Case study: In 2021, Oregon became the first US state to decriminalize hard drugs like heroin, crack and fentanyl. After all, possession and sales are “victimless crimes,” right? And non-violent, too. Nobody’s hurt when family members, parents, spouses and employees become addicts except the drug-users themselves! Oregon’ brainwashed progressives overwhelmingly voted for Measure 110 in a referendum in November 2020, believing the left wing/ libertarian cant that making the possession and use of narcotics legal would make it easier to get addicts treated.
Just three years later, an Emerson poll shows that 56% of voters want to make the drugs illegal again. Why? I bet you can guess, even though the voters in Oregon couldn’t figure it out since wokeness ate their brains. The addicted are flocking to the state, requiring Oregon to deal with more addicts than it can handle. Under Measure 110, those in possession of the now-legal drugs are issued a ticket that results in a theoretical $100 fine, but the penalty will be lifted once the individual calls a self-help line and seeks treatment. Not surprisingly, the system is a bust. Eugene’s police chief reported that out of 6,000 people cited, fewer than 125 followed through.
Overdoses have risen to record levels. Businesses are having to deal with addicts defecating on the sidewalks, as well as the users engaging in shoplifting and petty theft to support their habits. Homeless addicts are making the cities ugly, filthy and frightening.
Gee, who could have foreseen this—that making addictive drugs legal would lead to more addicts while making life worse for everyone else worse? And still some of the deluded refuse to learn. The Drug Policy Alliance wants to stay the course, because prosecuting users would “go back to a harmful system where people are arrested and put in jail for drug possession. Jailing people is a waste of resources that results in a revolving door of arrest and incarceration that never addresses the root causes of drug use.”
The theory is that if they keep repeating that, eventually it will be true.
Ethics Alarms 
Someone I know recently moved to Portland and is working as a nurse. In the ER, he just saw wave after wave of addicts and overdoses. He said the amusing part was the reaction of all the natives there. They all were confused as to why this was happening. He said a typical comment was “I don’t understand why they can’t use drugs responsibly”. The people not from Oregon would look at each other, but not say anything. You don’t want people to know that you AREN’T part of the cult.
Criminalize the use of Narcan for everyone including first responders and the problem will resolve itself eventually.
This sounds harsh and many would say I would feel differently if I had a family member addicted. To that I say where the hell are they before the overdose. Parents and family members can get an order for involuntary committal into a rehab. The whole reason for the nuclear family is so that it can pool it’s time and resources to help a family member in distress. If that is too much trouble for them why should anyone else care. People need to take responsibility and not shift the costs to others.
Are these the same people that want to ban cigarette smoking?
Honestly, there are no victimless crimes. When are they going to get that through their heads?
Yes, they would go ballistic if someone lit up a cigarette.
This is the same state that just got rid of all performance standards to graduate from high school to “help” students of color graduate. It should be no surprise they are too stupid to figure out what would happen if drugs are decriminalized. I also agree with doing away with the use of Narcan except in cases of accidental exposure.
Agreed on Narcan use for accidental exposure. I forgot about the recent event where a a police officer had fentanyl thrown on him
Disagree on banning Narcan.
I will be a little more blunt: that is an idiotic idea that only has value as a morbid punch-line.
It is an idea whose rationale does not stand up to scrutiny.
No ambulances for people who O.D.? Medical personnel, EMT’s and First Responders probably won’t agree; their obligation is to save people, even from their own stupidity and other failings.)
No medical care to resuscitate people with O.D., unless they have insurance or can pay their own way?
No homicide prosecutions for dealers whose customers O.D. (They did us a favor!)? Cops would not like that. And, the poor defense attorneys. Won’t somebody think of the lawyers!
No police assistance for users at all? Again, cops want to enforce rules, punish bad guys and help people.
Unless you are going to reinstate the traditional “outlaw” designation, they are part of society and are entitled to the public services available.
-Jut
I’m also going to be blunt. I think it’s idiotic to waste time and resources to repeatedly try to save people who don’t want to be saved. Considering all of the people out there who also have needs and who want to participate in society – maybe we should focus on them. I also don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth regarding police prosecuting crimes or other folks doing their jobs. You may be surprised at the number of first responders who don’t think too much of having to save the same addicts over and over again.
