Oregonians support ending drug decriminalization

[Anti Federalist]

Oregonians support ending drug decriminalization amid rising overdoses, 'radicalized social justice movement'

https://www.foxnews.com/media/oregon...stice-movement

September 1, 2023 12:00pm EDT

A majority of Oregon voters believe its law to decriminalize drugs should be repealed, according to an August poll.

Emerson College poll of 1,000 registered Oregon voters found that 56% support a complete repeal of Measure 110, a ballot initiative that decriminalized possession of small amounts of hard drugs such as heroin, meth and fentanyl. The measure, which made possession punishable by a maximum $100 fine, passed in 2020 with 58% of voters backing it.

A Portland-area drug and alcohol counselor said voters were misled about the reasons behind Measure 110.

"It is part of a radicalized social justice movement that gives a person a right to use known as bodily autonomy," Kevin Dahlgren told Fox News. "It has very little to do with helping a person recover."

"It is about a person having the right to do anything they want without consequences," he added.

Oregon is the only state where personal use amounts of most hard drugs are decriminalized.

Gov. Tina Kotek signed a law in July creating a misdemeanor charge for people who posses between 1 and 5 grams of fentanyl, the deadliest drug in the state. Possession of five to 24 pills was also made a misdemeanor that can carry a year jail sentence.

Two milligrams of fentanyl is enough to cause a fatal overdose, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration.

A majority of most racial groups also supported a full repeal of Measure 110, including about two-thirds of Hispanics or Latinos and African Americans alike and just over half of White voters, according to the Emerson College poll. Less than half of Asian American or Pacific Islanders voters surveyed were in favor of repeal, but nearly 71% of multiracial voters wanted Measure 110 reversed.

"The truth has finally been exposed and thankfully now a majority of Oregonians support its repeal," Dahlgren said. "Common sense is returning and gives me hope we can slow the spread of this epidemic."

A Portland-based trial attorney, Kristin Olson, previously expressed similar sentiments.

"Oregon has turned into an international spectacle and I think we looked at each other and realize that we made an enormous mistake," Olson, who voted in favor of the ballot initiative, told Fox News in May.

An even larger majority of voters — nearly two-thirds — supported repealing parts of Measure 110 to restore penalties for possessing drugs, according to the poll. Only 36% said it should be left as is.

The poll, released Aug. 23, also found that 54% of voters believe Measure 110 increased homelessness in their communities, while 50% said the measure makes communities much less safe.

Overdoses in Oregon increased between November 2021 to November 2022 by nearly 4.58%, surpassing the national average by over sevenfold, according to preliminary estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"I don't think Oregonians want to restart the drug war," Olson added. "I think we didn't realize that what we were signing up for was the deterioration of civilized norms and the public spaces being ceded to people in late-stage drug addiction and engaged in all sorts of criminal activity to keep that addiction going."

When polled on how drug decriminalization impacts their decision at the ballot box, 41% of respondents said they were more likely to vote for a lawmaker if they vote to repeal the measure, while 33% said they would be less inclined and 25% said such a vote would have no impact.

The poll consists of data collected between Aug. 8-9 and has a 3% margin of error.

[PAF]

The "Drug War" is needed.... to coerce tax payers into paying for that Wall and to increase the number of Federal employees, to Blame China China China, and now this election season to promote a “military assault” of Mexican drug cartels using airstrikes, drone attacks and special forces operations. Just because the U.S. incarcerates more people than most other countries in the world, it still does not have enough prisons, lawyers, etc. and tax money to pay for such things.

True, but false, but true.... right?

[Anti Federalist]

The "Drug War" is needed.... to coerce tax payers into paying for that Wall and to increase the number of Federal employees, to Blame China China China, and now this election season to promote a “military assault” of Mexican drug cartels using airstrikes, drone attacks and special forces operations. Just because the U.S. incarcerates more people than most other countries in the world, it still does not have enough prisons, lawyers, etc. and tax money to pay for such things.

True, but false, but true.... right?

I'm not offering any commentary one way or the other because I have no good answers.

100 years ago, before the Harrison narcotics act was passed, you could buy any manner of drug you cared to at a local pharmacy, up to and including heroin.

And a hundred thousand people did not die of overdoses, and major cities were not filled with homeless drug addicts.

This not the same people or the same country anymore.

So, I got nothing.

Just reporting of what the "vox populi" is saying.

And posting this as a cautionary tale, if you support full legalization, and want it to survive, you better get a handle on the addiction and death, because Joe Sixpack will withdraw his support the more he has to negotiate around drug addled psychos and human $#@! on the streets.

