Oregon Legalizing All Drugs in 2020 has been a . .

5,010 Views | 43 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by JB99
DDub74
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A failure. Shocker I know.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what-happened-when-oregon-decriminalized-hard-drugs/ar-AA1e4HA0

Overdoses up, crime up, accidental kid deaths up, treatment centers not up,
Post removed:
by user
JohnLA762
How long do you want to ignore this user?
…I'm trying to think who predicted this…

Oh yeah, the people of the sane party. Republicans!
deddog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

The audit described a chaotic process, with more than a dozen canceled meetings, potential conflicts of interest in the selection of funding recipients, and lines of applicant evaluations left blank. Full distribution of the first biennial payout of cannabis tax revenue$302 million for harm reduction, housing, and other servicesdid not occur until late 2022, almost two years after Measure 110 passed. Figures released by the state last month show that, in the second half of 2022, recipients of Measure 110 funding provided some form of service to roughly 50,000 "clients," though the Oregon Health Authority has said that a single individual could be counted multiple times in that total.
Another corrupt idea from the Party of 10% for the Big Guy

Quote:

Advocates have celebrated a plunge in arrests. But critics say that sidelining law enforcement has made it harder to persuade some drug users to stop using. "Without accountability or the ability to drive a better choice, these individuals are left to their own demise."

Look, another white liberal idea that results in more black deaths. Some things never change
Dimebag Darrell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
But some atheist anarcho-libertarians read "Freakonimics" and swore that easy access to highly addicting hardcore drugs would not increase overall usage and abuse.
Detmersdislocatedshoulder
How long do you want to ignore this user?
i feel like the fat kid in a candy store analogy applies here.
Adverse Event
How long do you want to ignore this user?
C@LAg said:

ban drugs in oregon.

everywhere.

Ban Oregon.
What bitcoin’s detractors don’t understand is monetary economics, computer science, software engineering, network protocols, and electrical systems.

It ain't much, but it's honest Proof of Work.
BTKAG97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Brittmoore Car Club said:

But some atheist anarcho-libertarians read "Freakonimics" and swore that easy access to highly addicting hardcore drugs would not increase overall usage and abuse.
They need to open up "All You Can Use, No Resuscitation 'Clinics'" all over the state and let all problems quickly resolve themselves.
Funky Winkerbean
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Brittmoore Car Club said:

But some atheist anarcho-libertarians read "Freakonimics" and swore that easy access to highly addicting hardcore drugs would not increase overall usage and abuse.


They also believed it would stop the cartels.
EMY92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They just didn't do it right. The state needs to provide free and easy access. Maybe California will follow.
Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Get Off My Lawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If you want legalized drugs, you also need to ramp up enforcement of other laws. Eventually druggies run out of money for their habit and turn to theft. It'sa natural progression and either you end up with full jails or dangerous streets. I'll never understand the leftist mindset that government service isn't service toward those who foot the bill.
EskimoJoe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DDub74 said:

A failure. Shocker I know.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what-happened-when-oregon-decriminalized-hard-drugs/ar-AA1e4HA0

Overdoses up, crime up, accidental kid deaths up, treatment centers not up,



Stevie Wonder could have saw that coming....
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Now thinking that this is just another depopulation strategy by the lefts puppet masters.

It's like the business philosophy of cutting the bottom 10% of your workforce every year. Keep the drugs flowing and let the dregs of society kill themselves and we will use the tax payers to do it.
IndividualFreedom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oregon.............. Democrat or Libertarian????

ETA: I know one is a ideology and the other is a political party. A democrat could also be a big govt. religion.

If a modern democrat and Non-Conservative Libertarian had a state child, it would be Oregon.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is not a defense of Oregon. They are stupid in every way. But...

Refusing to convict drug users is not the same as legalization. That's the worst of both worlds. Since production and distribution is still illegal, then you still have the criminal element for that. And since the drugs are still technically illegal, you still have the "rebelliousness" aspect in effect. This policy is practically begging for the problem to get worse.
Science Denier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Remember, Camala said the government is trying to "control" the population.

This is outcome desired, not a problem as a result.
agracer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Get Off My Lawn said:

If you want legalized drugs, you also need to ramp up enforcement of other laws. Eventually druggies run out of money for their habit and turn to theft. It'sa natural progression and either you end up with full jails or dangerous streets. I'll never understand the leftist mindset that government service isn't service toward those who foot the bill.
So open the hen house and then get upset when the fox walks in?

How about don't open the hen house door to begin with and shoot the fox before he even gets on your property?
Adverse Event
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aTmAg said:

This is not a defense of Oregon. They are stupid in every way. But...

Refusing to convict drug users is not the same as legalization. That's the worst of both worlds. Since production and distribution is still illegal, then you still have the criminal element for that. And since the drugs are still technically illegal, you still have the "rebelliousness" aspect in effect. This policy is practically begging for the problem to get worse.
This.
What bitcoin’s detractors don’t understand is monetary economics, computer science, software engineering, network protocols, and electrical systems.

It ain't much, but it's honest Proof of Work.
agracer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
YouBet said:

Now thinking that this is just another depopulation strategy by the lefts puppet masters.

It's like the business philosophy of cutting the bottom 10% of your workforce every year. Keep the drugs flowing and let the dregs of society kill themselves and we will use the tax payers to do it.
But it's not only the dregs of society.

Big Pharma has pushed opioids for years and people get addicted. Then they turn to hard drugs when they can no longer legally obtain the drugs their doctors over prescribed.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Get Off My Lawn said:

If you want legalized drugs, you also need to ramp up enforcement of other laws. Eventually druggies run out of money for their habit and turn to theft. It'sa natural progression and either you end up with full jails or dangerous streets. I'll never understand the leftist mindset that government service isn't service toward those who foot the bill.
Theft and crap is worse with them being illegal as it pushes the price up.

True legalization would bring the price down and would likely increase usage by a bit. But more people would be able to afford it while holding actual jobs rather than resort to crime.
Logos Stick
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Science Denier said:

Remember, Camala said the government is trying to "control" the population.

This is outcome desired, not a problem as a result.


Suppose the motivation for this is population control and reduction.

Do we care?

These people are making choices. If a person wants to kill himself with drugs, while I think it's abhorrent, it's his choice imo.

It's also their state.

I have no issues with the death and destruction going on there. Liberals are simply proving themselves to be braindead idiots once again. It happens every damn day. So much so that we can't separate reality from satire now.
ts5641
How long do you want to ignore this user?
C@LAg said:

ban drugs in oregon.

everywhere.
Ban Oregon. Everywhere.
Shoefly!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Logos Stick said:

Science Denier said:

Remember, Camala said the government is trying to "control" the population.

This is outcome desired, not a problem as a result.


Suppose the motivation for this is population control and reduction.

Do we care?

These people are making choices. If a person wants to kill himself with drugs, while I think it's abhorrent, it's his choice imo.

It's also their state.

I have no issues with the death and destruction going on there. Liberals are simply proving themselves to be braindead idiots once again. It happens every damn day. So much so that we can't separate reality from satire now.

We went through Oregon before Covid and it's simply beautiful. Then we went into Salem to see the State Capital and it was a major letdown. Tent cities in all the parks, hippies and children walking around in blankets, hair not combed. Trash, needles, diapers all around the Capital. Druggies lined up at clinics to get their methadone treatment. It was a mess! This is what liberals have to offer you!
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agracer said:

YouBet said:

Now thinking that this is just another depopulation strategy by the lefts puppet masters.

It's like the business philosophy of cutting the bottom 10% of your workforce every year. Keep the drugs flowing and let the dregs of society kill themselves and we will use the tax payers to do it.
But it's not only the dregs of society.

Big Pharma has pushed opioids for years and people get addicted. Then they turn to hard drugs when they can no longer legally obtain the drugs their doctors over prescribed.
True.
Sid Farkas
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BTKAG97 said:

Brittmoore Car Club said:

But some atheist anarcho-libertarians read "Freakonimics" and swore that easy access to highly addicting hardcore drugs would not increase overall usage and abuse.
They need to open up "All You Can Use, No Resuscitation 'Clinics'" all over the state and let all problems quickly resolve themselves.
I've been saying this for years. Free transportation to a free drug use facility at an old military site...offer treatment to anyone who wants it. Give them food and shelter. They can take all the drugs they want, but they have to stay on site. All drugs are manufactured by the govt to keep the cartels from making money.

Problem solved. You're welcome.

I want the rights to the inevitable black mirror script coming from a place like that.
Martin Cash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aTmAg said:




True legalization would bring the price down and would likely increase usage by a bit. But more people would be able to afford it while holding actual jobs rather than resort to crime.
It's my understanding that this has not be the case in Colorado with pot. Once the government got involved with regulations and taxation, the price of legal pot became higher than illegal, and the black market is flourishing.
Houston Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Legalized drugs in Oregon means that the druggies move out of your neighborhood and into Oregon.

Oregon is taking one for the team.

Now your neighborhood, which continues to ban such drugs, is safer.

Unintended consequences that favor non-Oregon communities.
LoudestWHOOP!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Adverse Event said:

C@LAg said:

ban drugs in oregon.

everywhere.

Ban Oregon.
Even better give 80% (The sane portion) of Oregon to Idaho.
Stmichael
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sounds like a self solving problem in the long run!
Get Off My Lawn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
agracer said:

Get Off My Lawn said:

If you want legalized drugs, you also need to ramp up enforcement of other laws. Eventually druggies run out of money for their habit and turn to theft. It'sa natural progression and either you end up with full jails or dangerous streets. I'll never understand the leftist mindset that government service isn't service toward those who foot the bill.
So open the hen house and then get upset when the fox walks in?

