There is a massive difference in how Portugal has handled the decriminalization of drugs vs Oregon. First and foremost they have much more recovery center capacity. They also have rules that are strictly followed. Most importantly they are run mostly by healthcare professionals not corrupt politicians or the nonprofits associated with the aforementioned government officials.
If we’re going to get serious about this it’s going to take a complete overhaul of what is going on now, starting with complete transparency.
I concur with your observations. I'd like to follow up on your comment: "They also have rules that are strictly followed." Portugal, unlike Oregon, imposes meaningful sanctions on users who do not follow the rules.
It isn't happenstance that Oregon gave users and addicts rights without corresponding enforceable obligations. While the general public's attention was focused elsewhere, advocates of a pernicious drug policy known as harm reduction insinuated their way into apparatus of political power in Oregon. They somehow persuaded legislators and elected officials that government should withhold judgment on drugs, users, drug use and addiction.
The state should not express a preference for, say, recovery or sobriety or take the position that society is better off when its members do not suffer from debilitating addictions to drugs. Sobriety is only one of many outcomes of drug use, no better and no worse than others. Society's obligation is to champion the personal autonomy of drug users and give free rein to the addict's power of self-determination.
If the backers of Measure 110 hadn't been playing a bait-and-switch game with Oregon voters to make them think they were approving the highly lauded Portuguese model of drug decriminalization, they wouldn't have limited the state's intervention in users' lives to a referral to drug screening services with no real consequences for failing to follow through. Obviously, they would have put forward a program that mirrored Portugal's:
In line with the Portugal Drug Policy, if you get caught in possession of small quantities of drugs (defined as not exceeding a 10-day supply of that substance), you are issued with a summons and the drugs will be confiscated.
You will then be evaluated by the local Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction ((CDT)) which is made up of three people: One a legal expert, the other two are selected from medical doctors, psychologists, sociologists or social workers.
The Portugal Drug Policy empowers the committee to decide on the relevant sanctions which may include any of the following:
Fines ranging from €25 to €150;
Suspension of the right to practice for users with licensed professions that may endanger another person or someone’s possessions (such as a medical doctor or taxi driver);
A ban on visiting certain places (like clubs, entertainment venues, etc.);
A ban on associating with specific other persons;
Foreign travel ban;
A need to report periodically to the committee;
Withdrawal of the right to carry a gun;
Confiscation of personal possessions;
Cessation of subsidies or allowances that a person receives from a public agency.
If you are suspected of associating with drug trafficking, growing or selling drugs (usually based on a larger quantity of drugs), you will face imprisonment.
It is up to scholars who study Oregon politics and drug policy to explain for posterity why Measure 110's proponents chose not to fully emulate the Portuguese model. Until then, available evidence points to one working hypothesis: Measure 110 and the statutory and regulatory scheme that implemented the measure lack the coercive elements of Portugal's decriminalization program because Oregon's harm reduction establishment would not have stood for it.
Looking to the near future, it will be interesting to see whether or not Oregon's delegation to Portugal will recommend abandoning the current hands-off, harm reduction approach to dealing with drug users and whether harm reduction interests will seek to derail any such reforms. One thing is certain, and that's that harm reduction rhetoric tends to have the transparency of a cloud of squid ink. It will take close reading to discern its real meaning.
References:
Keane, Helen. "Critiques of harm reduction, morality and the promise of human rights." The International Journal of Drug Policy 14 (2003) 227-232.
Thanks, Ollie. Great comment. Having looked into this (and still looking) in some detail, one does not have to scratch far below the veneer of "no more overdoses" promises to get to the fact that the folks who fund and funded 110 really want free, open use of hard drugs, regardless of the effect that might have on everyone else in Oregon.
All of the things Max Williams claims need to be available le WERE available before Measure 110.
Drug Court allowed most people charged with drug crime to avoid conviction by seeking treatment. Even if convicted virtually ALL drug crimes are subject to expungement.
Measure 110 was deliberately written by the anti-drug zealots at the Drug Policy Alliance to effectively stop ALL law enforcement activity related to drugs. That is exactly what has happened and all this tinkering with a genuinely bad and ill-motivated law will just allow more loopholes that will result in more no-enforcement and non-prosecution.
Either re-submit M110 to voters are simply repeal it, but I don't expect someone as entrenched with the Oregon establishment as Williams to advocate for that.
Jeff, once again I'd like to request that you publish your audio presentations in printed format also. Maybe just a copy of your script? I rarely have 52 minutes of uninterrupted time to devote to an audio presentation, but am always able to squeeze in 10 or 20 minutes here and there to do some reading. Way easier to pick up the 'string' if interrupted, also. Thanks for your consideration.
You're doing a great job! Never before (as far as I know) has so much truth about Oregon's corrupt politicians been made available in one place. The exposure of what's been hiding behind the curtain is devastating. You've become The Voice, so long missing, of Conservative Oregonians. Thank you!
Hey, David. I activated the auto transcript feature for this episode just now. It's an AI generated transcript, so no promises as to accuracy and quality. There's a tab called "transcript" below the episode that you can click on to read. Hope that helps. It's a new feature on Substack that I forgot to activate for this ep.
There is a massive difference in how Portugal has handled the decriminalization of drugs vs Oregon. First and foremost they have much more recovery center capacity. They also have rules that are strictly followed. Most importantly they are run mostly by healthcare professionals not corrupt politicians or the nonprofits associated with the aforementioned government officials.
