Democratic lawmakers in Oregon on Tuesday unveiled a sweeping new bill that would undo a key part of the state’s first-in-the-nation drug decriminalization law, a recognition that public opinion has soured on the measure amid rampant public drug use during the fentanyl crisis.

The bill would recriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs as a low-level misdemeanor, enabling police to confiscate them and crack down on their use on sidewalks and in parks, its authors said. It also aims to make it easier to prosecute dealers, to access addiction treatment medication, and to obtain and keep housing without facing discrimination for using that medication.

  • Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    "Possession of under a gram of heroin, for example, is only subject to a ticket and a maximum fine of $100.

    Those caught with small amounts can have the citation dismissed by calling a 24-hour hotline to complete an addiction screening within 45 days, but those who don’t do a screening are not penalized for failing to pay the fine."

    As was heavily pointed out at the time, there is no downside to ignoring all of it, so it turns out the vast majority of people ignore all of it and do what they want. The proponents live in a fantasy world where everybody wants to get clean. All of them ignore that their poster child Portugal still has penalties, just not criminal charges; jail is not the only stick (although Portugul also has a growing drug and program funding problem).

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Possession of under a gram of heroin, for example, is only subject to a ticket and a maximum fine of $100.

      Fines like this are just taxes for the poor.

      • TimmyDeanSausage @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        I’m poor and I’m an (ex)addict. If a fine like that came with penalties, I wouldn’t do drugs in public… Because I wouldn’t want to pay the fine. Poor people aren’t stupid and most of us aren’t in the habit of throwing away money…

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          A penalty that has a significant impact on the poor while being the cost of having fun for the rich is just saying the behavior is only acceptable if you can afford it.

    • Mario_Dies.wav@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      B- but then people might use drugs more openly and be more forthright in admitting they have an addiction, and I’ll have to look at them! We had better just throw them all in jail instead. That always works.

      • ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Do you think kids should be subjected to people shooting up drugs when playing outside or when going to school?

        I am anti drug war personally but if any situation led to it being easier for kids to be subjected to that, that seems like a worse world.

          • ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            It’s a relevant point. We don’t allow cigarette companies to advertise to children so should it be acceptable to advertise crack or coke?

            • prole@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              The ban on tobacco advertisements is a relatively recent thing.

              We’re inundated with ads for alcohol and pharmaceuticals.

              Super unhealthy sugar-filled snacks and breakfast cereals made up like 90% of TV commercials when I was growing up.

        • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          All these negative effects are consequences of the war on drugs, not the drugs themselves. If society treats drug addicts as patients instead of as criminals, things get better. This has worked every time it’s been tried. The only reason it isn’t done in a larger scale is people who benefit from the war on drugs preventing it.

          • ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Do you think if we stop the war on drugs, that will reduce the number of homeless drug addicted people? I don’t think it will. There’s need to be more to it than that, otherwise you’re literally not preparing for the 2nd half of that foot drop.

            I largely agree alot of these problems are a result of criminalizing drug use but decriminizing doesn’t solve some of these problems with homeless folks which is probably more related to mental health services.

            • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Ending the war on drugs will not solve every problem. But at least things will stop getting worse. And it’ll make it far easier to tackle all the other problems.