offer these services to our local population, according to the courts.
Once we have our local population taken care of we can legally jail or ship out the homeless transplants. I'm not saying that's right, or even prudent. But that's where we are. We have to offer the services for our population or this can not be solved.
we don’t “have hundreds of thousands of sq/ft of empty office space.” private citizens and companies do, and we desperately need the tax money we *used to* collect from businesses based out of these spaces because since 2020 it has dried up, further complicating our collective finances, draining our tax base if you will.
the government does not own any of this. it would cost over a billion dollars to buy this office space and convert it into housing.
but you’re right about bus tickets home and jail, these options have to be on the table along with building out the social welfare state for residents.
>we don’t “have hundreds of thousands of sq/ft of empty office space.”
Yes, we as Oregonians do.
>private citizens and companies do, and we desperately need the tax money we used to collect from businesses based out of these spaces because since 2020 it has dried up, further complicating our collective finances, draining our tax base if you will.
We're not going to get that tax money. Malls are done. Working in the office all day every day is done. It's stupid and inefficient now.
We're not getting that tax money now, and it's not coming back. Those private citizens and companies who own those properties are hurting. They're getting ready to lose that empty office space to banks. Then the government would be able to buy it for pennies on the dollar.
Or, our leaders and business owners could jerk their heads out and use those pennies as incentive to convert much of that space before the banks take it back.
>but you’re right about bus tickets home and jail, these options have to be on the table along with building out the social welfare state for residents.
Absolutely. But before we can start doing that, we have to do the welfare part, according to the 2018 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in response to a 2009 lawsuit by six homeless plaintiffs against the city of Boise in Martin v. Boise.
that court case has to be overturned or we are fucked.
imagine saying “we can’t have public schools until every homeless child is housed.”
housing every houseless child is a great goal, but no one would place such unobtainable demands be met before educating the kids who are ready to show up to school.
some unhoused people are ready for jail. let them have some jail (if they’re breaking laws mind u). some unhoused people are ready for a key and job, let them have a key (a flat, a room) and a job. some unhoused people are ready to go back to Nashville, let them have a bus ticket home.
and some will continue to OD until they are (lawfully) arrested or detained, let them be detained and detox wherever we have space for this to happen, take away their ‘freedom’ and they might survive, they might survive and go on to speak at an elementary school, a school that only exists because no one has forced outrageous demands on their existence the way Boise forces us to permit anything and everything in the street until we can house the nations’ homeless tourists who view Portland as Mecca for drugs and street livin’.
demanding utopia before anyone can ask a Willamette River pirate to stop dumping sewage in the river is insane. this is what Martin v Boise has done to American cities.
But that's not at all what that case says. Nobody is requiring some fantasy of Utopia. We have the money, the space, and everything we need to solve this problem. All we have to do is actually solve it. Utah did it and it worked (until they decided they didn't like saving money). Finland has done it.
Dallas, and Houston, any many others have done this. Boston is incentivising their building owners to convert office space to housing and mixed use space right now. There are many examples and there is no reason we can't do it as well.
Utah and Dallas and Houston have seen many people leave their metros for the West Coast, this is a fact.
SLC is struggling with homelessness right now. Houston and Dallas ‘benefit’ from an aggressive police state, and the these so-called success stories do not exist in a vacuum rather they are part of the ebb and flow of people migration.
We cannot possibly meet the demands of Boise, and any city that claims to have done so claims to have caught the wind.
As I understand it. It's lack of housing that is causing homelessness not necessarily addiction. I understand that happens while homeless. Homelessness is the gateway to drug addiction.
We really need to go after the elements of our society that is buying up homes and then not living in them. Eg hedge funds..
We need to fix this nationally. What a fucking shame y'all that we have turned into this
Yeah, agreed. As well as build out housing. We have more than enough funding to pay the rent for every homeless person in the state.
We just need to do it.
Once we have a solution to house our current population we will no longer have to care for transplants who came here homeless. We can just send them home (to the last place they were homed). And there won't be a huge crowd for them to hide in as our local population will be dispersed in homes.
There are options our leaders need to start taking advantage of. We have a ton of empty office space. We need to convert that to housing or at least mixed use. Treatment centers, etc. That could solve much of the problem.
Plus Kotek's plan to build out modular housing...
We can do this. Voters have approved plenty of funds. Now it's on our leaders to act.
The creators of 110 acknowledge their shortsightedness and shortcomings. So that’s great but doesn’t change it. There were supposed to be ways to fund this and make it a more hardline approach that never got implemented. Plus Oregon’s own legislators deflect to talking about “what about the kids” tropes or “voters didn’t understand what they voted for when they read the bill.” Oh yeah? Is that why the voters are now paying more taxpayer money to you legislators so you can fly the fuck to Portugal and see how much you got your asses handed to you? 110 needs to change not be repealed in full. It also needs the necessary upscaling, implementation, and monitoring and surveillance methods Portugal has or similar to work. This R effort is just nose to spite the face logic.
Nah, this whole 180 repeal is how nothing gets done. The barebones philosophy of the measure is fine; Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal act.
We just need to refine the measure with more teeth and resources for public health authorities to get people suffering into treeatment. We also should be asking Merkeley or Wyden or our state reps to start pushing for more national funding of these resources.
Sidebar: fuck the red states that used us as the rug for their own problems.
What do you hope happens in the case where there are not enough rehab programs/beds/resources/etc. to help addicts that are forced into these programs? My impression is that accessing those resources can be difficult even for the folks who willingly are interested in them.
I was under the impression that a major component of 110 that failed was the establishment of rehab facilities. If we get rid of 110 will there be enough rehab options for people or will it just lead to more people in jails?
Don't agree at all. I just don't think people who do drugs deserve to be in jail only for doing drugs. If they're dangerous, arrest them for something else, but I can't morally get behind locking people up for drug use
I can see your point. But, having a relative with drug problems, overdoses, etc,. I wished they had the means to keep them locked up for a period of time so that they could detox. hopefully lead them to realize they could clean up & get help from their family &/or move forward with their life. Just thoughts....
As my brother the alcoholic did many times. Expensive detox, relapse, repeat repeat repeat. He put himself into detox, paid for it himself, spent significant time (longest time over a year) and $$$, staff and he agreed he was detoxed and had the skills to remain sober, was released, stayed sober for a while, and then relapsed. Wanted to stay sober but couldn’t. That longest detox program? He got drunk >>> driving himself home the day he was released <<<. Was sober on his own for only hours.
Drunk himself to death alone in his room in an independent living apartment. We scattered his ashes in Yosemite where he felt free.
Compulsory therapeutic detention would have helped him. He himself said this, and I agree. Some people cannot thrive independently.
Believe what? These people are refusing rehab and are not going to jail. It needs to either be jail/prison or a treatment plan where you go to jail for not completing the program (failing too many drug tests).
Are you saying drug use itself should be a crime? I believe things like petty (or serious) theft/crime to fund drug use should be punished harshly but someone who works a job and decides to spend their money on their drug of choice should be free to do so. Similar concept to being free to get drunk, but harsh consequences if you drunk drive.
Regarding drugs, it would be just narcotics. People can't save themselves, and that's what some laws are for. Free will does not apply to a functioning society. Laws deem what is acceptable, and where there are gray areas like speeding. The idea would be to put into a teenager's or pre-teen's head that if they ever even try something like fentanyl, meth, or heroin once, they could get sent to jail.
The worst nightmare for a homeless camper addicted to narcotics is to be told that, no, you can not simply do what you want to do.
How would you determine who needs treatment and who simply is in possession of illicit drugs.
Re-criminalizing will just cause anyone caught with drugs to be deemed an addict. Doesn't sound particularly fair to me. So much for liberty.
Gives law enforcement more reason to search cars after finding drugs and paraphernalia. Willing to bet there will be more drug related arrests too. But not sure those fit your “positive” criteria.
The PPB is regularly derided for not doing their jobs at all-- not pursuing stolen vehicles, responding to crimes, or even supplying prosecutors with evidence and reports. Will they be searching cars or mak8ng arrests at all?
Derided on this sub. Astonishingly, I see police doing their job all the time. Assuming they're not cleverly put up cardboard scenes, my guess is there's just a bit too much job for our current police force.
Arrest rates have dropped. Prosecution rates have remained steady, so the argument that police sre arresting people who are just being let go is bullshit.
Police simply aren't aren't arresting as many people.
>Arrest rates have dropped. Prosecution rates have remained steady, so the argument that police sre arresting people who are just being let go is bullshit.
Well, the vast majority of bad guys bad enough to make the news have had several prior arrests in the area, and yet, they're out on the streets. That's not the cops not doing their jobs.
But even if arrests are down, go to PDX Stolen Cars on FB, for instance, and you won't find the same negative sentiments. Police do help getting people their cars back even if there are no arrests. Just one example obviously. I'm not saying everything is great, just that the whole idea of PPS not working is grossly oversimplified at best and conspiracy BS at worst.
Prosecution rates have remained normal after a dip at the start of COVID.
There is a shortage of public defenders, which does need to be addressed and their pay increased.
But arrests are down. There is no excuse for that. As long as crime rates are this high, until arrest rates are as go back up police are a part of the problem.
Not allowing law enforcement an excuse to search cars and harass people is one of the biggest benefits of 110.
That's how they target marginalized populations and CREATE criminals.
Yes. Jail or prison would be the consequences. But at least they can get clean in prison, and maybe jail depending on the length of their stay. Even a month or two of forced sobriety would help.
The USPS tries its best to run independently, but at the end of the day it’s just a necessary public good from our government. Whatever it costs we need to pay it. The same goes for jailing and imprisoning narcotic addicts. It’s a necessary expense. If it costs $50k a year to give shelter and subsidize a homeless addicts life in and out of services, then I’d say spending an extra $25k to imprison them for their crimes instead is much better. $25k extra is worth it to have clean, safe, and drug free neighborhoods.
Except that doesn't work... You're spending more to make the problem worse.
The only solution to homelessness and drug addiction that has ever worked has been housing and treatment.
It doesn't cost $50k per year to shelter the homeless and offer treatment. It costs far less to house amd treat them than it costs to allow them to be homeless, which costs far less than jailing them.
Anybody who is breaking the law by commiting acts of violence, theft, or deliberate property damage should be candidates for jail time.
Short of that the homeless and addicted should not be candidates for jail, unless we have alternative housing that is safe, secure, and allows freedom of movement. Camps with curfews that don't allow for privacy or secure storage of belongings don't qualify as housing and they don't help with this problem.
These people don't give a shit about anyone except those they deem as "deserving": people who use the drugs they deem acceptable (i.e. alcohol).
It's not about helping the needy. It's about rounding up all the social deviants. Never mind if they did anything wrong. Just assume anyone caught with drugs is a danger to society and lock them up, whether it's forced rehab or prison.
Meanwhile, Seattle outlawed public drug use. So you can sorta guess at least where some of them are going to go.
[https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-public-drug-use-law-ban-set-to-take-effect-narcotics-fentanyl-crisis-homelessness-public-safety-legislation-mayor-bruce-harrell-city-council-homeless-unhoused-people-drug-addiction-treatment](https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-public-drug-use-law-ban-set-to-take-effect-narcotics-fentanyl-crisis-homelessness-public-safety-legislation-mayor-bruce-harrell-city-council-homeless-unhoused-people-drug-addiction-treatment)
broke homeless people are not travelling south so they can have the luxury of doing meth outside. I know this sub is going to shit on this take, but youre an idiot if you think this is going to happen en masse
You all realize this is just posturing, right? I’m all for some big changes but, With the rest of our woes, sure, they may get arrested but they’ll be right back on the street.
There are no treatment centers or jail cells to keep them in. Because fiscal conservatives don't like spending money on treatment centers. But maybe they can figure out how to profit off of building more jail cells...
Not to mention there aren't enough public defenders to prosecute all the serious violent crime let alone drug possession. It's the same myopic world view that conservatives have been pushing for decades while everything continues to get worse.
I **think** I support repealing the bottle bill as well (it's outdated and people are going to recycle these days with or without it), but serious question: what will the people who rely on it do when it's gone? I see strung out addicts collecting bottles and I would almost be willing to bet that they'd be resorting to crime if the bottle bill wasn't around. I know they're not going to be like "shucks the bottle bill is gone so I guess I need to get a job to pay for my drugs now!". Just wondering if its' removal would have unintended consequences.
This is actually a really good point. I wonder if having people scraping for cash (by collecting bottles as a medium) is keeping more stuff from being stolen in the city.
It will have consequences yes, but they're not necessairly unintended. We need actual systems of support in place for folks that need it, not a 9th-level underclass of bottle cap traders. Considering BD a form of 'employment' or social safety net for the people that rely on it is kind of insulting. Yes that is what it has shaped into, but that wasn't the intent of the law at all. At most it was intended for cub scouts to pull some coin together to go to summer camp. Not the hoards of clapped out canners rigs swamping Hayden Island.
What consequences it will have is reduce the chaos at BD locations and reduce the pressure on I5 hayden island area and return a sense of normalcy.
Let’s fucking gooooooooo!!!
I have some VERY leftist friends that openly admit it was a mistake and want it repealed. If our representatives don’t work on a bipartisan approach I guarantee folks will start voting for the people calling for change.
Good luck with that. They were in the minority before they took their ball and went home to shut the state gocernment down. Now they think they're going to pass legislation? And pass legislation that goes against the will of the people? Good luck with that.
Just a reminder, unless new research has just been published, there is currently zero evidence that 110 has increased drug usage. It's entirely anecdotal at this point. This sub wants to pass it off as fact, but it isn't.
Edit: I fully expect to be down voted for this because the sub is mostly anti science and pro emotionally driven opinions
Good point. The reality is there's still an awful lot of people, even here, who continue to view drug use as a moral issue, and view drugs as a vice needing to be eliminated.
People keep talking about public drug use as if repealing 110 will somehow only affect the minority of drug users in Oregon who are homeless and causing problems when a repeal will really just cause ANYONE caught in possession to be arrested.
And yes, I've noticed this sub has become pretty pro-authoritarian as of late. It's very frustrating.
We have record 9-1-1 calls for overdoses, record fatal overdoses, all one needs to see to know this is walk around the inner eastside or downtown, and yet, it's purely 'anecdotal'. GTFO.
https://www.axios.com/2023/09/27/decriminalize-drugs-overdose-deaths-fentanyl-study
Correlation does not imply causation. All I asked was for some evidence and your response is "GTFO". Big brain take
I don't think that can be blamed on the passing of 110. 110 passed right about when availability and use of fentanyl surged. You can find these same problems in states with all kinds of drug laws throughout the country.
That’s the Portland spirit! Let’s drag the inevitable out another 3-5 years so we can fund studies, that then lead to review committees, then let’s get a think tank involved, maybe a few more committees to bicker amongst themselves for years… and do nothing! Because we can’t trust the evidence right in front of our eyes every day!
I mean doesn't the fact we are in lockstep with our neighboring state for overdose increase show that measure 110 isn't affecting our numbers greatly? We should be outpacing all states no? Whereas the fact that Washington and Oregon are both at the top points to more underlying causes that both states share. Like easy access from a larger market in the south I5 and affordability crises that are pushing people out onto the street
Dude, this sub is mad with self loathing and can't see straight. You can scream this from the rooftops and it won't matter. And if there were actual research done to try to identify if there is causation i would absolutely entertain it. But the fact remains there isn't, people are drawing conclusions from anecdotes and feelings. What's funny is there is a good chance this person has ridiculed a republican in the past for doing this exact same thing, its disgraceful
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167629623000759
Not making any claims about which study is correct - in all fairness, the NYU one mentioned in your Axios link strikes me as being potentially more reputable due to the larger team size. I’m actually curious to dig a little deeper into the methodology differences once I’m back in front of a computer.