[Theocrat]

That looks to me like a failure on the part of local churches and denominations to minister to the needs of those addicted to drugs, instead of relying on the state government to provide rehabilitation and counseling. Drug decriminalization is a good thing (because no civil authority has the right to ban substances created from the Earth), but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a social safety net to help those who would abuse drugs. That's why God instituted church governments, but also private charities and individuals/households should assist those in need.

[PAF]

I'm not offering any commentary one way or the other because I have no good answers.

100 years ago, before the Harrison narcotics act was passed, you could buy any manner of drug you cared to at a local pharmacy, up to and including heroin.

And a hundred thousand people did not die of overdoses, and major cities were not filled with homeless drug addicts.

This not the same people or the same country anymore.

So, I got nothing.

Just reporting of what the "vox populi" is saying.

And posting this as a cautionary tale, if you support full legalization, and want it to survive, you better get a handle on the addiction and death, because Joe Sixpack will withdraw his support the more he has to negotiate around drug addled psychos and human $#@! on the streets.

I don't indulge alcohol/drugs, but my take is, I'd rather keep what I earn, take my chances, and let the druggies and psychos do themselves in if that's what they want to do. It will help attain the goal of "population reduction" --- without my tax dime. But, it is what it is.

[acptulsa]

That looks to me like a failure on the part of local churches and denominations to minister to the needs of those addicted to drugs, instead of relying on the state government to provide rehabilitation and counseling. Drug decriminalization is a good thing (because no civil authority has the right to ban substances created from the Earth), but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a social safety net to help those who would abuse drugs. That's why God instituted church governments, but also private charities and individuals/households should assist those in need.

Yes.

And it's easy to justify all of this even to someone who isn't a believer, or does believe in atheism. All you have to do is see one case up close and personal. Like when the tornado carved a path through the middle of Joplin, MO about ten years ago.

People were helping each other. People were coming from three hundred miles around to do it. Information on survivors and injuries was shared, so people would know if someone they cared about was okay.

Then, after spending a week poring over maps trying to make sure it was really a part of the U.S, and where they should look for it, FEMA showed up, locked all information down, sent volunteers away, and set up a big bouncy castle that they called a hospital. A big tent hospital they set up, a week after the event.

Both useless, in the case of the triage center six days late, and counter-productive in the case of the lockdown.

This system is designed to be as inefficient as possible (more opportunities for kickbacks) and to give the addict (or whoever needs help) as many opportunities as possible to slip through the cracks.
Oh, you're schizophrenic? Fill out this form. And don't misspell anything.

They don't help anyone. If you want to help someone, you have to get down in the mud with them and help with your head, your heart and your hands. Christians don't all know this, and there are non-Christians who do get it. But Christians certainly do come out in big enough numbers to prove this thing to anyone who has eyes to see.

[Occam's Banana]

I'm not offering any commentary one way or the other because I have no good answers.

100 years ago, before the Harrison narcotics act was passed, you could buy any manner of drug you cared to at a local pharmacy, up to and including heroin.

And a hundred thousand people did not die of overdoses, and major cities were not filled with homeless drug addicts.

This not the same people or the same country anymore.

So, I got nothing.

Just reporting of what the "vox populi" is saying.

And posting this as a cautionary tale, if you support full legalization, and want it to survive, you better get a handle on the addiction and death, because Joe Sixpack will withdraw his support the more he has to negotiate around drug addled psychos and human $#@! on the streets.

Leave it to the government to $#@! up freedom (not just in the taking, but also in the giving).

Culture matters. It matters a lot. It has consequences - and liberty requires a culture of responsibility, not indulgence.

Our current culture is one of atomized "if it feels good, do it" hedonism - facilitated by the State's usurpation of formerly private locuses for the mitigation of public ills. Once it arrogated to and subsumed into itself the roles of nanny caregiver and stern schoolmarm - roles in which, by its nature, it is entirely unfit to serve - our culture's doom was effectively sealed.

There are, for example, many good reasons for the separation of Church and State, and not just the most-often cited one (namely, the protection of people from the forcible imposition of some particular religious doctrine). Another vital reason is the protection of the Church and the efficacy of its function as one of those private locuses for the mitigation of public ills. Through competition for the support of those who genuinely care about their effectiveness, private churches are subject to accountability for their abject failures - but the church-scold State is not.

[Dr.3D]

If those drugs were not illegal, a safe supply would be available to those who desire to use them.

As it is now, the only stuff available is bootleg and has not been properly cut so that overdoses are bound to happen.

[Occam's Banana]

If those drugs were not illegal, a safe supply would be available to those who desire to use them.

As it is now, the only stuff available is bootleg and has not been properly cut so that overdoses are bound to happen.

An excellent point.

Possession and use have been "decriminalized" in Oregon (which is not quite the same thing as "legalized").

