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).

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

      There needs to be a complete paradigm shift. Lots of people in this thread can’t seem to wrap their heads around the concept of “decriminalization.” That’s why people aren’t being penalized. Because it’s no longer illegal to possess. It’s really that simple.

    • quindraco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      The proponents live in a fantasy world where everybody wants to get clean.

      Absolutely false. I live in a fantasy world where my leaders are required to watch Demolition Man on repeat until they understand that people have the inalienable right to choose to make themselves miserable. That’s why we also allow casinos.

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

        Unless you’re native you’re gonna have a hard time opening a casino in Oregon.

        People should absolutely be able to make themselves miserable however they want, and if they limited it to making themselves miserable that’d be fine and dandy. Let me know when Portland public transit stops testing positive for fentanyl and meth. So far no casino nor old lady at the slots has stolen my catalytic converter.

        The goals are great, the legislation was poorly thought shit based on aspirational thinking that had predictable results. Criminalizing simple possession isn’t the solution either but we live in a ridiculously black and white society where that’s all they can think of.

    • 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.