If we’re going to get serious about this it’s going to take a complete overhaul of what is going on now, starting with complete transparency.
I highly doubt that will happen.....
Yep, for many reasons the comparison between Portugal and Oregon is not particularly apt, but people like going to Portugal for free, so there's that.
I concur with your observations. I'd like to follow up on your comment: "They also have rules that are strictly followed." Portugal, unlike Oregon, imposes meaningful sanctions on users who do not follow the rules.
It isn't happenstance that Oregon gave users and addicts rights without corresponding enforceable obligations. While the general public's attention was focused elsewhere, advocates of a pernicious drug policy known as harm reduction insinuated their way into apparatus of political power in Oregon. They somehow persuaded legislators and elected officials that government should withhold judgment on drugs, users, drug use and addiction.
The state should not express a preference for, say, recovery or sobriety or take the position that society is better off when its members do not suffer from debilitating addictions to drugs. Sobriety is only one of many outcomes of drug use, no better and no worse than others. Society's obligation is to champion the personal autonomy of drug users and give free rein to the addict's power of self-determination.
If the backers of Measure 110 hadn't been playing a bait-and-switch game with Oregon voters to make them think they were approving the highly lauded Portuguese model of drug decriminalization, they wouldn't have limited the state's intervention in users' lives to a referral to drug screening services with no real consequences for failing to follow through. Obviously, they would have put forward a program that mirrored Portugal's:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In line with the Portugal Drug Policy, if you get caught in possession of small quantities of drugs (defined as not exceeding a 10-day supply of that substance), you are issued with a summons and the drugs will be confiscated.
You will then be evaluated by the local Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction ((CDT)) which is made up of three people: One a legal expert, the other two are selected from medical doctors, psychologists, sociologists or social workers.
The Portugal Drug Policy empowers the committee to decide on the relevant sanctions which may include any of the following:
Fines ranging from €25 to €150;
Suspension of the right to practice for users with licensed professions that may endanger another person or someone’s possessions (such as a medical doctor or taxi driver);
A ban on visiting certain places (like clubs, entertainment venues, etc.);
A ban on associating with specific other persons;
Foreign travel ban;
A need to report periodically to the committee;
Withdrawal of the right to carry a gun;
Confiscation of personal possessions;
Cessation of subsidies or allowances that a person receives from a public agency.
If you are suspected of associating with drug trafficking, growing or selling drugs (usually based on a larger quantity of drugs), you will face imprisonment.
https://www.beportugal.com/portugal-drug-laws/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is up to scholars who study Oregon politics and drug policy to explain for posterity why Measure 110's proponents chose not to fully emulate the Portuguese model. Until then, available evidence points to one working hypothesis: Measure 110 and the statutory and regulatory scheme that implemented the measure lack the coercive elements of Portugal's decriminalization program because Oregon's harm reduction establishment would not have stood for it.
Looking to the near future, it will be interesting to see whether or not Oregon's delegation to Portugal will recommend abandoning the current hands-off, harm reduction approach to dealing with drug users and whether harm reduction interests will seek to derail any such reforms. One thing is certain, and that's that harm reduction rhetoric tends to have the transparency of a cloud of squid ink. It will take close reading to discern its real meaning.
References:
Keane, Helen. "Critiques of harm reduction, morality and the promise of human rights." The International Journal of Drug Policy 14 (2003) 227-232.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0955395902001512
Ollie, great follow up! Thanks for all the detail...squid ink, that’s a good one.
Thanks, Ollie. Great comment. Having looked into this (and still looking) in some detail, one does not have to scratch far below the veneer of "no more overdoses" promises to get to the fact that the folks who fund and funded 110 really want free, open use of hard drugs, regardless of the effect that might have on everyone else in Oregon.
All of the things Max Williams claims need to be available le WERE available before Measure 110.
Drug Court allowed most people charged with drug crime to avoid conviction by seeking treatment. Even if convicted virtually ALL drug crimes are subject to expungement.
Measure 110 was deliberately written by the anti-drug zealots at the Drug Policy Alliance to effectively stop ALL law enforcement activity related to drugs. That is exactly what has happened and all this tinkering with a genuinely bad and ill-motivated law will just allow more loopholes that will result in more no-enforcement and non-prosecution.
Either re-submit M110 to voters are simply repeal it, but I don't expect someone as entrenched with the Oregon establishment as Williams to advocate for that.
Jeff, once again I'd like to request that you publish your audio presentations in printed format also. Maybe just a copy of your script? I rarely have 52 minutes of uninterrupted time to devote to an audio presentation, but am always able to squeeze in 10 or 20 minutes here and there to do some reading. Way easier to pick up the 'string' if interrupted, also. Thanks for your consideration.
You're doing a great job! Never before (as far as I know) has so much truth about Oregon's corrupt politicians been made available in one place. The exposure of what's been hiding behind the curtain is devastating. You've become The Voice, so long missing, of Conservative Oregonians. Thank you!
Hey, David. I activated the auto transcript feature for this episode just now. It's an AI generated transcript, so no promises as to accuracy and quality. There's a tab called "transcript" below the episode that you can click on to read. Hope that helps. It's a new feature on Substack that I forgot to activate for this ep.
Yet another fun effect from measure 110:
https://www.koin.com/news/portland/uw-study-most-oregon-washington-transit-surfaces-test-positive-for-meth/
Yep! Makes you want to take your kids on the Max, no?
just a bit too long, but the point is made.