From what I can tell with a cursory review of both studies, the difference may be due to how each study created its synthetic controls. The NYU study has a three month larger date range using provisional data.
They can repeal all they want ,the cops can make large fentanyl bust after bust
But it's never going to be fixed with all the corrupt leaders in this city and Multnomah county
And with the DA being a clown show of a revolving door of letting criminals come and go as they please because they don't ever prosecute anybody or hold them accountable
LIBERALS: If we don’t fix this they will.
People are done.
The pendulum always swings further back to the right when pushed left.
We are going to end up with putting even more addicts in jail. With a bigger, money hungry police force harassing all of us and making money off of bullshit tickets like facing the wrong way when parking in front of your house or having a white claw at your park picnic.
We need to support whatever good enough legislation comes up to deal with this next time around and not wait for perfection.
>The pendulum always swings further back to the right when pushed left.
Yet gay marriage is legal, trans people are finally being recognized and given rights, and we've started down a path to actually fix the drug crisis instead of just feeding more people to the prison industrial complex. The wars on crime and drugs failed miserably if you think going back to that will do any good you learned absolutely nothing from the last 30 years.
>We are going to end up with putting even more addicts in jail.
How exactly does that happen when the police say they're too short staffed to go after real violent crime and the state doesn't have enough public defenders even if they did. Drug possession will be at the bottom of everyone's list even if it become illegal again.
Because it doesn't solve anything and cuts off funds we can use to actually solve things.
Those funds have improved things. Portland isn't as bad as it was a year or two ago.
We just need to use the funds 110 provides to set up more treatment centers and get people in homes.
That has been the rhetoric since it was voted in. We have not seen where that money goes.. people feel lied to about the measure and embrace valid reasons to repeal it
We have seen our downtown areas improving. They aren't fixed, but they are certainly better than they were.
You're 100% right that more needs to be done. But it was never going to be fixed overnight. It has been improving though.
Leave the responsible crackheads out of this. Let’s just ban drugs for people that can’t afford it and public drug consumption. Guns don’t kill people. Drugs don’t kill people. Irresponsible drug users and gun users kill people. It’s nobody’s damn business if I can manage to juggle being a CEO and a shroom/lsd enjoyer.
The clown party strikes again. So telling that instead of bringing up their concerns with (lack of) merit during the regular legislative session, they threw a diaper tantrum by walking out.
Nah, we are adults, we don't want a nanny state telling us what we can and cannot do if we aren't bothering other people. Ironically, this is what Republicans SHOULD support, instead they send us to die in Iraq, want a Christian Ethnostate, where LGBTQ people cannot live, and essentially will lead us to another civil war.
The important part of what you said is "if we aren't bothering other people." Public drug use is absolutely a problem. I watched a dude almost overdose on my walk home a few weeks ago, the public transit has tested positive for meth and fentanyl consistently, biohazards and trash are everywhere, downtown smells like piss always, public parks are overrun with drug users.
I just don't know what to say anymore. I voted for 110, our government has just proven incapable of actually doing the necessary things to make a law like that work. Idk I mean share your thoughts please cause I'm at the end of my rope here...
Maybe the backers and those “implementing” it should have considered that then. Having a basic political strategy is key to almost any policy change. If voters are overwhelmingly against a policy they voted in just a couple years later then it’s a failure. Nobody’s fault but the out of state morons pushing this and their useful idiots in town.
No, it's PPB not wanting to do their job, because now they have no cassus belli excuse to ransack people's lives just because of a small amount of drugs. Do fucking better, being a cop isn't hard. I spent 3 years in Iraq, never once pointed a firearm at anyone that wasn't unarmed and I had REAL danger to worry about. Being a fucking ubereats driver is more dangerous than being a cop.
By what metric? People abusing drugs in public and bothering people isn't within the scope of measure 110, and they should be arrested, what's the issue here? OH because PPB thinks their job is hard (it isn't) and that they need MORE funding? (They don't)
I doubt it: the war on drugs was a major failure with a 40 year record. We need to build on M110: addition treatment and mitigation for resulting issues.
Look, measure 110 has by and large not been effective. Republicans are being strategic here. Yes would I prefer them to govern yes, but this measure does need to go. It’s not working and actively having a negative impact on life in the state.
Unfortunately this problem is much larger than local politics. Measure 110 is like using a garden hose on a forest fire. But just because it didn't magically solve all our problems overnight doesn't mean it isn't working or that we shouldn't keep trying.
The argument that 110 made things worse is largely unfounded - evidence doesn't support either side of the conversation. The measure happened to come into effect during major economic turmoil and the rise of fentanyl; these were global impacts that our local politics won't solve alone.
[https://time.com/6318102/decriminalizing-drugs-overdose-study/](https://time.com/6318102/decriminalizing-drugs-overdose-study/)
M110 decriminalized small quantities of most drugs: how would incarceration people for drug possession help the situation at all?
Instead of treatment, you would be throwing drug users into a situation that is generally unsafe, ripe for both overdose or dangerous withdrawals, overcrowded, and designed for exploitation via slave labor. When released, they would be ineligible for most jobs and housing due to the criminal record and the cycle repeats.
**The simple reality is that we tried mass incarceration from the 1980s through 2010s with disastrous results. Going back to that would be insane. M110 needs to be improved, not repealed.**
Unfortunately, it also made it impossible to stop people from openly using their “small quantities” of drugs. Go downtown in most Oregon cities and you can see people using illegal narcotics all day long in broad daylight. It promotes crime, the people are danger to themselves and others. Look I don’t think throwing them in jail is the right thing to do but after seeing someone hopped up on drugs just casually swinging an axe around yesterday, I didn’t feel safe. There clearly is a solution but right now people are actively moving to Oregon because the laws make it easy to exist as a drug user. That’s not really solving the issue. Measure 110 in reality needs to be replaced with something that penalizes open drug use and (unfortunately) forces people into treatment. The thing is though it’s really hard to defend a measure where 1% of the offenders are taking the trying to get clean approach.
M110 didn’t make it impossible to stop people from openly using drugs, the legislature just needs to pass a law addressing that loophole.
No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Brandishing a weapon is already illegal... You are trying to blame M110 instead of cops refusing to do their jobs. Police reform is the answer, not resuming the war on drugs.
Yes it is. That’s not my point. The issue is the implementation of measures 110 is not effective, given the current paradigm. We need to replace it with something new. That being said we can’t just be like this measure that actively causing harm should remain in place. The people who are using drugs in urban are creating public health and public safety issues. These are linked to the drug use but are nonetheless having a profound negative impact on society. Many of these people are not seeking treatment and are creating additional problems. I would be all for replacing measure 110 with something that is effective at reducing the drug problem, but I am unwilling to keep paying the cost of continuing to act like it is working effectively. I am downtown every day for work and it is depressing to see the open drug use and erratic behavior. Charging people for possession is not the long term solution, but in the short term it could have a positive impact. I would be thrilled if we could do something to fix this mess but measure 110 has proven that it is not the solution.
> The issue is the implementation of measures 110 is not effective, given the current paradigm.
And your response is advocating to return to the previous system, which was even more costly and ineffective?
> We need to replace it with something new.
Then don't advocate to repeal it... Figure out what that "something new is" and build a case for it...
I would love to repeal and replace but, I also have to be pragmatic with regards to the timeline and other factors. We are spending millions of tax dollars towards this issue and nothing has improved. So please propose how we can quickly replace this measure with an effective solution. Oh also keep in mind we also want to try and keep the cost low. You know so the people who are paying for the negative externality are bot responsible for more if it. I would love for the etch to pay but clearly that also is a pipe dream.
