Oregon (U.S State) Votes To Re-Criminalise Hard Drugs
Discussion
At least they tried it as an experiment so the rest of the western world doesn't have to.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/04/02/ore...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/04/02/ore...
Carl_VivaEspana said:
At least they tried it as an experiment so the rest of the western world doesn't have to.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/04/02/ore...
I don't think they would started the trial if they believed prohibition was working. How many of the victims travelled in from neighbouring areas? What was done to address the issues that drive people's need for escapism?https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/04/02/ore...
Unless it's countrywide I don't really see how it can work. If you have one beacon of ruin then that's where everyone's going to gravitate towards.
I'll also guess that the US isn't too hot on the holistic bits elsewhere to back it up.
And then there's the novelty factor overloading it with the most hopeless druggists who are uninterested in addressing their problems anyway.
It's the type of move that needs a lot of planning, coordination and joined-up thinking before attempting it.
I'll also guess that the US isn't too hot on the holistic bits elsewhere to back it up.
And then there's the novelty factor overloading it with the most hopeless druggists who are uninterested in addressing their problems anyway.
It's the type of move that needs a lot of planning, coordination and joined-up thinking before attempting it.
Edited by bloomen on Wednesday 3rd April 00:19
Irrelevant fact: my brother lives in Portland (Oregon) but his vice is home brewed beer I believe.
Anyway, whilst I see the advantages in "legal" sale of drugs at known strengths etc, that does seem to be addressing only the symptom.
The underlying problem is surely the huge numbers of people who have become addicted to hard drugs?
Surely it's not a normal or desirable state of affairs for a developed economy to have large numbers of opioid addicts?
Whilst moderate cannabis use might be likened to a bottle of wine in the evening, I'm not sure lying in the gutter out of it in fentanyl is quite the same.
It might be the case that the availability of drugs has caused more people to become addicted, and that by reducing availability will cause a decrease? But it seems wishful thinking.
More likely the availability has drawn drug users from all over the USA, and Oregon now wants them to fro back home (also unlikely).
I'm not particularly familiar with this area, but would imagine it's a combination of economic opportunities, price increases and mental health problems all coming together.
Hard to fix at a city level, despite the more devolved nature of USA local government.
Anyway, whilst I see the advantages in "legal" sale of drugs at known strengths etc, that does seem to be addressing only the symptom.
The underlying problem is surely the huge numbers of people who have become addicted to hard drugs?
Surely it's not a normal or desirable state of affairs for a developed economy to have large numbers of opioid addicts?
Whilst moderate cannabis use might be likened to a bottle of wine in the evening, I'm not sure lying in the gutter out of it in fentanyl is quite the same.
It might be the case that the availability of drugs has caused more people to become addicted, and that by reducing availability will cause a decrease? But it seems wishful thinking.
More likely the availability has drawn drug users from all over the USA, and Oregon now wants them to fro back home (also unlikely).
I'm not particularly familiar with this area, but would imagine it's a combination of economic opportunities, price increases and mental health problems all coming together.
Hard to fix at a city level, despite the more devolved nature of USA local government.
Ian Geary said:
Irrelevant fact: my brother lives in Portland (Oregon) but his vice is home brewed beer I believe.
Anyway, whilst I see the advantages in "legal" sale of drugs at known strengths etc, that does seem to be addressing only the symptom.
The underlying problem is surely the huge numbers of people who have become addicted to hard drugs?
Surely it's not a normal or desirable state of affairs for a developed economy to have large numbers of opioid addicts?
Whilst moderate cannabis use might be likened to a bottle of wine in the evening, I'm not sure lying in the gutter out of it in fentanyl is quite the same.
It might be the case that the availability of drugs has caused more people to become addicted, and that by reducing availability will cause a decrease? But it seems wishful thinking.
More likely the availability has drawn drug users from all over the USA, and Oregon now wants them to fro back home (also unlikely).
I'm not particularly familiar with this area, but would imagine it's a combination of economic opportunities, price increases and mental health problems all coming together.
Hard to fix at a city level, despite the more devolved nature of USA local government.
One issue here is it's the US.Anyway, whilst I see the advantages in "legal" sale of drugs at known strengths etc, that does seem to be addressing only the symptom.
The underlying problem is surely the huge numbers of people who have become addicted to hard drugs?
Surely it's not a normal or desirable state of affairs for a developed economy to have large numbers of opioid addicts?
Whilst moderate cannabis use might be likened to a bottle of wine in the evening, I'm not sure lying in the gutter out of it in fentanyl is quite the same.
It might be the case that the availability of drugs has caused more people to become addicted, and that by reducing availability will cause a decrease? But it seems wishful thinking.