But what about production and "distribution"?

[Dr.3D]

An excellent point.

Possession and use have been "decriminalized" in Oregon (which is not quite the same thing as "legalized").

But what about production and "distribution"?

Seems like the only regulation required is that needed to keep the supply safe and liability placed on those who are poisoning people.

[PAF]

An excellent point.

Possession and use have been "decriminalized" in Oregon (which is not quite the same thing as "legalized").

But what about production and "distribution"?

I would like to see it Completely Decriminalized as opposed to "legalized".

For obvious reasons.

[Occam's Banana]

I would like to see it Completely Decriminalized as opposed to "legalized".

I just want the State to get the hell out of the issue, whatever the adverbs and labels are for that.

[PAF]

I just want the State to get the hell out of the issue, whatever the adverbs and labels are for that.

There is a distinct difference between the two, afaic. "Completely decriminalized" implies no regulation/taxation, whereas "legalized", as far as the state is concerned, implies regulation/taxation.

[Occam's Banana]

There is a distinct difference between the two, afaic. "Completely decriminalized" implies no regulation/taxation, whereas "legalized", as far as the state is concerned, implies regulation/taxation.

//

I just want the State to get the hell out of the issue, whatever the adverbs and labels are for that.

[PAF]

//

Yes, I got that lol. But if you don't word or phrase it correctly... the state would love nothing more than to regulate and tax the damn stuff

[Occam's Banana]

Yes, I got that lol. But if you don't word or phrase it correctly... the state would love nothing more than to regulate and tax the damn stuff

The state would love to do so regardless of how anyone words it.

[PAF]

The state would love to do so regardless of how anyone words it.

So, how would you personally word-write the bill?

Asking for a friend lol

[TheTexan]

Ahem. The proper word you're looking for is, "delegislated."

You're welcome.

[PAF]

Ahem. The proper word you're looking for is, "delegislated."

You're welcome.

NOW we're talkin'!

[Occam's Banana]

So, how would you personally word-write the bill?

Asking for a friend lol

I wouldn't write any bills.

I'd just abolish the ones that have already been written.

[PAF]

I wouldn't write any bills.

I'd just abolish the ones that have already been written.

We could definitely use you and @TheTexan around here :-) Every time I speak such vulgar language, I'm reminded what an extreme extremist I am lol.

[Snowball]

Of course it was a harmful and stupid idea.

Regardless, the Demonrats who run Oregon will decide if it continues. Both the lesbian governor and SoS are Demonrats.

Their handlers will decide and that will be the result.

[Anti Federalist]

Leave it to the government to $#@! up freedom (not just in the taking, but also in the giving).

Culture matters. It matters a lot. It has consequences - and liberty requires a culture of responsibility, not indulgence.

Our current culture is one of atomized "if it feels good, do it" hedonism - facilitated by the State's usurpation of formerly private locuses for the mitigation for public ills. Once it arrogated to and subsumed into itself the roles of nanny caregiver and stern schoolmarm - roles in which, by its nature, it is entirely unfit to serve - our culture's doom was effectively sealed.

Precisely.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams

I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. no other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom, and happiness. - Thomas Jefferson

We are no longer a moral, knowledgeable or religious people.

We are, in fact, fat, stupid, petty, bellicose and narcissitic.

Well suited to being oppressed and tyrannized.

[PAF]

We are no longer a moral, knowledgeable or religious people.

We are, in fact, fat, stupid, petty, bellicose and narcissitic.

Well suited to being oppressed and tyrannized.

STOP using we ya commie. Don't you know it's them? ;-)

[Dr.3D]

Just need to treat all 'drugs' as we treat aspirin.

[Brian4Liberty]

Let's look at this from a different angle. Let's talk about convenience. First of all, this is very convenient for those who want to criminalize drugs. OMG, decriminalization doesn't work! We need controls in place.

Additionally, criminalized drugs are very convenient for Police and DAs in today's just-us system. Want to put someone in jail? Do they have any drugs on them? No need to investigate them or prove any other crimes. Put them in jail for the drugs instead. Convenient and arbitrary, just the way they like it.

"I don't think Oregonians want to restart the drug war," Olson added. "I think we didn't realize that what we were signing up for was the deterioration of civilized norms and the public spaces being ceded to people in late-stage drug addiction and engaged in all sorts of criminal activity to keep that addiction going."

The biggest charade here is to talk about drugs when the real problem is other crimes. Why accept their premise that this is about drugs? Does anyone care if someone overdoses on drugs in their own home? No. It's about all of the other crime, like camping on the sidewalk, shoplifting, assaults, robberies, murders, etc. Those are the real crimes, but it is so much easier to just put them in jail for drugs.