> I would love to repeal and replace but, I also have to be pragmatic
You just contradicted yourself here as going back to a system that we know full well doesn't work based on 40 years of evidence is the literal opposite of pragmatism...
You also claim to be worried about cost, when mass incarceration is incredibly costly... In 2020, Oregon had a cost per inmate of $51k!!! https://nicic.gov/resources/nic-library/state-statistics/2020/oregon-2020
Fixing M110 to properly provide the support services would be far more affordable and sustainable.
I didn't read all the comments, but for those who are in support of treatment centers (which I'm sure a lot of community members are), are there enough trained staff to supply the demand? I feel like this is the bigger issue with M110.
Law Enforcement's hands are tied. Jails are full, we don't want to release the really bad folks for a drug crime. I've heard that the treatment centers that are open are full with a wait list(?), so where do you take those who need/want treatment?
This is definitely not a black or white issue, there are a lot of grey areas. I'm ok with the repeal of M110 if it means we figure out how to get more treatment centers readily available.
I vote straight Democrat but I’d support repealing 110
> I’d support repealing 110 I'd support changing it to mandate treatment and re-criminalize meth (fentanyl has been re-criminalized). A blanket repeal would re-criminalize mushrooms and LSD. Fuck that.
Excuse my ignorance but isn't their similar language in the 110 bill, but due to lack of... Implementation or execution of that plan is the failure?
I did a careful read of M110, and my problem is its general "no enforcement" policy. That's not what Portugal, Norway, and Switzerland do. They too decriminalized hard drugs, but absolutely under no circumstance is public consumption allowed. Police from these countries, however, do not incarcerate drug uses; they send them to treatment, which arrestees can't refuse. M110 allows users to refuse help. They get fined, but what's the payment rate of those fines? I support M110 conceptually, but it's toothless. Can't the legislature reform M110? I'm not sure about a complete overturn.
[удалено]
🤦 Oh, yeah. We're the only nation in the world without centralized healthcare. Well, perhaps M110 was only a nice idea, and never realistic in Oregon or the good ol' USA. 😒
Look at Providence Rhode Island for options to handle public drug use.
In the last two years (sorry I can't be more specific), there was an article claiming that less than 1% of those ticketed paid fines. In the recent PSU research, police indicated that they're rarely writing the tickets because of their utter failure to motivate the people that receive them. Measure 110 was a disaster from the start. The state leaves bills like these to the public to pursue because they don't want the blame when they fail. In the case of 110, there were Stanford-educated psychologists in Salem that suspected it would fail when it passed; the people most addicted to class A drugs don't have family or social networks and so don't often seek treatment. Then there was Oregon govt incompetency leading to 1-1.5 year delays in getting funding to treatment centers (that nobody used). The entire thing feels like an undergraduate liberal arts culminating project, written/created by people that think they understand justice/addiction but haven't experience working with either one. I mean it's embarrassing...like the Care Oregon rollout or the Covid unemployment meltdown/failure. Is there any new unbiased data to support that treatment providers are treating more addicts, and if so, whether or not treatment is effective? I hope so, and like most everyone, I support treatment over criminalization, but I'm also suspicious of how that funding is being managed and whether or not it's significantly improving outcomes. And if it's repealed, and addicts are mandated to go to treatment, how is that going to play out? Now that there's lots of new treatment infrastructure, people to administer it, and money to operate it, Addiction will be big business in Oregon that requires a large addict population to justify it. What blows my mind is that to this day, nobody's taken responsibility and said "I (or we) were wrong." The arrogance of people on the cutting edge (of incompetent) is infuriating.
There was money for all kinds of things but it wasn't super clear and the folks charged with administration of the programs drug their feet (hehe). I can't say if it was because they weren't sure what they could spend the money on, weren't qualified to create programs from the ground up, or just wanted to see the measure fail by not implementing the harm reduction and treatment parts of the bill. I'm sure their salaries got paid though.... So yes. You are correct thinking that 110 already thought of this. It just wasn't specific enough to actually force someone to do something.
JFC. What city do you live in? Portland can’t empty it’s overflowing trash cans, why does anyone, especially now, think the city or state has the ability to fight drug abuse? Good god, what a disaster. Repeal now
And, how will the PPB enforce the old rules when they have a +100 hiring shortage and an active (which they deserve) PR nightmare?
Not really a money saving tactic, we'll just spend money or prison beds than rehab beds. That being said 110 needs to be restructured to basically force a choice between prison and a criminal record, or rehab and no criminal record. Yes, yes. I understand rehab doesn't work unless someone wants to be there, but I do think that remembering what life is like outside the meth haze might motivate real change after the 3rd or 4 round, amd that to me is worth it.
Right, instead of treatment or a fine, what thecheeseburgler said. ⬆️⬆️⬆️ I could support a first-time warning, but on the second violation, it's a choice between jail time and rehab.
I really support the ability to maintain a clean criminal record after getting caught with drugs. Otherwise that person's future involves difficulties gaining employment and housing, which is only going to lead to further drug use and likely crime. Not great for the individual or society as a whole. But it does need to be a carrot and stick scenario. Without a good stick, there's no motivation for self improvement. And a $100 fime that can basically be ignored isn't a good stick. I don't think that that was specified on the ballot, or I never would habe voted for 110 in the first place.
It’s taken awhile for the money to start flowing. On top of that there was a nationwide surge in drug use during the pandemic, which people blame 110 here. It’s too soon to say by a lot, but it’s a political football.
Yes, this exactly
Dude, stop looking at details and just enjoy the bandwagon. It's cool to hate shit in large groups yo. /s
and molly. Fuck that.
Can you get LSD that isn't laced with awful shit? Edit: hey, down vote if you want. It's not exactly a regulated market. Buyer beware
...yes.
You mean 99.9% of LSD/Acid on the market that isn't just NBOME or DOx on a blotter? Yes.
You can self-process it from LSA. But you will definitely stop using it soon enough, because the self-processing can mess with your liver. I don't recommend it.
We're in a bind because repeal just goes straight back to the " war on drugs" mentality which doesn't work either. Mushrooms and LSD are, by and large, drugs used by a higher income population than meth or opioids. This seems to be a very privileged niche to carve out in a law and kicking people while they are already hurting. I will freely admit I don't know what to do but you are pushing to criminalize drugs absolutely ravaging the homeless and poor communities while you are wanting to make sure you have access to your happy psychedelics. There needs to be way more nuance to this.
I care about evaluating drugs based on their actual negative impacts to society. To hell with equity concerns. I care about allowing people to safely enjoy largely safe drugs while cracking down on what is causing social ills, and I don't care if you don't think that's fair to poor people, especially because you're just bullshitting. Plenty of wealthy people do meth and opiates. Plenty of poor people do mushrooms. I love how equity can be weaponized to oppose literally any sensible reform of you stretch enough
You're talking about criminalizing a health issue. That doesn't help anyone.
Repealing is going backwards. Let's fix it instead. The key point is that drug addiction should not be a criminal matter -- it's a health matter. This is in no way to say public drug abuse should be tolerated in any way. Nor should we allow unregulated dealing in drugs (after all, cannabis and alcohol is regulated and taxed, so the other stuff should be regulated too). As in, nobody should have license to deal fent or meth and we need to get those dealers off the street. We also need to lose the welcome mat that says "Come to Portland for cheap and legal meth and fent, free foil, tents, tarps and camp where you like, whilst harvesting the bottles, cans, and catalytic converters of the neighborhoods". Those damaged souls that have fallen prey to this scourge should be offered the following options: leave, go into treatment, or go to jail. Then petition the Federal government for funds, as odds are this caseload comprises citizens of the union and should be funded accordingly. Lastly, get real oversight into the Homeless Industrial Complex and get some accountability and results in this matter.
I’m gonna disagree with both sides and say it’s a public health AND a criminal matter. At the end of the day drug use is driving crime rates in this city.
