Democratic lawmakers in Oregon on Tuesday unveiled a sweeping new bill that would undo a key part of the state’s first-in-the-nation drug decriminalization law, a recognition that public opinion has soured on the measure amid rampant public drug use during the fentanyl crisis.

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

  • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    "Possession of under a gram of heroin, for example, is only subject to a ticket and a maximum fine of $100.

    Those caught with small amounts can have the citation dismissed by calling a 24-hour hotline to complete an addiction screening within 45 days, but those who don’t do a screening are not penalized for failing to pay the fine."

    As was heavily pointed out at the time, there is no downside to ignoring all of it, so it turns out the vast majority of people ignore all of it and do what they want. The proponents live in a fantasy world where everybody wants to get clean. All of them ignore that their poster child Portugal still has penalties, just not criminal charges; jail is not the only stick (although Portugul also has a growing drug and program funding problem).

      • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Did you… not read the article? Oregon is sitting on a shit ton of money for treatment.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Yeah that’s the problem. They’re sitting on that money instead of distributing it like they were supposed to meaning people aren’t getting treatment. This new bill is just more of the same and allows them to continue sitting on that money while pretending like they’re doing something about the issue.

          Doing drugs in public was not decriminalized but police aren’t doing their job so that they can make the problem worse and get what they want.

          • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            To a point, but as mentioned in the article if only ten people are calling a month, it also does not sound like there is that much demand from the people who need it. People want simple solutions but they don’t come simply.

            • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Decriminalization of personal-use amounts of drugs, approved by voters in 2020 under Ballot Measure 110, was supposed to channel hundreds of millions of dollars of marijuana tax revenues into drug treatment and harm reduction programs. But that hasn’t yet translated into an improved care network for a state with the second-highest rate of substance use disorder in the nation and ranked 50th for access to treatment.

              “When Oregonians passed Measure 110, we expected that our loved ones battling addiction would have access to treatment and a chance for a better life,” Fagan told reporters in a Zoom press conference. “We expected there will be fewer of our neighbors struggling on the streets.”

              Instead, the funding has been slow getting out of the gate and instances of drug abuse and overdose deaths have increased.

              What point is there in calling a hotline that’ll tell you there’s no treatment options available? This shit is straight out of the Republican playbook, starve services to make them ineffectual, and then point to that ineffectiveness as a reason to change laws to what they want. The only difference here is that it’s Democratic legislators doing it. It’s just scumbags all the way down regardless of the party they represent.

    • quindraco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      The proponents live in a fantasy world where everybody wants to get clean.

      Absolutely false. I live in a fantasy world where my leaders are required to watch Demolition Man on repeat until they understand that people have the inalienable right to choose to make themselves miserable. That’s why we also allow casinos.

      • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Unless you’re native you’re gonna have a hard time opening a casino in Oregon.

        People should absolutely be able to make themselves miserable however they want, and if they limited it to making themselves miserable that’d be fine and dandy. Let me know when Portland public transit stops testing positive for fentanyl and meth. So far no casino nor old lady at the slots has stolen my catalytic converter.

        The goals are great, the legislation was poorly thought shit based on aspirational thinking that had predictable results. Criminalizing simple possession isn’t the solution either but we live in a ridiculously black and white society where that’s all they can think of.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Possession of under a gram of heroin, for example, is only subject to a ticket and a maximum fine of $100.

      Fines like this are just taxes for the poor.

      • TimmyDeanSausage @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m poor and I’m an (ex)addict. If a fine like that came with penalties, I wouldn’t do drugs in public… Because I wouldn’t want to pay the fine. Poor people aren’t stupid and most of us aren’t in the habit of throwing away money…

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          A penalty that has a significant impact on the poor while being the cost of having fun for the rich is just saying the behavior is only acceptable if you can afford it.

          • TimmyDeanSausage @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Believe me, I understand. It should be tied to wealth… Which will never happen. $100 is much better than thousands and/or prison time. Drugs being decriminalized, and with such a low penalty, would hopefully encourage cops to be lenient in writing those tickets. Ideally, tickets would only be issued when people are literally shooting/lighting up in public. Most people know better than to do that.

    • prole@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      There needs to be a complete paradigm shift. Lots of people in this thread can’t seem to wrap their heads around the concept of “decriminalization.” That’s why people aren’t being penalized. Because it’s no longer illegal to possess. It’s really that simple.

      • NaN@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Decriminalization and legalization are not the same thing. Possession is still illegal, but there are not criminal penalties, that is why it has a citation and ostensibly a fine. Oregon has legalized marijuana, but not the rest.

        I think there can be confusion because a violation and a crime are not the same thing, legally, even though they are both against the law. A violation does not include jail time, but usually does include other penalties. A traffic infraction is a very common example of a violation. You don’t go to jail for running a red light despite it being illegal.