Oregon lawmakers aren’t the only ones reversing course on progressive drug policies

[SugarDaddy1]

On Monday, Gov. Tina Kotek (D-OR) rolled back a 2020 measure that decriminalized drugs after the state’s opioid overdose rate tripled since it was enacted. The measure offered those found in possession of hard drugs treatment over jail time. Before 2020, there were 280 opioid-related deaths in the state, and in 2022, there were 956, according to Oregon Health Authority statistics.

Still, state lawmakers said the problems were not with legalizing the drugs, but rather the law’s implementation. Kotek’s move to recriminalize drugs follows a string of other blue states and cities across the country that are beginning to backpedal on Democratic crime and drug policies, opting for more aggressive solutions to combat a surging fentanyl crisis and an influx of violence plaguing inner cities.

Here’s a look at how some states and cities are reversing course on progressive drug measures.

Link for the list... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...s-reversing-course-progressive-drug-policies/

 

[ll74]

I hear Republicans are trying new things to tackle drug problems.

Oh wait...nvm.....still just throwing everyone in jail (for life if you're a non white)

 

[desecration]

The problem with decriminalization or legalization is that if you are one small area that does it, all the drug users converge on there. This is why Amsterdam and Christiania are rolling back some drug use. But if it were a large area like, say, California, this would not be as pronounced.

 

[ll74]

The problem with decriminalization or legalization is that if you are one small area that does it, all the drug users converge on there. This is why Amsterdam and Christiania are rolling back some drug use. But if it were a large area like, say, California, this would not be as pronounced.

Amsterdam isn't rolling things back

 

[PaxNurgle]

There needs to be some common sense approach to drug laws and enforcement. Maybe not "anything and everything goes" but I would think that few people would agree that locking up every single person the cops catch with a half gram of weed for decades at a time would benefit society in any way. And yeah, as Trailer Hitch above mentioned, enclaves with liberalized drug laws do run the risk of becoming "Drug Tourist Areas."

I do have issue with full legalization of hard drugs- definitely not in favor of it, due to the indicents of violence, theft, organized crime, and social ills that result from it. However, let's be honest- there is a huge gap, both in effects, addiction, and overall harm to society, between legal pot and legal meth, fentanyl, crack, etc. "Common sense" drug laws might look something like this- small amounts of weed being legal for personal use in private spaces, out of view of the public (similar to open-container alcohol laws in most places) but not in the open or in public spaces. Users in the workplace would still, of course, be subject to their company's drug use policies (and unfortunately it is far easier to test positive for marijuana than for hard drugs.)

 

[desecration]

This was the last thing I remember reading:

It will soon be illegal to smoke cannabis on the street in Amsterdam's red light district under new regulations unveiled by the city.

The laws will come into effect from mid-May and aim to improve liveability for residents who have long complained of disruption caused by tourists.

Sex workers will also have to close their venues at 3am.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64591394
On the other hand...

The Netherlands is world-renowned for its liberal stance towards drugs, and if Amsterdam’s mayor, Femke Halsema, had her way, it would be even more liberal.

According to Halsema, the sale and use of cocaine and other hard drugs should be decriminalised.

https://dutchreview.com/news/amsterdam-mayor-wants-to-decriminalise-cocaine/

 

[Chobham]

If you legalize robbery (and some jurisdictions are trying this) you'll get less robbery, but the problem still remains.

In the late 1960's a researcher at NIH by the name of Ford looked in to Heroin addiction and then expanded his study to other drugs. His published conclusions were that approximately 10% of the population were susceptible to abuse/addiction. Much later it has been established that approx. 10% of the white/black population are susceptible to alcoholism due to a genetic marker (higher percentages in the Asian/Amerindian populations). Which, of course, begs the question, "Are there similar genetic markers for other drugs?"

Which then brings us to the question as to whether making those drugs available, and tacitly permissive, is a wise policy?

There are benefits and deficits as to how that question is answered. On the upside there will most likely be a reduction in crime and deaths due to overdoses. The down side is that more of the susceptible may be encouraged to start down that path and eventually they will become unproductive members of society. The standouts are the Meth users, they will eventually become psychotic.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Good news from California as well. The folks backing the “Repeal Prop 48” ballot initiative have collected enough signatures that it is now certain to qualify for the November ballot. Knowing that CA voters are eager to repeal the mislabeled measure they approved in 2014, Democrats that control the legislature are now making a last minute effort to head it off at the pass by passing a reform bill off their own.

 

[Chernosoth]

As the nation resumes making its own products, needs more manual labor, and becomes unable to continue welfare programs, the drug habits that make people unable to work will do some darwinian selection, including the legal drugs.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Link for the list... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...s-reversing-course-progressive-drug-policies/

Don’t they know that criminals don’t follow laws.

 

[desecration]

As the nation resumes making its own products, needs more manual labor, and becomes unable to continue welfare programs, the drug habits that make people unable to work will do some darwinian selection, including the legal drugs.

It seems like the reality of that $34 trillion in debt is hitting home. I see more military spending, more manual labor, and less welfare state in the future for Americans.

This is also the environmentalist best case scenario. Less welfare means fewer people showing up, which means that the population stabilizes.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

They deny success because of its outcome? Now that's just nuts of a fruitcake platter...

What next? No cars because, you know, driving fatalities? women drivers? teens behind the wheel?

 

[JoePepsiCo]

It seems like the reality of that $34 trillion in debt is hitting home. I see more military spending, more manual labor, and less welfare state in the future for Americans.

...

Bullshit. We're based on voters and their votes and they will always vote themselves the largess of the public weal at the expense of the things you listed.

Fast food automation? Great! We don't want to do that job. We want an ample dole Mz. Politician...

 

[desecration]

What next? No cars because, you know, driving fatalities?

Nope, climate change.

 

[desecration]

We're based on voters and their votes and they will always vote themselves the largess of the public weal at the expense of the things you listed.

Depends on the voter. Once they get above a hundred IQ points and have stable families, they tend to stop voting for free stuff. But this is why we need a flat tax: no one who votes does not pay.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

I'm sorry, but when you look into our Byzantine tax code, you will see that most of it is aimed right at the voter you describe, the one who acts in their own selfish interest and why the flat tax is doomed to once again morph into what we have now, a more "fair" form of the flat tax...

Fartax.org

The rich and poor alike are taxed upon their consumption and it is blind since it is at the point of sale.

 

[desecration]

The rich and poor alike are taxed upon their consumption and it is blind since it is at the point of sale.

I like that aspect of it. If they drop the prebate, I think it will get a great deal of support.