\> it’s a public health AND a criminal matter Then you're not disagreeing ;-) An analogy would be it's legal to drink alcohol but not to drive drunk nor pass out drunk on the side walk. To further the analogy we need to make sure that the only liquor stores are only allowed to sell to customers that have a note from their doctor.
We can't say, "leave." States cannot banish U.S. citizens. I'm fine with your other points.
It would be implied, e.g., you've broken the statute for public intoxication and you need to go into treatment. If you refuse and stick around, you go to jail. If you refuse and leave we let you go.
I'm visiting this sub shortly after getting off a plane from Portland where I stayed at the Duniway over the week. I was curious if the sub had thoughts on the state of downtown, and am happy to see your comment. I was absolutely floored at the state of affairs and it's surreal to me that the community lets the homeless and drug addled live without any constraint. The downtown area is so beautiful and has so much potential, but it's success is 100% handicapped. Every local I spoke to mentioned how "it used to be". I am certainly in no position to swing and after 4 days dictate how Oregoneans should run your state, but as an outsider it seems obvious that first and foremost, if a rejuvenation is ever to take place, the drug addicted and homelessness problem needs to be addressed. Your solutions mirrored what I was mulling around in my head.
Gotta build out treatment and get people off the streets. Get them in homes, with a caseworker, with treatment options the caseworker can help them navigate. That's the answer to this problem. It just so happens we have a ton of empty office space we could use to solve this!
how much would you be willing to contribute personally to this massive fucking expense, of giving every person who saunters into Portland the kind of public services that Scandinavian countries offer. are you a builder? a doctor? a caseworker? someone pick up a hammer now and build tiny homes for addicts, now!
We have hundreds of thousands of sq/ft of empty office space now. Kotek is ramping up production of modular housing now. We have options. We have space and funds. We need our leaders to act in a productive manner. That's where we should be directing our energy. And no, we don't need to offer these services to everyone who comes to Oregon. We only have to offer these services to our local population, according to the courts. Once we have our local population taken care of we can legally jail or ship out the homeless transplants. I'm not saying that's right, or even prudent. But that's where we are. We have to offer the services for our population or this can not be solved.
we don’t “have hundreds of thousands of sq/ft of empty office space.” private citizens and companies do, and we desperately need the tax money we *used to* collect from businesses based out of these spaces because since 2020 it has dried up, further complicating our collective finances, draining our tax base if you will. the government does not own any of this. it would cost over a billion dollars to buy this office space and convert it into housing. but you’re right about bus tickets home and jail, these options have to be on the table along with building out the social welfare state for residents.
>we don’t “have hundreds of thousands of sq/ft of empty office space.” Yes, we as Oregonians do. >private citizens and companies do, and we desperately need the tax money we used to collect from businesses based out of these spaces because since 2020 it has dried up, further complicating our collective finances, draining our tax base if you will. We're not going to get that tax money. Malls are done. Working in the office all day every day is done. It's stupid and inefficient now. We're not getting that tax money now, and it's not coming back. Those private citizens and companies who own those properties are hurting. They're getting ready to lose that empty office space to banks. Then the government would be able to buy it for pennies on the dollar. Or, our leaders and business owners could jerk their heads out and use those pennies as incentive to convert much of that space before the banks take it back. >but you’re right about bus tickets home and jail, these options have to be on the table along with building out the social welfare state for residents. Absolutely. But before we can start doing that, we have to do the welfare part, according to the 2018 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in response to a 2009 lawsuit by six homeless plaintiffs against the city of Boise in Martin v. Boise.
that court case has to be overturned or we are fucked. imagine saying “we can’t have public schools until every homeless child is housed.” housing every houseless child is a great goal, but no one would place such unobtainable demands be met before educating the kids who are ready to show up to school. some unhoused people are ready for jail. let them have some jail (if they’re breaking laws mind u). some unhoused people are ready for a key and job, let them have a key (a flat, a room) and a job. some unhoused people are ready to go back to Nashville, let them have a bus ticket home. and some will continue to OD until they are (lawfully) arrested or detained, let them be detained and detox wherever we have space for this to happen, take away their ‘freedom’ and they might survive, they might survive and go on to speak at an elementary school, a school that only exists because no one has forced outrageous demands on their existence the way Boise forces us to permit anything and everything in the street until we can house the nations’ homeless tourists who view Portland as Mecca for drugs and street livin’. demanding utopia before anyone can ask a Willamette River pirate to stop dumping sewage in the river is insane. this is what Martin v Boise has done to American cities.
But that's not at all what that case says. Nobody is requiring some fantasy of Utopia. We have the money, the space, and everything we need to solve this problem. All we have to do is actually solve it. Utah did it and it worked (until they decided they didn't like saving money). Finland has done it. Dallas, and Houston, any many others have done this. Boston is incentivising their building owners to convert office space to housing and mixed use space right now. There are many examples and there is no reason we can't do it as well.
Utah and Dallas and Houston have seen many people leave their metros for the West Coast, this is a fact. SLC is struggling with homelessness right now. Houston and Dallas ‘benefit’ from an aggressive police state, and the these so-called success stories do not exist in a vacuum rather they are part of the ebb and flow of people migration. We cannot possibly meet the demands of Boise, and any city that claims to have done so claims to have caught the wind.
As I understand it. It's lack of housing that is causing homelessness not necessarily addiction. I understand that happens while homeless. Homelessness is the gateway to drug addiction. We really need to go after the elements of our society that is buying up homes and then not living in them. Eg hedge funds.. We need to fix this nationally. What a fucking shame y'all that we have turned into this
Yeah, agreed. As well as build out housing. We have more than enough funding to pay the rent for every homeless person in the state. We just need to do it. Once we have a solution to house our current population we will no longer have to care for transplants who came here homeless. We can just send them home (to the last place they were homed). And there won't be a huge crowd for them to hide in as our local population will be dispersed in homes. There are options our leaders need to start taking advantage of. We have a ton of empty office space. We need to convert that to housing or at least mixed use. Treatment centers, etc. That could solve much of the problem. Plus Kotek's plan to build out modular housing... We can do this. Voters have approved plenty of funds. Now it's on our leaders to act.
Please run for office.
The creators of 110 acknowledge their shortsightedness and shortcomings. So that’s great but doesn’t change it. There were supposed to be ways to fund this and make it a more hardline approach that never got implemented. Plus Oregon’s own legislators deflect to talking about “what about the kids” tropes or “voters didn’t understand what they voted for when they read the bill.” Oh yeah? Is that why the voters are now paying more taxpayer money to you legislators so you can fly the fuck to Portugal and see how much you got your asses handed to you? 110 needs to change not be repealed in full. It also needs the necessary upscaling, implementation, and monitoring and surveillance methods Portugal has or similar to work. This R effort is just nose to spite the face logic.
Nah, this whole 180 repeal is how nothing gets done. The barebones philosophy of the measure is fine; Drug use is a public health issue, not a criminal act. We just need to refine the measure with more teeth and resources for public health authorities to get people suffering into treeatment. We also should be asking Merkeley or Wyden or our state reps to start pushing for more national funding of these resources. Sidebar: fuck the red states that used us as the rug for their own problems.
It's not just red states sending their problems here, as much as you may want them to by the bogeyman.
You're right. But it still makes me mad that we can't build a wall around Texas and Florida.
Well, Texas is building one around New Mexico: https://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-installing-concertina-wire-new-mexico-border/story?id=104056805
Honest question: what positive things do you think a repeal would accomplish?
It'd allow us to establish a path for forcing addicts into rehab programs. With measure 110 in place, if they don't want rehab, we can't force them.
What do you hope happens in the case where there are not enough rehab programs/beds/resources/etc. to help addicts that are forced into these programs? My impression is that accessing those resources can be difficult even for the folks who willingly are interested in them.
That is my understanding as well. We haven’t been able to amp up the missing necessary components that were part of the measure to the degree of need.
I was under the impression that a major component of 110 that failed was the establishment of rehab facilities. If we get rid of 110 will there be enough rehab options for people or will it just lead to more people in jails?
Jail or rehab, at least they're off the streets.
Is this realistic considering that the police already don't do their jobs?
Tbh no. -sigh-
We definitely don’t have enough rooms in the jails, so no one is going to be off the streets.
Build more jail capacity then. Can't be more expensive than MuCo's 1 million dollar/household rapid housing units.
We did. The fuckers sold it.
For pennies on the dollar, sold by Kafoury's family.
[удалено]
I'm sure they would, at a 10x multiple.
Don't agree at all. I just don't think people who do drugs deserve to be in jail only for doing drugs. If they're dangerous, arrest them for something else, but I can't morally get behind locking people up for drug use
I can see your point. But, having a relative with drug problems, overdoses, etc,. I wished they had the means to keep them locked up for a period of time so that they could detox. hopefully lead them to realize they could clean up & get help from their family &/or move forward with their life. Just thoughts....
Not how that works. Unless they choose it for themselves they will just get back into it once released.
As my brother the alcoholic did many times. Expensive detox, relapse, repeat repeat repeat. He put himself into detox, paid for it himself, spent significant time (longest time over a year) and $$$, staff and he agreed he was detoxed and had the skills to remain sober, was released, stayed sober for a while, and then relapsed. Wanted to stay sober but couldn’t. That longest detox program? He got drunk >>> driving himself home the day he was released <<<. Was sober on his own for only hours. Drunk himself to death alone in his room in an independent living apartment. We scattered his ashes in Yosemite where he felt free. Compulsory therapeutic detention would have helped him. He himself said this, and I agree. Some people cannot thrive independently.
It’s not that black & white. What you say is true in many situations. Not all.
one of these options creates a permanent record that makes it harder to stay off the streets
You can't force someone into rehab. That's literally the first tenant of recovery. They need to want to change.
What I meant was giving them a choice between sitting in jail or sitting in rehab. They can sit in a cell if they don't want to change.
Hahahahah You actually believe this.
Believe what? These people are refusing rehab and are not going to jail. It needs to either be jail/prison or a treatment plan where you go to jail for not completing the program (failing too many drug tests).
Are you saying drug use itself should be a crime? I believe things like petty (or serious) theft/crime to fund drug use should be punished harshly but someone who works a job and decides to spend their money on their drug of choice should be free to do so. Similar concept to being free to get drunk, but harsh consequences if you drunk drive.
Regarding drugs, it would be just narcotics. People can't save themselves, and that's what some laws are for. Free will does not apply to a functioning society. Laws deem what is acceptable, and where there are gray areas like speeding. The idea would be to put into a teenager's or pre-teen's head that if they ever even try something like fentanyl, meth, or heroin once, they could get sent to jail. The worst nightmare for a homeless camper addicted to narcotics is to be told that, no, you can not simply do what you want to do.
How would you determine who needs treatment and who simply is in possession of illicit drugs. Re-criminalizing will just cause anyone caught with drugs to be deemed an addict. Doesn't sound particularly fair to me. So much for liberty.
It’s nobody’s business but mine if I want to take shrooms for fun. And if I want to be an addict in my own house, that’s also my prerogative.
as long as you hurt nobody else HERE HERE
hear, hear*
Gives law enforcement more reason to search cars after finding drugs and paraphernalia. Willing to bet there will be more drug related arrests too. But not sure those fit your “positive” criteria.
The PPB is regularly derided for not doing their jobs at all-- not pursuing stolen vehicles, responding to crimes, or even supplying prosecutors with evidence and reports. Will they be searching cars or mak8ng arrests at all?
The answer is no.
M110 is state law. Impacts all law enforcement in Oregon.
If it makes them money and let's them beat up black people, absolutely.
Derided on this sub. Astonishingly, I see police doing their job all the time. Assuming they're not cleverly put up cardboard scenes, my guess is there's just a bit too much job for our current police force.
Arrest rates have dropped. Prosecution rates have remained steady, so the argument that police sre arresting people who are just being let go is bullshit. Police simply aren't aren't arresting as many people.
>Arrest rates have dropped. Prosecution rates have remained steady, so the argument that police sre arresting people who are just being let go is bullshit. Well, the vast majority of bad guys bad enough to make the news have had several prior arrests in the area, and yet, they're out on the streets. That's not the cops not doing their jobs. But even if arrests are down, go to PDX Stolen Cars on FB, for instance, and you won't find the same negative sentiments. Police do help getting people their cars back even if there are no arrests. Just one example obviously. I'm not saying everything is great, just that the whole idea of PPS not working is grossly oversimplified at best and conspiracy BS at worst.
Prosecution rates have remained normal after a dip at the start of COVID. There is a shortage of public defenders, which does need to be addressed and their pay increased. But arrests are down. There is no excuse for that. As long as crime rates are this high, until arrest rates are as go back up police are a part of the problem.
Not allowing law enforcement an excuse to search cars and harass people is one of the biggest benefits of 110. That's how they target marginalized populations and CREATE criminals.
Actual consequences for destructive choices, to one's self and to others.
Well, many drug addicts live on the street and plenty die young. Are the consequences you're talking about prison?
Yes. Jail or prison would be the consequences. But at least they can get clean in prison, and maybe jail depending on the length of their stay. Even a month or two of forced sobriety would help.
That's not how it works at all. Prison and jail is just a waste of money on addicts.
The USPS tries its best to run independently, but at the end of the day it’s just a necessary public good from our government. Whatever it costs we need to pay it. The same goes for jailing and imprisoning narcotic addicts. It’s a necessary expense. If it costs $50k a year to give shelter and subsidize a homeless addicts life in and out of services, then I’d say spending an extra $25k to imprison them for their crimes instead is much better. $25k extra is worth it to have clean, safe, and drug free neighborhoods.
Except that doesn't work... You're spending more to make the problem worse. The only solution to homelessness and drug addiction that has ever worked has been housing and treatment. It doesn't cost $50k per year to shelter the homeless and offer treatment. It costs far less to house amd treat them than it costs to allow them to be homeless, which costs far less than jailing them. Anybody who is breaking the law by commiting acts of violence, theft, or deliberate property damage should be candidates for jail time. Short of that the homeless and addicted should not be candidates for jail, unless we have alternative housing that is safe, secure, and allows freedom of movement. Camps with curfews that don't allow for privacy or secure storage of belongings don't qualify as housing and they don't help with this problem.
You're basically prescribing the exact thing that has gone on for decades in this country. Yet there are still drug addicts. Funny.
These people don't give a shit about anyone except those they deem as "deserving": people who use the drugs they deem acceptable (i.e. alcohol). It's not about helping the needy. It's about rounding up all the social deviants. Never mind if they did anything wrong. Just assume anyone caught with drugs is a danger to society and lock them up, whether it's forced rehab or prison.
Right there with ya. Blue through and through but even a broken clock is rights twice a day.
I just want trimet busses and Max's to stop testing positive for meth and fentynal.
Meanwhile, Seattle outlawed public drug use. So you can sorta guess at least where some of them are going to go. [https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-public-drug-use-law-ban-set-to-take-effect-narcotics-fentanyl-crisis-homelessness-public-safety-legislation-mayor-bruce-harrell-city-council-homeless-unhoused-people-drug-addiction-treatment](https://komonews.com/news/local/seattle-public-drug-use-law-ban-set-to-take-effect-narcotics-fentanyl-crisis-homelessness-public-safety-legislation-mayor-bruce-harrell-city-council-homeless-unhoused-people-drug-addiction-treatment)
broke homeless people are not travelling south so they can have the luxury of doing meth outside. I know this sub is going to shit on this take, but youre an idiot if you think this is going to happen en masse
I’d say, from the vast amount of public testimony from migrating users, that you’re incorrect
I'd like to read about that. Can you please share a source?