Jut,
My initial comment was designed to stimulate a discussion on how we are dealing with the drug epidemic. Sometimes it is necessary to proffer the absurd to get people to open up to the actual issues that stand in the way of good policy prescriptions.
Narcan in my estimation is an enabling drug that lowers the opportunity costs of using. In a sense it is a band-aid to avoid doing that which is necessary to deal effectively with the issue. I see it as no different than giving the alcoholic a pint of Jim Beam to help him or her alleviate the DT’s.
I am not in favor of having people die in the streets from drug overdoses but that is what is actually happening. Over 70,000 did just that last year. Sure, many more would have without having Narcan but how many of those that OD’d last year have been given Narcan previously. I have yet to find a stat for that, but I doubt that most of those that died did not die from their first use of a drug or their first overdose.
This problem is not going away anytime soon with our present strategy. Let me examine each of your points from above.
“No ambulances for people who O.D.? Medical personnel, EMT’s and First Responders probably won’t agree; their obligation is to save people, even from their own stupidity and other failings.)”
Why are we waiting an overdose to occur when we can see people in stupors stumbling around our streets? It would make sense to develop processes to be able to pick them up for an involuntary hold to get them detoxed. I am not suggesting that we incarcerate the user I am talking about spending money on treatment rather than jail. Keep this in mind we have a finite amount of ambulance personnel and equipment. Every overdose takes that EMT away from those having medical issues such as heart attacks and strokes. Using different personnel and equipment costing far less can be used to transport the drug addled to a detox facility.
“No medical care to resuscitate people with O.D., unless they have insurance or can pay their own way?”
Currently, if I don’t pay a fee to our ambulance company, I am charged nearly $1000.00 if I am transported to the emergency room. If I pay the fee, the ambulance company takes whatever insurance will pay. I doubt that the ambulance company is compensated at the same rate as what I am charged so I suppose others have to pick up the tab. I accept that. Nowhere in my comment about Narcan did I suggest that they not be treated at all. The problem with my argument is that Narcan is the least cost solution in the short run so government prefers Narcan because it is relatively cheap. However, the use of Narcan over the long term may be more costly because we enable the user to continue using without having to seek treatment for addiction which results in higher social costs in the form of crime, depressed economic development and significantly higher health care costs to deal with the effects of drug use. Narcan, effectively hides the true costs of addiction.
“No homicide prosecutions for dealers whose customers O.D. (They did us a favor!)? Cops would not like that. And, the poor defense attorneys. Won’t somebody think of the lawyers!”
I am in favor of significantly higher costs for dealers. I won’t go so far as recommending the sentence for dealing drugs in Singapore for low level street hustlers, but I have no problem with capital punishment for the King pins, their lieutenants and enforcers in the drug trade. As for the lawyers, they will do fine there is still plenty of work out there.
“No police assistance for users at all? Again, cops want to enforce rules, punish bad guys and help people.”
I never suggested this, yet I can see how my comment could be interpreted that way. However, I did say –“Parents and family members can get an order for involuntary committal into a rehab. The whole reason for the nuclear family is so that it can pool it’s time and resources to help a family member in distress. If that is too much trouble for them why should anyone else care. People need to take responsibility and not shift the costs to others”. – My point was that in terms of order of responsibility I see the individual first, the family second and society last. That however does not mean that society must always assume the responsibility when the individual or the family is unwilling to accept the costs.
I would like to see the police identify those who are under the influence and call for technically trained people to pick the user up for detox. It appears from my experience the police will drive by an obviously intoxicated person unless that person is lying on the ground. Instead of waiting for the overdose, interdict early.
I will say this our medical community will routinely withhold lifesaving medical services for alcoholics in need of a liver transplant or a heart or lung transplant for a smoker. The argument they make is no different than the argument I made. Transplantable liver, hearts and lungs are no different than other lifesaving resources. They are scarce. If another person who is not poisoning their body with alcohol or cigarettes dies because an alcoholic gets that liver or the chain smoker gets a new lung, how is it different than a stroke victim dies the ambulance was tied up treating someone who overdosed on the drugs with which they routinely poison their bodies.
Again, while banning Narcan may not stand up to scrutiny, neither does its use in the long run if we simply allow the user to keep using. We need better ideas rather than panaceas that never actually deal with the problem.