How about don't open the hen house door to begin with and shoot the fox before he even gets on your property?
Fortunately our justice system doesn't work on "shoot first" principle.

The problem at hand is that those who want to legalize drugs are effectively decriminalizing "being a fox" (possessing or using drugs). And they have some argument in that there are SOME foxes who never harm a hen.

I'm highlighting that for folks like Oregon where they shift from shooting foxes on sight to shooting them upon hen-house entry… the risk to the hens is increased as is the challenge in protecting them.

Again - not advocating for legalization - just saying that there's a reciprocal responsibility that's being ignored by the stupid hippies.
RangerRick9211
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Adverse Event said:

C@LAg said:

ban drugs in oregon.

everywhere.
Ban Oregon.
Life is good here outside of Multnomah County.

But since we're here, this was a fun one from today: https://www.koin.com/news/portland/an-itemized-list-of-how-multnomah-county-spent-84k-on-smoking-supplies-foil-straws-pipe-oregons/

Top line: Fent is so popular now that MultCo's needle exchange program (no one needs needles) had budget remaining; so they repurposed on, "$84,212.93 in "smoking supplies" including 31,000 straws, 90,000 sheets of tin foil and more than 55,000 pipes, which it planned to begin handing out to local drug users in July".

It get's better, er worse, I don't know, at least more hillarious: "The county health department also attempted to spend $30,107 on 1,700 cases of chapstick to further prevent the spread of bloodborne illness among drug users. However, the supplier was only able to deliver 77 cases, dropping the cost to $1,389. Other notable expenses mentioned in the invoice include $297.95 spent on 20,000 chopsticks (used to install pipe filters), and a $5 educational pamphlet on "boofing," written by social activist Sessi Blanchard, titled "A harm reduction guide for boofing that is, the holy act of putting drugs up your butt."
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DDub74 said:

A failure. Shocker I know.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what-happened-when-oregon-decriminalized-hard-drugs/ar-AA1e4HA0

Overdoses up, crime up, accidental kid deaths up, treatment centers not up,

Some of my favorite things from that article...

Quote:

Many advocates say the new policy simply needs more time to prove itself, even if they also acknowledge that parts of the ballot measure had flaws; advocates worked closely with lawmakers on the oversight bill that passed last month. "We're building the plane as we fly it," Haven Wheelock, a program supervisor at a homeless-services provider in Portland who helped put Measure 110 on the ballot, told me. "We tried the War on Drugs for 50 years, and it didn't work … It hurts my heart every time someone says we need to repeal this before we even give it a chance."
Typical "we just need more time" appeal when the results are obviously not going how they'd hoped.

Quote:

Backers of Measure 110 said the law was modeled on drug policies in Portugal, where personal drug possession was decriminalized two decades ago. But Oregon's enforcement-and-treatment-referral system differs from Portugal's. Users caught with drugs in Portugal are referred to a civil commission that evaluates their drug use and recommends treatment if needed, with civil sanctions for noncompliance. Portugal's state-run health system also funds a nationwide network of treatment services, many of which focus on sobriety. Sutton said drafters of Measure 110 wanted to avoid anything that might resemble a criminal tribunal or coercing drug users into treatment. "People respond best when they're ready to access those services in a voluntary way," he said.
So, we're doing what they're doing except we aren't.

Quote:

Portland's Democratic mayor, Ted Wheeler, went so far as to attempt an end run around Measure 110 in his city. Last month, Wheeler unveiled a proposal to criminalize public drug consumption in Portland, similar to existing bans on open-air drinking, saying in a statement that Measure 110 "is not working as it was intended to." He added, "Portland's substance-abuse problems have exploded to deadly and disastrous proportions." Wheeler withdrew the proposal days later after learning that an older state law prohibits local jurisdictions from banning public drug use.
BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!

You just KNOW this older law was passed in order to stop the NON-liberal towns in Oregon from banning them...
doubledog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Many addicts cannot quit on their own accord and as such will spiral into crime and death.

We used to have good old drunk tanks where addicts could be "jailed" until they sober up, at least that was a start.

Definitely Not A Cop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oregon promotes drug use and a lack of responsibility. This is a guaranteed method failure. Changing one of those things will always lead to better outcomes. Either ban drug use and don't trust your citizens to be responsible, or legalize drug use and crack down on irresponsibility, like homelessness, addiction, and crime. If you are a state and want to legalize all drugs, you first need to significantly bulk up your rehab programs, and work on reducing addiction.

To use a metaphor, it's like providing tax cuts and not reducing spending, then being surprised when the budget looks worse than ever.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.