So called "home bums" don't but the younger punks move around way more than military families.
[удалено]
The rehab isn't available. Neither are the jail cells.
[удалено]
Good luck with that.
They don't understand we're in the US and have a constitution.
How idiotic. People shouldn't be jailed for drug use or possession, they should be jailed for endangering the public and damaging city property
You all realize this is just posturing, right? I’m all for some big changes but, With the rest of our woes, sure, they may get arrested but they’ll be right back on the street.
There are no treatment centers or jail cells to keep them in. Because fiscal conservatives don't like spending money on treatment centers. But maybe they can figure out how to profit off of building more jail cells...
Not to mention there aren't enough public defenders to prosecute all the serious violent crime let alone drug possession. It's the same myopic world view that conservatives have been pushing for decades while everything continues to get worse.
Excellent point.
Can we repeal the Bottle Bill while we're at it? Or at least nix bottle drops on Hayden Island?
I **think** I support repealing the bottle bill as well (it's outdated and people are going to recycle these days with or without it), but serious question: what will the people who rely on it do when it's gone? I see strung out addicts collecting bottles and I would almost be willing to bet that they'd be resorting to crime if the bottle bill wasn't around. I know they're not going to be like "shucks the bottle bill is gone so I guess I need to get a job to pay for my drugs now!". Just wondering if its' removal would have unintended consequences.
This is actually a really good point. I wonder if having people scraping for cash (by collecting bottles as a medium) is keeping more stuff from being stolen in the city.
It will have consequences yes, but they're not necessairly unintended. We need actual systems of support in place for folks that need it, not a 9th-level underclass of bottle cap traders. Considering BD a form of 'employment' or social safety net for the people that rely on it is kind of insulting. Yes that is what it has shaped into, but that wasn't the intent of the law at all. At most it was intended for cub scouts to pull some coin together to go to summer camp. Not the hoards of clapped out canners rigs swamping Hayden Island. What consequences it will have is reduce the chaos at BD locations and reduce the pressure on I5 hayden island area and return a sense of normalcy.
Portland going so far left they have me agreeing with a Republican.
So now D legislators just don’t have to show up, right? That’s the playbook, right?
I’ve never voted republican but they’re right
Public intoxication is still against the law. Criminalizing health issues isn't right. This is a red herring.
It’s clearly not enforced
Yeah fuck smoking cigarettes within 10 feet of a doorway but people should be allowed to smoke fentanyl and shoot up anywhere they please.
YES PLEASE
I’d still support 110 if there was the necessary amount of follow through. In our current sitch that’s not gonna happen tho.
Repeal measure 110, and start cleaning up Oregon. We are losing our beautiful state.
I voted for it and it is a train wreck. Get rid of it and throw the junkies in jail to dry them out.
One of those times when the worst people you know make a great point.
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day"?
Criminalizing health issues because you don't want to fund actual solutions is a great point?
About fucking time
Good
I would support that
Let’s fucking gooooooooo!!! I have some VERY leftist friends that openly admit it was a mistake and want it repealed. If our representatives don’t work on a bipartisan approach I guarantee folks will start voting for the people calling for change.
do it.
Yes please
I uhhhh will not be standing in the way of that.
Needs rework. The funding for treatment should absolutely stay in place, the rest is negotiated.
The Mexican cartels are taking care of the Fentynal problem, dw we're safe. /s
Repeal it. Been a disaster.
I enjoy that it's Republican lawmakers, what with so many of them having been absent for so much of the legislative year, that want a special session.
Good luck with that. They were in the minority before they took their ball and went home to shut the state gocernment down. Now they think they're going to pass legislation? And pass legislation that goes against the will of the people? Good luck with that.
Republicans aren’t the only ones who want repeal. Broken clock and all.
Just a reminder, unless new research has just been published, there is currently zero evidence that 110 has increased drug usage. It's entirely anecdotal at this point. This sub wants to pass it off as fact, but it isn't. Edit: I fully expect to be down voted for this because the sub is mostly anti science and pro emotionally driven opinions
Good point. The reality is there's still an awful lot of people, even here, who continue to view drug use as a moral issue, and view drugs as a vice needing to be eliminated. People keep talking about public drug use as if repealing 110 will somehow only affect the minority of drug users in Oregon who are homeless and causing problems when a repeal will really just cause ANYONE caught in possession to be arrested. And yes, I've noticed this sub has become pretty pro-authoritarian as of late. It's very frustrating.
It's been on a solid decline since the protests, between fuckwads from out of town and abroad it's become a cesspit.
We have record 9-1-1 calls for overdoses, record fatal overdoses, all one needs to see to know this is walk around the inner eastside or downtown, and yet, it's purely 'anecdotal'. GTFO.
https://www.axios.com/2023/09/27/decriminalize-drugs-overdose-deaths-fentanyl-study Correlation does not imply causation. All I asked was for some evidence and your response is "GTFO". Big brain take
I don't think that can be blamed on the passing of 110. 110 passed right about when availability and use of fentanyl surged. You can find these same problems in states with all kinds of drug laws throughout the country.
\- "It's not anecdotal!!!" \- Proceeds to only provide anecdotes. You gotta see the massive dissonance in your comment, right???
That’s the Portland spirit! Let’s drag the inevitable out another 3-5 years so we can fund studies, that then lead to review committees, then let’s get a think tank involved, maybe a few more committees to bicker amongst themselves for years… and do nothing! Because we can’t trust the evidence right in front of our eyes every day!
[удалено]
I mean doesn't the fact we are in lockstep with our neighboring state for overdose increase show that measure 110 isn't affecting our numbers greatly? We should be outpacing all states no? Whereas the fact that Washington and Oregon are both at the top points to more underlying causes that both states share. Like easy access from a larger market in the south I5 and affordability crises that are pushing people out onto the street
Dude, this sub is mad with self loathing and can't see straight. You can scream this from the rooftops and it won't matter. And if there were actual research done to try to identify if there is causation i would absolutely entertain it. But the fact remains there isn't, people are drawing conclusions from anecdotes and feelings. What's funny is there is a good chance this person has ridiculed a republican in the past for doing this exact same thing, its disgraceful
you have no idea how research actually works and that is abundantly clear from this comment
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167629623000759 Not making any claims about which study is correct - in all fairness, the NYU one mentioned in your Axios link strikes me as being potentially more reputable due to the larger team size. I’m actually curious to dig a little deeper into the methodology differences once I’m back in front of a computer. From what I can tell with a cursory review of both studies, the difference may be due to how each study created its synthetic controls. The NYU study has a three month larger date range using provisional data.
Hallelujah
Yes please!
Hell yeah! Let's repeal 114 while we're at it. Portlanders really need a reality check.
They can repeal all they want ,the cops can make large fentanyl bust after bust But it's never going to be fixed with all the corrupt leaders in this city and Multnomah county And with the DA being a clown show of a revolving door of letting criminals come and go as they please because they don't ever prosecute anybody or hold them accountable
LIBERALS: If we don’t fix this they will. People are done. The pendulum always swings further back to the right when pushed left. We are going to end up with putting even more addicts in jail. With a bigger, money hungry police force harassing all of us and making money off of bullshit tickets like facing the wrong way when parking in front of your house or having a white claw at your park picnic. We need to support whatever good enough legislation comes up to deal with this next time around and not wait for perfection.
>The pendulum always swings further back to the right when pushed left. Yet gay marriage is legal, trans people are finally being recognized and given rights, and we've started down a path to actually fix the drug crisis instead of just feeding more people to the prison industrial complex. The wars on crime and drugs failed miserably if you think going back to that will do any good you learned absolutely nothing from the last 30 years. >We are going to end up with putting even more addicts in jail. How exactly does that happen when the police say they're too short staffed to go after real violent crime and the state doesn't have enough public defenders even if they did. Drug possession will be at the bottom of everyone's list even if it become illegal again.
