Posted on April 5, 2024 View all news
“…I think problems emerged pretty quickly… there’s been, you know, a growing fentanyl crisis that has led to surging overdoses and a lot of quality-of-life issues here, like public drug use in Portland.”
~ Dirk VanderHart, Oregon Public Broadcasting
In November 2020, Oregon made headlines by pioneering the decriminalization of illegal drugs, marking a bold departure from traditional punitive drug policies in the United States.
However, the state reversed its course this Spring, reinstating criminal penalties for drug possession with House Bill 4002. The reversal of Oregon’s drug experiment offers valuable insights into the complexities and challenges of drug policy reform.
Let’s delve deeper into the reasons behind the failure of the Oregon drug experiment and its implications for broader drug policy discussions, particularly concerning the expansion of drug culture without due consideration for societal impacts.
The Promise and Peril of Decriminalization
Oregon’s decision to decriminalize hard drugs was rooted in two supposed premises – the failure of the war on drugs and the disproportionate harm inflicted on marginalized communities.
Advocates of decriminalization argued that shifting from punitive measures to a public health approach would reduce incarceration rates, combat stigma, and prioritize treatment over punishment.
Moreover, decriminalization was seen as a means to redirect resources towards prevention and harm reduction initiatives, ultimately benefiting both individuals struggling with addiction and society at large.
However, the promise of decriminalization was accompanied by significant challenges and uncertainties.
Critics raised concerns about the potential normalization of drug use, the strain on public health systems, and the impact on public safety.
Despite these reservations, Oregon moved forward with its experiment, eager to explore alternative approaches to drug policy.
The Reversal of Decriminalization: Understanding the Factors
A confluence of factors influenced the decision to reverse decriminalization in Oregon, each highlighting the complexities inherent in drug policy reform.
Escalating Public Safety Concerns
Following the implementation of decriminalization, Oregon suffered an explosion of drug-related problems, including public disturbances and overdoses.
As reported in Newsweek, the drug crisis in Oregon escalated rapidly. By September 2022, the state of Oregon had:
- The highest rate of past-month and past-year underage marijuana use in the entire United States.
- The nation’s highest rate of past-year methamphetamine use.
- The highest rate of prescription painkiller misuse.
- The highest rate of Substance Use Disorders.
- The highest percentage of residents who needed treatment for SUD but were not receiving it.
- The second-highest rate of mental illness.
- The third-highest rate of serious mental illness.
Opioid-related deaths in Oregon surged by 58% between 2020 and 2021 – more than triple the national increase of 17%.
It was almost immediately apparent that the experiment was not going well.
An Ineffective Alternative
“(Decriminalization advocates) don’t understand the health care side, and they don’t understand recovery. … Our big problem is our health care system doesn’t want it, is not prepared for it, doesn’t have the resources for it, and honestly doesn’t have the leadership to begin to incorporate that (expanded treatment)… So we put the cart before the horse.”
~ Mike Marshall, Co-Founder and Director, Oregon Recovers
When Oregon voters decriminalized drugs, possessions became punishable by a mere civil citation that carried a $100 fine. But that fine was waived if the person called into a recovery hotline for a health screening.
While that all sounded good in theory, it was overly optimistic in practice. At the time of the Newsweek article, close to 3,200 tickets had been issued, but fewer than 200 people had bothered to call in – less than 1%.
A $100 fine simply was not enough of a deterrent to motivate people to seek treatment services.
Contrast that with the recriminalization consequences: drug possession is a misdemeanor charge that carries up to six months in jail. But there is a carrot offered as an alternative to the stick.
As reporter E. Tammy Kim of the New Yorker explains, “…there is a kind of opt-in program that counties can decide on that’s called, like, deflection or diversion, where if somebody says, I’m going to go into treatment and kind of follows through with a treatment and recovery regimen, then the misdemeanor can be wiped out and they don’t do jail time.“
Pressure from Law Enforcement
Concerns about the normalization of drug use and its broader societal implications intensified, prompting calls for action.
Law enforcement played a pivotal role in advocating for the reversal of decriminalization. They reported an increase in drug-related crimes, raising alarms about public safety and community well-being. Police departments expressed frustration with the challenges posed by decriminalization, citing difficulties in enforcing drug laws and combating drug trafficking. Police unions and associations lobbied for reinstating criminal penalties, arguing that decriminalization undermined their ability to maintain public order and uphold the rule of law.
Lack of Comprehensive Support Services
Despite the intentions behind decriminalization to prioritize treatment and support services, the infrastructure and resources necessary to address substance abuse were inadequate.
The failure to invest adequately in support services highlighted the shortcomings of decriminalization as a standalone strategy for drug policy reform.
The Broader Implications for Drug Policy
The reversal of Oregon’s drug experiment serves as a cautionary tale for policymakers and advocates advocating for no accountability for illegal drug possession without careful consideration of its societal impacts.
Drug decriminalization is not a panacea for the complex challenges posed by substance abuse and addiction. The Oregon experience underscores the importance of balancing public health objectives with concerns about public safety, law enforcement priorities, and the availability of support services.
Escalating public safety concerns, pressure from law enforcement, and a lack of comprehensive support services all contributed to the decision to abandon decriminalization.
As we grapple with drug policy reform’s challenges, we must learn from Oregon’s experience and pursue strategies that prioritize public health, safety, and social justice.
What we have learned the most is that without some accountability for the possession of drugs, we decrease the opportunity to recover.
Only through a balanced and inclusive approach can we achieve meaningful and lasting change in our approach to drug policy, improve the health and safety of our communities, and save lives.
The ridiculous concept of “Harm Reduction” was conceived of and implemented through the Drug Policy Alliance, financed by George Soros. His motives are not to reduce harm. He is on record in his book The Bubble of American Supremacy stating …. “Prevention is the single most important dimension of the responsibility to protect.,” so he knows what works. He has been in control of drug policy since he put Obama in office and for 16 years, through 3 administrations, there has been no attempt at PREVENTION. He should be held accountable, along with all the politicians he has corrupted, and his assets should be seized as retribution for all of the lives lost and destroyed, and environment harms to the planet.