this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
142 points (95.5% liked)

News

22908 readers
3555 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 106 points 10 months ago (11 children)

And of course nobody even contemplating the idea that they underfunded the resources invested in recovery and that's the change they need to make.

[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 48 points 10 months ago

Oregonian here. And... Yep. That's it exactly.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 63 points 10 months ago (12 children)

I mean, if the people are willing to risk their lives with an overdose, I don't think a criminal penalty is going to scare them very much. So, yeah, more resources for treatment are probably necessary.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] buffaloboobs@lemmy.world 63 points 10 months ago (2 children)

so, Oregon had "the biggest increase in synthetic opioid deaths among states" 😱

"...that have reported their numbers."

I feel like that last phrase is doing a lot of work. I'm not going to put in the work to figure out the numbers, but it's a weird place to end the article.

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 27 points 10 months ago

Same with homeless and gun activity. Some states, exclusively red states, don't share their statistics or just don't want to pay to track them.

[–] ZephyrXero@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago
[–] alienanimals@lemmy.world 62 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's almost as if the half-assed decriminalization effort was not done in earnest because opponents want to see it fail. We have cops not doing their jobs, government officials not emulating existing models (like Portugal), and recovery clinics that will turn you away if you haven't been doing the "right" opiates.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 23 points 10 months ago

Seriously. We have models that are proven to work. Just fucking emulate them.

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's almost as if legalizing the sale of drugs would give a safe place to get drugs that aren't laced with fentanyl.

This helps those with addiction from getting caught up in the prison system, but nothing to make them safer when taking drugs.

[–] You999@sh.itjust.works 6 points 10 months ago

Or in some cases you could get Fentanyl but have it correctly labeled, dosed, and administered.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 19 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's the same dumb approach as it is with the "housing first" model. Yes this models work and they work great!

But you actually have to read more than just the headline of the paper. The decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal for example came with a whole bunch of other new regulations and programs. It wasn't "just" decriminalise drugs and be done with it.

We are approaching Idiocracy status fast...

[–] Jonna@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Are you saying "housing first" works or not?

Because just labeling something "housing first" without actually providing housing of course doesn't work and that may be what you're say. But a proper "housing first" DOES WORK to significantly improve people's lives and reduce their engagement with emergency services (ie, cops and hospitals), which is quality of life for the rest of us.

Here's a study from the Lancet (n=1103): https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(22)00117-1/fulltext

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Well, did you read the study you posted?

Housing First approach is founded on a rights-based philosophy, which provides clients with immediate access to permanent housing and mental health support services

Upon enrolment, service teams create collaborative housing and care plans and facilitate access to health services and income benefits

For all three of our models, health and social service consultation at enrolment was confirmed to be a significant part of multiple indirect pathways to the 24-month outcomes.

Recovery approaches in mental health programs such as those used in Housing First seek to connect clients to meaningful daily routines around school and greater engagement with family and community.

The Oregon way of doing "Housing First" would be to take the name of the program literally, put people into apartments and expect that now all their problems resolve themselves.

[–] Harpsist@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I think we're nose deep in idiocrazy.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Making treatment optional (unlike Portugal) has been the big disaster here.

16,000 people ticketed under measure 110, less than 1% actively seeking treatment.

https://www.oregonlive.com/health/2022/09/oregons-drug-decriminalization-effort-sends-less-than-1-of-people-to-treatment.html

Meanwhile, drug use is exploding, overdoses are exploding, related thefts and crime are exploding...

https://oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2022/02/07/oregon-has-worst-drug-addiction-problem-in-the-nation-report-shows/

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/the-story/portland-downtown-firefighter-overdose-calls-narcan-deaths/283-a37b7402-c199-40ce-a120-bb6aec149365

"In June alone, firefighters from Station 1 responded to 300 overdoses.

Portland police data shows that back in 2020 nearly 90 people died from overdoses. The number jumped to 135 in 2021, then to 159 in all of 2022. So far this year there have been 151 deaths, all in less than seven months. Police expect that number to be around 300 by year's end."

110 continues to be an utter failure.

[–] ZephyrXero@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And yet recent studies show overdoses have not gone up as a result, and Fentanyl is a growing problem in all US cities. https://www.opb.org/article/2023/09/27/oregon-drug-decriminalization-measure-110-overdose-deaths/

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Deaths have not, because the fire department is responding with narcan hundreds of times a month.

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

All your data posted above apart from a single anecdote from a firefighter are from before this law even passed at the end of 2020. Seems like you're arguing the old way wasn't working.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

"In June alone, firefighters from Station 1 responded to 300 overdoses."

That's this year.

We've had as many as 8 in a single event:

https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/portland-drug-overdoses/283-78be019c-cef8-4c73-b2e8-24fd69fd9308

People are probably more likely to call for their help if they don't have to fear being thrown in jail.

[–] Pirate_lemmy_arrrrR@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You can't force treatment on someone who doesn't want help and expect results. Just like throwing them in jail until they're sober doesn't stop them from using as soon as they get released.

Not ruining people's lives further with jail and criminal records for personal use is better than what we were doing before, even if it's not perfect.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Addicts won't volunteer for help, that's part of the addiction.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

We do sometimes. The point is to make sure the help is there if and when we decide to.

[–] Pirate_lemmy_arrrrR@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Rehab only works if the person wants to get clean. Otherwise it's just incarceration. There needs to be more support for those that want to get clean, but decriminalizing drugs also has to be done so that they can feel safe to seek treatment without fear of punishment.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

We are trying decriminalization, it's not working.

The reason it works in Portugal is a) treatment is not optional and b) Nationalized health care.

Absent those two things, decriminalization is a disaster.

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Treatment isn't mandatory in Portugal. Rather, they expanded treatment services, increased point for positive intervention and interactions with healthcare provider and social workers, and focused on harm reduction.

Learn about the practices and not the misinformation. You can read more in the wikipedia entry under regulations.

[T]he suspect is interviewed by a "Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction" (Comissões para a Dissuasão da Toxicodependência – CDT). ... The committees have a broad range of sanctions available to them when ruling on the drug use offence. ... The committee cannot mandate compulsory treatment, although its orientation is to induce addicts to enter and remain in treatment.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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."

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

And it's more than what Oregon does...

[–] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] guacupado@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

It's crass and probably juvenile but honestly just let them filter themselves out.

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

In the first year after the law took effect in February 2021, only 1% of people who received citations for possession sought help via the hotline

This tells me the voluntary approach does not work. I'm going to guess those citations do not get paid either.

load more comments
view more: next ›