Jut
I have spoken to first responders and they tell me they have treated the same persons multiple times a day.
I know was harsh but when the hell will family get engaged to help their loved one get the help they need. Drug use for all is initially voluntary. Our current policy of letting drug users play Russian Roulette until an overdose occurs is moronic.
Let’s evaluate the prescription abuser first. That person gets addicted because the doctors fail to titrate them off the meds adequately which forces them to the streets for fentanyl laced illicit drugs.
The solution is to require physicians to ensure the patient is not left an addict even if it requires the practice pay for drug rehabilitation.
For the person who gets addicted because they want to be socially accepted by the drug using crowd then when an officer encounters them high on the street – I see them staggering around in my town and there are numerous videos of the drug zombies in Philadelphia and other cities on the Internet – pick them up and transport them to a detox facility. Stop ignoring the problem until the overdose happens. That is what kills these people.
I have watched family members deal with drug abuse and I know that those of us that want to help have to be vigilant and be willing to make no excuses for the behavior. Calling addiction a disease gives them an excuse for their behavior in my opinion. I myself was addicted to nicotine until I said enough. It takes determination to rid yourself of the poison that controls you. It takes far less willpower to never start. Therefore, addiction starts as a choice and choices have consequences.
I don’t want to have people die from overdoses but we deny alcoholics liver transplants so we condemn them to death so what the hell is the difference? Sure, banning Narcan is not going to happen but should society be required provide it multiple times a day to the same people? I say we need a better plan and if proffering what many would consider an idiotic idea stimulates a discussion of how to change behaviors so we don’t have the street littered with walking drug addled people one hit away from an overdose.
Sometimes you have to raise the opportunity costs to get people to stop doing that which will kill them. But that will not happen so long as government sees a benefit in promoting or enabling drug use – directly and indirectly.
Back before the Libertarian Party was taken over by leftists, I read the rationale behind their ‘legalize all drugs’ stance. It would never have been accepted, but it made sense.
The basic Libertarian points are below.
(1) Adults have a right to make poor choices.
(2) As long as they aren’t hurting anyone else, the government shouldn’t intervene.
So, for drugs, a rock star with a ton of money isn’t really hurting anyone but themselves if they abuse drugs. Now, a regular person often has dependents, and then they are hurting others. So, people should be allowed to sign up for a ‘drug license’ if they will only be hurting themselves. This means, to get the license, they have to do a few things.
(1) Not have kids or transfer custody to other people.
(2) Agree to long-term or permanent birth control.
(3) Sign away all government program eligibility. The taxpayers count, too.
As a gedanken, this is excellent. If you put it into practice, it would be horrific. Democrats I have discussed it said it is stupid because no one would do those three things just for the ability to legally use drugs. This is the same mistaken world view as above. No, drug users will do ANYTHING to get easier access to their drugs. They will give away their kids, get sterilized, give up Social Security, welfare, food stamps, Section 8, disability, and any other government program they might be eligible for.
Let’s remember a few things.
-Oregonians didn’t vote for this, Portlanders did.
-Big time outside interests were behind the measure including Mark Zuckerberg & John Legend. Why is no one asking about their involvement.
-The propaganda on this was pushing the idea that this would genuinely help people. They suckered Portland voters into believing the system would make things better.
-Voters in general are rather dumbed down. Perhaps there should be a campaign suggesting reading voters AN ENTIRE MEASURE before voting on something that sounds nice.
Portland used to be a lot of fun to visit. My son was there a couple months ago and said he doesn’t even recognize it. What a shame.
Drugs to an addict are like gold to a prospector, which means we have examples going back to the 1840s showing how this would play out. It’s a terrible shame that the majority of citizens in Oregon couldn’t see through whatever smoke and haze Zuckerberg, Legend, & Co. were blowing.
A little sense of history goes a LONG ways.
But now it sounds like maybe there’s hope to reverse the laws…?
Yeah, I find it difficult to comprehend, like a lot of libertarian fantasies.
Although I don’t propose banning Narcan or its use whenever needed, I am not opposed to the reinstitution of a version of outlawry for some serious offenders, with limitations. Australia didn’t do away with its outlawry statutes until the 1970s.