Oregon’s first-in-the-nation law that decriminalized the possession of small amounts of heroin, cocaine and other illicit drugs in favor of an emphasis on addiction treatment is facing strong headwinds in the progressive state after an explosion of public drug use fueled by the proliferation of fentanyl and a surge in deaths from opioids, including those of children.
“The inability for people to live their day-to-day life without encountering open-air drug use is so pressing on urban folks’ minds,” said John Horvick, vice president of polling firm DHM Research. “That has very much changed people’s perspective about what they think Measure 110 is.”
When the law was approved by 58% of Oregon voters three years ago, supporters championed Measure 110 as a revolutionary approach that would transform addiction by minimizing penalties for drug use and investing instead in recovery.
But even top Democratic lawmakers who backed the law, which will likely dominate the upcoming legislative session, say they’re now open to revisiting it after the biggest increase in synthetic opioid deaths among states that have reported their numbers.
In Oregon, it’s a $100 fine, waived if they seek treatment. The fines are being ignored. Treatment is being ignored. That’s the end of it. There are no hearings, no encouragement, and nothing like this from Portugal:
https://www.opb.org/article/2023/09/18/oregon-measure-110-portugal/
"In Portugal, drug users must appear before a commission that determines whether the person needs treatment or should pay a civil penalty.
“They don’t just assume that everybody will pop into treatment on their own,” Humphreys said.
And the system includes other measures that don’t exist in Oregon. For example, the commission could suspend the driver’s license of a cab driver until after treatment, he said, giving state officials leverage over users."
I don’t disagree that there are a lot of problems with Measure 110 and there are a lot of differences between Oregon’s roll out and Portugal’s roll out. Additionally, the problems faced by both states are unique in many ways. This Oregonian article highlights some of the differences.
However, their solution doesn’t, as you said, mandate treatment. I don’t know where people got this idea, but it is spread uncritically as some sort of major failure in the Oregon system. If we are to mimic the Portugal system, mandatory treatment is not it.
Of course, this isn’t what I read when I see people comparing Oregon to Portugal. What people what is to force treatment through some sort of threat like taking away a cab license. I don’t think we are concerned with the cabbies who are using drugs. We care about the chronically houseless people who we have very little leverage over. We don’t want our downtowns to have open drug users. We also, to some degree, to get the help they need. But that takes trust and building trust takes time.
The mandatory part is the court review to decide if they need treatment or a fine. Here, we just cite them a $100 ticket (which they ignore) and turn them loose. There’s no sort of a review.
Obviously if someone is passing out in the street from fentanyl or overdosing multiple times resulting in over burdening the 911 system, that’s a call for mandatory treatment. They have abdicated personal responsibility at that point and are burdening the community at large with their bullshit.
I’m all for letting people deal with their personal problems on their own, but when their problems suddenly become OUR problems, that’s where the professionals need to step in.
It’s not a court. It’s a commission made up of three people: A social worker, a psychiatrist, and an attorney. The mandatory part is to appear in front of the commission, not as you originally said, to engage in treatment. They can decide that they need treatment, but addicts don’t need to go.
At heart, in my opinion, is trust in the commission to center the addicts needs.
I’m no defending or critiquing Oregon’s program. I am saying that you are misinformed and have confidently spread that misinformation.
And it’s more than what Oregon does…
I’m no defending or critiquing Oregon’s program. I am saying that you are misinformed and have confidently spread that misinformation. I don’t care about what Oregon does or doesn’t do in this conversation. I care about people spreading misinformation.
I hope we can end with that.