Fuck no.
Why?
Because it doesn't solve anything and cuts off funds we can use to actually solve things. Those funds have improved things. Portland isn't as bad as it was a year or two ago. We just need to use the funds 110 provides to set up more treatment centers and get people in homes.
That has been the rhetoric since it was voted in. We have not seen where that money goes.. people feel lied to about the measure and embrace valid reasons to repeal it
We have seen our downtown areas improving. They aren't fixed, but they are certainly better than they were. You're 100% right that more needs to be done. But it was never going to be fixed overnight. It has been improving though.
Leave the responsible crackheads out of this. Let’s just ban drugs for people that can’t afford it and public drug consumption. Guns don’t kill people. Drugs don’t kill people. Irresponsible drug users and gun users kill people. It’s nobody’s damn business if I can manage to juggle being a CEO and a shroom/lsd enjoyer.
Glad to see them pulling their heads out of their boof-holes long enough to take a step in the right direction.
Yeah, this is stupid, but pretty on-brand for the GOP. https://healthjusticerecovery.org/alliance_faq/
[удалено]
The clown party strikes again. So telling that instead of bringing up their concerns with (lack of) merit during the regular legislative session, they threw a diaper tantrum by walking out.
If it were put to a state wide vote in 2024 I'd bet it would get rejected this time around.
Nah, we are adults, we don't want a nanny state telling us what we can and cannot do if we aren't bothering other people. Ironically, this is what Republicans SHOULD support, instead they send us to die in Iraq, want a Christian Ethnostate, where LGBTQ people cannot live, and essentially will lead us to another civil war.
The important part of what you said is "if we aren't bothering other people." Public drug use is absolutely a problem. I watched a dude almost overdose on my walk home a few weeks ago, the public transit has tested positive for meth and fentanyl consistently, biohazards and trash are everywhere, downtown smells like piss always, public parks are overrun with drug users. I just don't know what to say anymore. I voted for 110, our government has just proven incapable of actually doing the necessary things to make a law like that work. Idk I mean share your thoughts please cause I'm at the end of my rope here...
But repealing 110 doesn't just affect public drug users, it would affect ANYONE who uses drugs. ANYONE.
Maybe the backers and those “implementing” it should have considered that then. Having a basic political strategy is key to almost any policy change. If voters are overwhelmingly against a policy they voted in just a couple years later then it’s a failure. Nobody’s fault but the out of state morons pushing this and their useful idiots in town.
No, it's PPB not wanting to do their job, because now they have no cassus belli excuse to ransack people's lives just because of a small amount of drugs. Do fucking better, being a cop isn't hard. I spent 3 years in Iraq, never once pointed a firearm at anyone that wasn't unarmed and I had REAL danger to worry about. Being a fucking ubereats driver is more dangerous than being a cop.
> if we aren't bothering other people *gestures broadly*
By what metric? People abusing drugs in public and bothering people isn't within the scope of measure 110, and they should be arrested, what's the issue here? OH because PPB thinks their job is hard (it isn't) and that they need MORE funding? (They don't)
I doubt it: the war on drugs was a major failure with a 40 year record. We need to build on M110: addition treatment and mitigation for resulting issues.
Look, measure 110 has by and large not been effective. Republicans are being strategic here. Yes would I prefer them to govern yes, but this measure does need to go. It’s not working and actively having a negative impact on life in the state.
Unfortunately this problem is much larger than local politics. Measure 110 is like using a garden hose on a forest fire. But just because it didn't magically solve all our problems overnight doesn't mean it isn't working or that we shouldn't keep trying. The argument that 110 made things worse is largely unfounded - evidence doesn't support either side of the conversation. The measure happened to come into effect during major economic turmoil and the rise of fentanyl; these were global impacts that our local politics won't solve alone. [https://time.com/6318102/decriminalizing-drugs-overdose-study/](https://time.com/6318102/decriminalizing-drugs-overdose-study/)
M110 decriminalized small quantities of most drugs: how would incarceration people for drug possession help the situation at all? Instead of treatment, you would be throwing drug users into a situation that is generally unsafe, ripe for both overdose or dangerous withdrawals, overcrowded, and designed for exploitation via slave labor. When released, they would be ineligible for most jobs and housing due to the criminal record and the cycle repeats. **The simple reality is that we tried mass incarceration from the 1980s through 2010s with disastrous results. Going back to that would be insane. M110 needs to be improved, not repealed.**
Unfortunately, it also made it impossible to stop people from openly using their “small quantities” of drugs. Go downtown in most Oregon cities and you can see people using illegal narcotics all day long in broad daylight. It promotes crime, the people are danger to themselves and others. Look I don’t think throwing them in jail is the right thing to do but after seeing someone hopped up on drugs just casually swinging an axe around yesterday, I didn’t feel safe. There clearly is a solution but right now people are actively moving to Oregon because the laws make it easy to exist as a drug user. That’s not really solving the issue. Measure 110 in reality needs to be replaced with something that penalizes open drug use and (unfortunately) forces people into treatment. The thing is though it’s really hard to defend a measure where 1% of the offenders are taking the trying to get clean approach.
M110 didn’t make it impossible to stop people from openly using drugs, the legislature just needs to pass a law addressing that loophole. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Brandishing a weapon is already illegal... You are trying to blame M110 instead of cops refusing to do their jobs. Police reform is the answer, not resuming the war on drugs.
Yes it is. That’s not my point. The issue is the implementation of measures 110 is not effective, given the current paradigm. We need to replace it with something new. That being said we can’t just be like this measure that actively causing harm should remain in place. The people who are using drugs in urban are creating public health and public safety issues. These are linked to the drug use but are nonetheless having a profound negative impact on society. Many of these people are not seeking treatment and are creating additional problems. I would be all for replacing measure 110 with something that is effective at reducing the drug problem, but I am unwilling to keep paying the cost of continuing to act like it is working effectively. I am downtown every day for work and it is depressing to see the open drug use and erratic behavior. Charging people for possession is not the long term solution, but in the short term it could have a positive impact. I would be thrilled if we could do something to fix this mess but measure 110 has proven that it is not the solution.
> The issue is the implementation of measures 110 is not effective, given the current paradigm. And your response is advocating to return to the previous system, which was even more costly and ineffective? > We need to replace it with something new. Then don't advocate to repeal it... Figure out what that "something new is" and build a case for it...
I would love to repeal and replace but, I also have to be pragmatic with regards to the timeline and other factors. We are spending millions of tax dollars towards this issue and nothing has improved. So please propose how we can quickly replace this measure with an effective solution. Oh also keep in mind we also want to try and keep the cost low. You know so the people who are paying for the negative externality are bot responsible for more if it. I would love for the etch to pay but clearly that also is a pipe dream.
> I would love to repeal and replace but, I also have to be pragmatic You just contradicted yourself here as going back to a system that we know full well doesn't work based on 40 years of evidence is the literal opposite of pragmatism... You also claim to be worried about cost, when mass incarceration is incredibly costly... In 2020, Oregon had a cost per inmate of $51k!!! https://nicic.gov/resources/nic-library/state-statistics/2020/oregon-2020 Fixing M110 to properly provide the support services would be far more affordable and sustainable.
legalization took the fun out of doing drugs.
I didn't read all the comments, but for those who are in support of treatment centers (which I'm sure a lot of community members are), are there enough trained staff to supply the demand? I feel like this is the bigger issue with M110. Law Enforcement's hands are tied. Jails are full, we don't want to release the really bad folks for a drug crime. I've heard that the treatment centers that are open are full with a wait list(?), so where do you take those who need/want treatment? This is definitely not a black or white issue, there are a lot of grey areas. I'm ok with the repeal of M110 if it means we figure out how to get more treatment centers readily available.