Oregon legalized possession of ALL drugs 3 years ago. Leftist mag whitewashes the results

There's "stupid," and then there's "not only totally moronic but also unwilling to learn"--a condition that seems to describe Democrats.

Three years ago the Democrat pols who run Oregon put an "initiative measure" on the ballot.  That measure--110--made it legal to possess small amounts of any drug, including cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine.  The measure's backers assured voters that since all "drug problems" were caused NOT by the drugs but by the police state, this would solve "the drug problem."

It was, like, the most brilliant idea evah.  See, the Left has always claimed that what was needed to solve "the drug problem" was just to make all drugs legal.  It's Science, see?

So how'd that work out?

As the leftist cesspool The Atlantic diplomatically puts it, "the results aren't encouraging."  The Atlantic amusingly says state leaders point to problems with "enforcement measures"--which is curious since drugs are legal, eh?

In any case, the Atlantic euphemistically notes that Oregon’s drug problems "have not improved."  And by "not improved," last year, the state experienced one of the sharpest rises in overdose deaths in the nation, and had one of the highest percentages of adults with a substance-use disorder. During one two-week period last month, "three children under the age of 4 overdosed in Portland after ingesting fentanyl."

You might wanna read that last line again: the brain trusts at the Atlantic are saying 4-year-olds "overdosed" on fentanyl.  No, morons, they didn't.  They were poisoned to death by careless adults f'ing around with the deadly drug.  Understand?  Nah, you don't, even though it's obvious.

But Democrats in Oregon just had to do this, cuz there were "racial inequities in the criminal-justice system."  What that means is that more blacks were in prison for selling drugs.

To the writers at the Atlantic, this could not possibly be due to the fact that in big cities you don't find many whites selling drugs, since that tends to get you killed.  So to the leftists who run the Atlantic, the only possible explanation was that the nasty white cops were only looking for black drug sellers.

So according to the Atlantic, "criminal-justice-reform advocates, and drug-user activists have lobbied for a more compassionate and nuanced response."  So, all the "good people," eh?  Wait..."drug-user activists"?  That doesn't sound all that good.

And y'say they lobbied for a "compassionate and nuanced response."  Turns out they mean legalizing all drugs.  But "compassionate and nuanced" sounds SO much better, eh?

The Atlantic explains that the "new approach"--legalizing all drugs--will "reduce overdoses, stop the spread of infectious disease and provide drug users with the resources they need—counseling, housing, transportation—to stabilize their lives and gain control over their drug use."

Wait, "gain control over their drug use"?  Was someone forcing 'em to use drugs before?  The Atlantic doesn't explain how legalizing drugs is supposed to help users "gain control over their drug use," probably because you need to be a "drug-user activist" to understand.

Democrats touted Measure 110 as an opportunity to prove that legalizing drugs would "solve the drug problem."  And since normal people see that as good, there ya go, eh?  The measure also earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenue from legalized pot sales to build a statewide treatment network that Democrats promised would help drug users stop or reduce their drug use.

Wait, the Atlantic touted even more: the "treatment network" would "help drug users become healthy, engaged members of their communities."  It's like magic!

The day after the measure passed, the director of "one of the nation’s most prominent drug-policy reform organizations," called the vote a “historic, paradigm-shifting win” and predicted that Oregon would become “a model and starting point for states across the country to decriminalize drug use.”

But three years later, with drug use and overdoses way up, despite hundreds of millions of dollars of grants to fund every manner of treatment centers, voters are beginning to realize they've been duped.  Polls show most residents blamed Measure 110 for making drug addiction, homelessness, and crime worse.  But what do they know, eh?  Stupid deplorables!

Shockingly, a majority supported bringing back criminal penalties for drug possession.

Meanwhile the execs at "Oregon Recovers," which supposedly "promotes policy solutions to the state’s addiction crisis," and claims to have "initially opposed" Measure 110, now support  funding more treatment.  Shocker.

Here's another shocker: the organization wants more state money for in-patient treatment and detox services.  