Let's zoom out further. We should always keep in mind the agenda at the top. George Soros and the WEF are not out to create a world of freedom where you can use any drugs you want. Quite the opposite. They want full control, and will dictate to you which pharmaceutical products they will require you to take. Homegrown, alternative, cheap, or illegal drugs are competition that must be eliminated.

Allowing blatant and outrageous crime in the streets and cities is part of their plan. It will wear down the public to accept their police state controls. Making drugs illegal again is a step in that direction. Their plan is working.

Never forget, they don't want a free world. They want full control and all of the power. They do not want competition for their global crony corporatist, socialist, plutocracy.

[Brian4Liberty]

Leave it to the government to $#@! up freedom (not just in the taking, but also in the giving). ...

Absolutely right. Via incompetence or by design, they are doing everything they can to make freedom unpopular.

[Occam's Banana]

The Oregon Problem | Mark Thornton
https://odysee.com/@mises:1/the-oreg...ark-thornton:c
{Mises Media | 09 December 2023}

The Wall Street Journal reported last month that the ballot initiative to decriminalize all drugs in the state of Oregon is failing, and that efforts are underway to recriminalize hard drugs. Mark points out that decriminalizing drug possession does nothing to improve black market production of drugs, which makes drugs much more dangerous to consume. More importantly, it is Oregon's socialist ideology that coddles homelessness and open hard drug use that is the real problem for the good citizens of the state—and is not helping the drug addicts either. The solution is for society—the nexus of private property owners—to reassert its will.

See also "Welcome to Needle Park" by Mark Thornton: https://Mises.org/Minor48_A

Be sure to follow Minor Issues at https://Mises.org/MinorIssues

Get your free copy of Murray Rothbard's Anatomy of the State at https://Mises.org/IssuesFree

But what about production and "distribution"?

"Mark points out that decriminalizing drug possession does nothing to improve black market production of drugs [...]"

Our current culture is one of atomized "if it feels good, do it" hedonism - facilitated by the State's usurpation of formerly private locuses for the mitigation of public ills. Once it arrogated to and subsumed into itself the roles of nanny caregiver and stern schoolmarm - roles in which, by its nature, it is entirely unfit to serve - our culture's doom was effectively sealed.

There are, for example, many good reasons for the separation of Church and State, and not just the most-often cited one (namely, the protection of people from the forcible imposition of some particular religious doctrine). Another vital reason is the protection of the Church and the efficacy of its function as one of those private locuses for the mitigation of public ills. Through competition for the support of those who genuinely care about their effectiveness, private [organizations] are subject to accountability for their abject failures - but the church-scold State is not.

"[...] it is Oregon's socialist ideology that coddles homelessness and open hard drug use that is the real problem for the good citizens of the state—and is not helping the drug addicts either. The solution is for society—the nexus of private property owners—to reassert its will."

[Occam's Banana]

The following quote is from the "Javier Milei" thread.

I've moved all the subsequent replies (starting with this one) to this thread, as it is a better fit for the topic:

Regarding any war on drugs, it's not a simple and easy issue and it's not just a matter of personal choice. If Reason supports a hands off approach, then it should look at Mexico for how that works out.

I hate all the War on Drugs bull$#@!, but South America (and Central America, and Mexico) is a god-forsaken basket-case of drug-cartel corruption and violence, so I'm not going to complain (too much) about whatever Bukele, Milei, et al. decide they have to do to mitigate it.

The best thing that could be done for South America (and Central America, and Mexico) is for the rest of the world (especially the United States) to put an end to War on Drugs and legalize (or decriminalize, or whatever) it all. That would do far more to impoverish the cartels and drive them out of business than all the laws in the world. (So, of course, that's the one thing that won't happen - the CIA would never stand for it, among other reasons.)

[susano]

I hate all the War on Drugs bull$#@!, but South America (and Central America, and Mexico) is a god-forsaken basket-case of drug-cartel corruption and violence, so I'm not going to complain (too much) about whatever Bukele, Milei, et al. decide they have to do to mitigate it.

The best thing that could be done for South America (and Central America, and Mexico) is for the rest of the world (especially the United States) to put an end to War on Drugs and legalize (or decriminalize, or whatever) it all. That would do far more to impoverish the cartels and drive them out of business than all the laws in the world. (So, of course, that's the one thing that won't happen - the CIA would never stand for it, among other reasons.)

For reasons I don't understand, Latin America is violent and that's a big factor in the drug trade.

I don't really know what I think about about all of this legalization idea. They did it in Portland and Vancouver British Columbia and the results have been disastrous. Even with just weed, California where it's legal, has a huge problem with illegal grows by organized crime. If the licensing aspect were also removed, I don't think it would make any difference.