After wokie Oregon decriminalised ALL drugs, addicts took over the state's major cities

Since Oregon has been totally ruled by "wokie" Democrats forever, it was no surprise that just two years ago, pushed by wokiez and the illegal-drug lobby, the state's wokie voters approved a ballot measure to remove jail time for possession and use of heroin and the far more dangerous fentanyl.

The libs and drug lobby claimed that the state just had to do that, because they said druggies really wanted to stop using, but because using hard drugs was punishable by prison time, users were afraid to seek help!  Got it?

So decriminalising those two very dangerous drugs would make it easier for druggies to get duh treatment they supposedly wanted, eh?

It sounded totally plausible, eh?

Well, unless you've ever known someone who was addicted to drugs.  Maybe one in 5,000 wants to quit, but the rest do NOT.  They love the high--enough to risk death if the drug is heroin or fentanyl.

But Oregon voters--being woke--bought the bullshit claim, and the ballot measure decriminalizing drugs passed 58 to 42. 

The measure provided that if you were caught using a "hard" drug like meth, heroin or fentanyl, you'd be fined $100.  BUT the canny drug lobby even removed that slap on the wrist if the drug user signed up for state-funded treatment.

And of course that pot of state money created another huge lobby supporting the measure, and scores of "treatment centers" opened, looking for sweet state dollars to get dem addicts ta quit, right?

So how'd those great ideas work out?

The story in the London Telegraph buries those results way deep:  Eventually they note that according to one police chief, of 6,000 people who were given the $100 ticket, fewer than 125 signed up for treatment.  

The rest preferred to pay the fine--cuz duh canny ones are on Social Security Disability getting a couple of grand a month.  See, dey sez dey can't work cuz dey too drugged out, man.  Of course the SS case worker corrects dat to "Disabled per paragraph 13 c (5)(f) of the Americans with Disabilities Act."

And if you livin' in tents an' gettin' free food, you can buy a LOT of drugs with $2,000 of taxpayer money every month.  And while the check you get for regular Social Security is based on your three highest years of income, disability checks are NOT income-based.  Sweet!

Of course tents on sidewalks in front of downtown businesses are a huge deterrent to customers.  The tent residents use the sidewalks for toilets, and the dedicated communist mayor has ordered city cops not to arrest the tent dwellers, even for open drug use.  The only concession to business owners is that every week or so the cops shoo the tent denizens away for an hour or so to let workers firehose the sidewalks.

The Telegraph quotes a local business owner saying the reason druggies didn't accept treatment was "because there isn’t the infrastructure to support it”--meaning not enough treatment centers.

That's horseshit.  As soon as the measure passed, every glad-hander opened a treatment center, but no one showed up...because druggies love their drugs and have no desire to stop using.  But the wokiez in Oregon don't understand that.   

But the measure did have several major effects:  For one thing, druggies from all over the west flocked to Oregon when they heard the state had essentially legalized all hard drugs.  One business owner says he has friends who work for the Social Security bureaucracy, who say that when they process druggies for disability checks, only 30 per cent of the IDs they see are from Oregon.  Hmm...

One police chief said “We don’t have even really one successful example of somebody who got a citation, then went to treatment, to being clean.”

He noted that they were handling a record number of overdose calls, and the state would  shatter the record for overdose deaths.  This is what the Democrats call "success."

Not surprisingly, after the measure legalizing all drugs passed, all cities and large towns started to see a significant rise in crime.  But hey, who cares, right?  So a druggie with a crowbar or a brick breaks your car window to grab something he can sell for drugs.  You've got insurance, right?

Yeah, well...people are getting tired of this crap, and are trying to repeal the 2020 measure and bring back prison for drug use.

But as you already guessed, that move is strongly opposed by certain "voices" in the state, who say that would be "turning back the clock."  And who would want to do something like that, eh?  It's definitely not "progressive."

There's actually an org called the "Drug Policy Alliance," which supports...illegal drug use, and backed the decriminalisation.  They bleat that prosecuting users would “go back to a harmful system where people are arrested and put in jail for drug possession.”

Why yes, that's the entire idea: Make people reluctant to use dangerous illegal drugs.

But the Drug Alliance bleats that “Jailing people results in a revolving door of arrest and incarceration that never addresses the root causes of drug use.”

Didja catch the "tell" there?  Sure: "revolving door."  Meaning the punishments are so minimal compared to the rush of drugs that no users are deterred.

Now: I don't live in Oregon (thank you, Lord) and you don't either.  So really, as Hilliary famously bleated, "What difference does it make?"  The Oregon wokie experiment is actually a great data point, showing that druggies gonna continue until they either die, or one out of 10,000 actually decides to quit.

But the datapoint only works if the rest of the country learns the truth about how this experiment failed.  And with the Democrat-fellating Mainstream Media providing air cover for the wokie Democrats, almost no one will learn about it.

Which means other Democrat states will try the same thing, again and again, wasting millions (transferring millions to grifters who win state contracts to open "treatment centers" and get no clients.

Wheeee!  America iz at 20,000 feet, pitch angle 60 degrees down, racin' an anvil to the ground. 

Source.

Now for another eye-opening read, click here to see a webpage of 16 organizations committed to squeezing money from the state "to advance policies that best reduce the harms of drug prohibition, and promote the sovereignty of individuals over their minds and bodies."

That's from the Drug Policy Alliance, and in essence says "We support people doing whatever they want, cuz 'sovereignty,' baby!"

Now, it's easy to understand the idea that "If I wanna do drugs, dat my bidness, an' duh state gots no part in dat."  Problem is, druggies tend to mug people, and break into homes and cars looking for stuff to fence for drug money.  If you understand that, and are willing to tolerate it to hep duh po' druggies (who, after all, had no choice on becoming addicts, right?), then go for it, by continuing to vote Democrat.

I get the impression more non-addicted people are starting to say enough is enough.  But the biden/garland/mayorkas regime is totally cool with the use of illegal drugs, regardless of the consequences.  For example, they distributed "drug kits" to users, containing glass pipes used to smoke crack.  Then when someone reported that, they lied, denying they did it.

But hey, keep voting Democrat.  Cuz *your* kid is too smart or too cool to get addicted, right?  It's always someone else's kid, eh?

All my siblings are dedicated Democrats.  They claim they support every Democrat policy: open borders, letting illegals vote, opposing voter ID, supporting all-mail voting without any requirement for matching signatures or witness signatures, schools pushing transgenders and keeping it secret from parents, taking kids away from a parent who won't swear to support sex changing, letting boys compete in girls' sports and use female locker rooms, biden ordering everyone to take the jab; schools forcing kids as young as 5 to be jabbed; the whole nine yards.

The staggering thing is, they all have advanced degrees and are high-functioning.  They just get all their info from the Mainstream Media...*and refuse to even consider the possibility that the Media may not be telling 'em the truth.*