More likely the availability has drawn drug users from all over the USA, and Oregon now wants them to fro back home (also unlikely).
I'm not particularly familiar with this area, but would imagine it's a combination of economic opportunities, price increases and mental health problems all coming together.
Hard to fix at a city level, despite the more devolved nature of USA local government.
They've been actively pumping out opioid addicts deliberately via their medical system for decades - it's no wonder that there's then a knock on into 'harder' or illegally sourced versions.
Sway said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
I am not sure society can tolerate widespread legalisation of Meth, Crack, Crank and Fentanyl at any dosage level or, purity.
Portugal does - but it takes a completely different philosophical position on how to deal with those problems.Drug use has been a part of society since society existed, and many powerful drugs have only been criminalised fairly recently.
Sway said:
Carl_VivaEspana said:
I am not sure society can tolerate widespread legalisation of Meth, Crack, Crank and Fentanyl at any dosage level or, purity.
Portugal does - but it takes a completely different philosophical position on how to deal with those problems.If a person is found with a small quantity of a narcotic (defined as 10 days’ worth for personal use), the drug is confiscated and the person is summoned to a panel called the Comissões para a Dissuasão da Toxicodependência (Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction).
The Commission is comprised of a social worker, a psychiatrist and an attorney. They assess the person. If the Commission finds the person has an addiction problem, treatment is offered or community service is ordered. It cannot impose compulsory treatment, only offer it.
The Commission can also impose other civil sanctions on people caught with drugs. These can be anything from a €25–€150 fine to the suspension of a professional licence (like that of a teacher, doctor or taxi driver) or a ban on visiting certain places and people.
I think Portugal works because they assign a lot of human resource to help addicts.
Making something legal or illegal probably makes dick all difference to how well a person copes with addiction, compared to how much resources you allocate to the person struggling
So I support decriminalising drugs completely as criminilising users does unnecessary harm, doesn't reduce rates, and piles on difficulty for no reason. But it's not going to actually improve the situation either, without further work on the problem. It's not a magic wand
Making something legal or illegal probably makes dick all difference to how well a person copes with addiction, compared to how much resources you allocate to the person struggling
So I support decriminalising drugs completely as criminilising users does unnecessary harm, doesn't reduce rates, and piles on difficulty for no reason. But it's not going to actually improve the situation either, without further work on the problem. It's not a magic wand
Edited by lizardbrain on Saturday 6th April 16:05
Oliver Hardy said:
If a person is found with a small quantity of a narcotic (defined as 10 days’ worth for personal use), the drug is confiscated and the person is summoned to a panel called the Comissões para a Dissuasão da Toxicodependência (Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction).
The Commission is comprised of a social worker, a psychiatrist and an attorney. They assess the person. If the Commission finds the person has an addiction problem, treatment is offered or community service is ordered. It cannot impose compulsory treatment, only offer it.
The Commission can also impose other civil sanctions on people caught with drugs. These can be anything from a €25–€150 fine to the suspension of a professional licence (like that of a teacher, doctor or taxi driver) or a ban on visiting certain places and people.
hidetheelephants said:
Well, a campaign against legalisation marshalled by a guy who runs prisons. Blow me down with a feather, he wants to lock up addicts. What a surprise. Hysterical anti-science garbage being touted by anti-science papers, surprising no one.
I can't read the article so you have to inform use, what is so anti-science about it?I believe the new law will allow people to go into treatment instead of being punished.
One drug problem the US has is a truly massive wave of opioid addictions.
These are not 'recreational' users: the pharma companies pushed their oxycontin pain killers as being addiction-free. Lots of oxy was overprescribed, especially for chronic pain, and lots of addictions resulted.
Then the govt realised how addictive this stuff is, and cracked down on the (legal) supply.
Of course this rapidly resulted in a growing black market.
I'm not saying there are no recreational users, but you don't expect the pathway to hard drug use to start with a prescription pain killer.
Search "US opioid crisis" much more detail.
So my initial assumption is that this is behind the original decriminalisation, not just pandering to druggies.
These are not 'recreational' users: the pharma companies pushed their oxycontin pain killers as being addiction-free. Lots of oxy was overprescribed, especially for chronic pain, and lots of addictions resulted.
Then the govt realised how addictive this stuff is, and cracked down on the (legal) supply.
Of course this rapidly resulted in a growing black market.
I'm not saying there are no recreational users, but you don't expect the pathway to hard drug use to start with a prescription pain killer.
Search "US opioid crisis" much more detail.
So my initial assumption is that this is behind the original decriminalisation, not just pandering to druggies.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff