Oregon coming around to the realization that drug decriminalization was always a really bad idea



Oregon became the first state in the union to decriminalize possession of hard drugs such as heroin, methamphetamine, and cocaine in 2020. This radical experiment in lawlessness has been an unmitigated disaster.

While initially deaf to the concerns raised by Republicans, recovery specialists, and Christian groups concerning Ballot Measure 110, state Democrats are now poised to re-criminalize drug possession and bring their four-year experiment to an end. After all, the majority of Oregonians want the measure repealed.

How it started

The so-called "Drug Addiction Treatment and Recovery Act" eliminated criminal penalties for possession of various quantities of hard drugs. As a result, junkies can now carry one gram of heroin; 2 grams of cocaine; 2 grams of meth; less than 40 user units of methadone; 1 gram or 5 pills of MDMA; less than 40 user units of LSD; and fewer than 40 pills of oxycodone.

Possession of such quantities amounts to a non-criminal Class E violation, which at most can result in a $100 fine or a recommendation for a health assessment with an addiction treatment professional.

Those caught with even more of these once-controlled substances have also seen penalties softened, such that they now face a misdemeanor charge with less than a year in jail, a fine, or both.

Extra to decriminalizing hard drugs, the measure mandated the establishment or funding of recovery centers throughout the state funded by taxes on marijuana.

According to Ballotpedia, the measure was championed by the Democratic Party of Oregon, the ACLU of Oregon, the ACLU, NAACP Portland, NARAL Pro-Choice Oregon, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Oregon, and various other leftist groups.

"It takes a lot of courage to try something new, and I'm really proud of our sate," Haven Wheelock, a so-called harm reduction specialist who was among the petitioners to file the measure, told Oregon Public Broadcasting. "I'm excited to be a model for other places to show that we don't have to harm people for being sick."

Kevin Barton, the district attorney for Washington County, said, "I am hopeful with this new effort that it will be successful to address addiction, but I think everyone can agree its an experiment."

Measure 110 won with 58.5% of the vote. The decriminalization went into effect on Feb. 1, 2021.

How it's going

In Portland — a Democrat-run city that witnessed an exodus of businesses from its boarded-up and crime-ridden downtown — and across the state, junkies who might previously have been set straight by an arrest are now dying in the thousands.

According to Oregon Health Authority data, fatal overdoses have skyrocketed in recent years. In 2020, there were 824 fatal overdoses. The year M110 went into effect, there were 1,189 fatal overdoses. Preliminary data indicates the number of deaths from overdoses in 2022 was north of 1,100.

Fentanyl is proving especially lethal. OregonLive.com noted that in the year ending September 2019, there were 77 known fentanyl deaths. In the year ending September 2023, there were reportedly 1,268 overdose deaths.

There appears to be a correlation between fatal overdoses and M110.

A University of Toronto study published September in the Journal of Health Economics concluded that "when Oregon decriminalized small amounts of drugs in February 2021, it caused 182 additional unintentional drug overdose deaths to occur in Oregon in 2021."

This accounted for "a 23% increase over the number of unintentional drug overdose deaths predicted if Oregon had not decriminalized drugs."

The promised good associated with M110 has also failed to come to fruition.

Police suggested to OPB that the $100 tickets for possession of fentanyl and other such killer drugs go unpaid and the users never call the treatment hotline number.

"We've talked to exactly two people that have actually called that number," said Sgt. Jerry Cioeta of the Portland Police Bureau.

State auditors revealed that approximately 1% of junkies cited by police called the hotline, reported the Statesman Journal.

Some advocates for the failed policy claim it's too early to know whether it's working.

"We're building the plane as we fly it," Wheelock told the Atlantic. "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."

Democratic half-measure

A nonpartisan statewide poll published last April found that 51% of Oregonians believed M110 had proven to be bad for the state. 65% of respondents said M110 made drug addiction worse. 63% said the measure made homelessness worse. 63% said it made crime worse.

With the understanding that the state has failed to adequately make good on its drug treatment programs or distributed cannabis tax revenue while overdoses and criminal activity skyrocketed, 53% of respondents suggested that M110 should be repealed.

An August 2023 Emerson College poll also found that 56% of Oregonians think that M110 should be repealed completely and 50% said it made their communities much less safe.

State lawmakers have introduced various proposals to tweak, replace, or repeal M110.

Democrats are pushing to make small-scale drug possession a Class C misdemeanor offense punishable by a month in jail and a $1,250 fine. Junkies would be afforded the opportunity to beat the charges by instead seeking treatment, reported Reuters.

"It became very, very obvious that what was happening on the streets of Portland, and what was happening on Main Street, Oregon, was unacceptable," said state Senate Majority Leader Kate Lieber (D).

Republicans understand that the proposed legislation, House Bill 4002, signals an understanding on Democrats' part that M110 is ruinous, but say it is altogether toothless.

"We need serious penalties in order to make sure that people are getting into treatment, as opposed to staying on the street," said state Senate Minority Leader Tim Knopp.