Many advocates say the new policy simply needs more time to prove itself.  A program supervisor at a homeless-services provider in Portland who helped put Measure 110 on the ballot said “It hurts my heart when people say we need to repeal this before we even give it a chance.”

Don't worry: the Biden regime has increased federal funding for a "public-health strategy" called "harm reduction."  It's Measure 110 on steroids.  Instead of prosecuting drug sale and use, "harm reduction emphasizes keeping drug users safe."  

You may well wonder how that works.  The biden regime says it's by giving junkies clean syringes and overdose-reversal drugs.  See?

The term "harm reduction" appeared five times in the ballot text of Measure 110.  So why are overdose cases are way up?  Mystery.

And by the way, 110 explicitly barred funding recipients from “mandating abstinence.”  Cuz telling people *not to use addictive drugs* is silly, right?

One of the key actors in passing 110 was an outfit called the Drug Policy Alliance, which spent over $5 million to pass it.  The director said "reform advocates" viewed the measure as the start of a nationwide decriminalization push.  He said success would show the rest of the country that legalizing drugs was the way to go.

Measure 110 ordered "a portion" of state tax revenue from legal pot sales to fund a statewide network of "harm-reduction and other services."  The measure also formed a "panel" to award grants from this fund.

And now you're starting to see where the grift was going down, eh?  The measure specified that at least two of the members of this money-spigot panel had to be "active or former drug users."  Another three members were to be “members of communities that have been disproportionately impacted by drug criminalization," according to the ballot measure.

What could possibly go wrong, eh?

Almost immediately after taking effect, Measure 110 encountered problems. A state audit published this year found that the new law was “vague” about how state officials should oversee the awarding of money to new treatment programs.

I'm...shocked.

As a result, handing out millions in grants was  left entirely to the grant-making panel, most of whose members were...druggies.

An audit found...wait for it..."potential conflicts of interest in the selection of funding recipients."

You don't say.

How much cash did they give these druggies to hand out to buddies, eh?  Um...uh...uh...just $302 million.

But despite legalizing possession of "small amounts" of ALL drugs, possessing larger amounts was still illegal.  So how did that work out?  Of 5,299 convictions for possession of more than the legal "small" limit, 3,381 resulted in the convicted failing to pay the fine or appear in court...and they faced no further penalties.  Hmmm...

So how did the "treatment" idea fare?  In the first 15 months in operation the treatment hotline got just 119 calls, at a cost to the state of $7,000 per call. 

But drug-use advocates have celebrated the measure: “For people of color it’s been an overwhelming success,” says the director of Oregon Recovers.  

The Atlantic's writers say "consequences of Measure 110’s shortcomings have fallen most heavily on Oregon’s drug users."  Well, that's if you ignore theft--including shoplifting--that funds a huge amount of drug use.  But you can also consider that in the two years after the law took effect, overdoses were up by 61 percent.

A "behavioral-health resource center" operated by a "harm-reduction nonprofit" received over $4 million in Measure 110 grants.  In April it closed following employee complaints that clients were overdosing on-site.  The center reopened two weeks later.  Nuthin' to see here.

Portland got so bad that its Democrat mayor, Ted Wheeler--a notorious scofflaw--actually proposal to criminalize public drug use consumption in the city, similar to existing bans on open-air drinking.  He withdrew the proposal days later after learning that a state law prohibits cities from banning public drug use.  Seriously.

But never fear, citizen: the state's Democrat-controlled legislature has ordered that school drug-prevention programs "instruct students about the risks of synthetic opioids."  Cuz, see, no highschool students knew the things were either addictive or deadly, right?

Rational adults might think Oregon’s grim experience might have stopped efforts to legalize drug use nationwide, eh?

Hahahahahaha!  Have you forgotten who's running this country?  The "Drug Policy Alliance" says it's working with city leaders to decriminalize drugs in Washington, D.C.

Source.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/07/oregon-drug-decriminalization-results-overdoses/674733/