The Republican-supported Senate Bill 1555 and Senate Bill 1588 would make drug possession a Class A misdemeanor with penalties of a year in jail for drug possession and a $6,250 fine, reported the Statesman Journal. As with the Democratic alternative, junkies under the proposed Republican bills could receive probation instead of jail time if they pursued treatment.

"The Republican bill restores accountability, ushers addicts into treatment, and makes our streets clean and safe again – none of which will be achieved with the majority's proposal," said state House Minority Leader Rep. Jeff Helfrich (R).

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Canadian court rules police cannot prevent junkies from shooting up on kids' playgrounds



A Canadian judge ruled Friday that junkies cannot be prevented from shooting up in playgrounds and in other children's areas.

According to Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson of the British Columbia Supreme Court, forbidding junkies to do so would impose "irreparable" harm. After all, reasoned the judge, "public consumption and consuming drugs in the company of others is oftentimes the safest" — apparently even if the company sought is that of strangers' children.

What's the background?

The Trudeau government decriminalized hard drugs in British Columbia last year in concert with the province's socialist NDP regime as part of a pilot program set to run until 2026. The program provides junkies in the province — 2,300 of whom overdosed in 2021 — with an exemption from federal law to possess up to 2.5 grams of various illicit substances including fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, meth, and ecstasy.

Of course, this initiative immediately proved problematic for all the obvious reasons.

Deputy Chief Fiona Wilson, vice president of the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, noted law enforcement officials "heard feedback from our communities about the need to ensure police have appropriate tools to address areas of concern, which prompted the BC Association of Chiefs of Police to advocate Health Canada to add additional exceptions to the exemption."

The "areas of concern" were largely those frequented by children.

B.C.'s socialist premier, David Eby, also acknowledged there had been significant concerns that decriminalization had led to a spike in the use of illicit drugs in schoolyards, reported North Shore News.

The province ultimately pressed the federal government for an amendment to the decriminalization policy to ensure that junkies couldn't abuse their newfound liberty within 49 feet of playgrounds, spray pools, wading pools, and skate parks. B.C. indicated in September that it had received approval to allow police to enforce federal drug law in "child-focused spaces."

"We requested this amendment from Health Canada to ensure that families feel safe in their community while continuing to use every tool available to fight the toxic-drug crisis and save lives," said Jennifer Whiteside, B.C's NDP minister of mental health and addictions.

The resultant provincial legislation, Bill 34, would enable police to tell junkies to stop consuming an illegal substance or to relocate to another place. Noncompliance could be punished with a maximum fine of $2,000 and/or a prison term of up to six months.

Protecting playground junkies

Activists figured that that notwithstanding the roughly 364,764 square miles whereupon junkies could shoot up in B.C., it was essential that the province's playgrounds in particular remained for them a viable option.

The Harm Reduction Nurses Association challenged Bill 34 in November, alleging it violated sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the "rights of People Who Use Drugs ('PWUD'), the ... rights of the plaintiff and its members, and the ... rights of Indigenous people."

The group said in a statement, "Bill 34 will drive drug use further into the shadows and put the lives of our clients and community at risk," adding that keeping junkies off of children's playgrounds would "disproportionately target and harm Indigenous peoples in BC."

Caitlin Shane, a lawyer for the Harm Reduction Nurses Association, told the Tyee, "The vast majority of communities in B.C. don't have places to safely use drugs, and when you ban people from using in public when you know there is nowhere else for them to go further pushes people into the margins and towards isolated drug use."

Corey Ranger, head of the HRNA, said Bill 34 was a "reactive, regressive, not evidence-based, not based in harm reduction" law that "poses immense amounts of harm for those already at higher risk of death."

The HRNA activists, like Shane, appear to presume it a forgone conclusion that society must accept that junkies need to continue using.

Court keeps crack on the jungle gym

Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson, appointed to his role by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, acknowledged in his Dec. 29 ruling that "the social harms associated with public illegal drug use range from the loss of public space due to open drug use, to discarded needles and other drug paraphernalia, to drug-related criminal activity and decreases in real and perceived public safety."

Hinskson also indicated that he accepted "that the attendant public safety risks are particularly concerning given that many of the restricted areas and places in the Act are frequented by seniors, people with disabilities, and families with young children."

Despite noting these downsides and the government's indication that the HRNA's "evidence [was] composed almost entirely of affidavits prepared by administrators of public interest groups that are replete with anecdotal evidence, unsubstantiated conclusory statements, layers of unattributed hearsay, ... and policy recommendations," Hinskon nevertheless concluded both that the legislation "will cause irreparable harm" and that its suspension "can be properly characterized as a substantial public benefit."

It appears Hinkson was swayed in part by the argument that shooting up in the company of others, in this case in front of families and children, "is oftentimes the safest, healthiest, and/or only available option for an individual."

The National Post indicated that Hinkson intimated restrictions on where junkies could use drugs amounted to a violation of "the right to life, liberty and security of the person," though the court did not explicitly say so.

The court indicated the province can pursue other legislative and policy alternatives should Bill 34 ultimately be struck down.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!