• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

Policy Oregon rolling back decriminalization of some drugs. Let’s go back to an utterly failed attempt?

Fuck the United States. The most important thing to note is that the decriminalizarion was a voter approved measure…as we have seen with weed in multiple states, they lawmakers decided to reverse the will of the voters.

This was the glimmer of hope I had that things were finally going in the right direction.

They had one more step, legalize heroin use clinics.

The my shit they bed now we are back to the futile wack a mole game of taking addicts of the streets for 24 hours into a jail filled with drugs then releasing them back to the fentanyl filled streets. Great fucking use of tax dollars.

Fucking police won again.
 
This is sad to hear. I wonder what drugs they are deciding to “rollback” on.

-GC
 
G_Chem said:
This is sad to hear. I wonder what drugs they are deciding to “rollback” on.

-GC
Click to expand...
The ones that everyone is using I imagine. Meth crack fent.

The rich tech ppl in the cities can still have their mdma And psychendelic orgies legally

This is strictly to target the poor, so ppl on drugs that make you poor and useless (crack, meth, fentanyl). I guess some ppl can be functional on meth but those ppl won’t be harassed but will be sad their drug is being made illegal again
 
Yes because the war on drugs certainly worked 😵‍💫
 
LucidSDreamr said:
Fuck the United States. The most important thing to note is that the decriminalizarion was a voter approved measure…as we have seen with weed in multiple states, they lawmakers decided to reverse the will of the voters.

This was the glimmer of hope I had that things were finally going in the right direction.

They had one more step, legalize heroin use clinics.

The my shit they bed now we are back to the futile wack a mole game of taking addicts of the streets for 24 hours into a jail filled with drugs then releasing them back to the fentanyl filled streets. Great fucking use of tax dollars.

Fucking police won again.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how increasing their workload by having them arrest for nuisance crimes means they won.
 
RedRum OG said:
Because they're getting more budget?
Click to expand...
But anyway, what does that matter? They get to hire a few more people. Give a couple people jobs. It's not like you can take that money and put it in your pocket.

Everybody throws out. Will they get more of a budget. so the fuck what? It doesn't give them any more power. It gives them a few more squad cars. Maybe a couple extra computers and 20 more people. Do you know how much that would cost? about 10 million a year, when you factor in overtime, fringe benefits, and pension payments.

It means a few more people have jobs.

There will never be a time when the police in this country can actually act against the people in a general manner because we have more guns than they do, and a lot of people that I know personally have better guns than the police.

Most Americans that Believe in the second amendment have at least one pistol, one rifle and one shotgun and that's not for household that's per person.

Down south you're allowed to shoot somebody trying to break into your neighbor's house. If you think there's somebody inside at risk. That's One of the reasons I love living in the south.
 
snmfmy said:
But anyway, what does that matter? They get to hire a few more people. Give a couple people jobs. It's not like you can take that money and put it in your pocket.

Everybody throws out. Will they get more of a budget. so the fuck what? It doesn't give them any more power. It gives them a few more squad cars. Maybe a couple extra computers and 20 more people. Do you know how much that would cost? about 10 million a year, when you factor in overtime, fringe benefits, and pension payments.

It means a few more people have jobs.

There will never be a time when the police in this country can actually act against the people in a general manner because we have more guns than they do, and a lot of people that I know personally have better guns than the police.

Most Americans that Believe in the second amendment have at least one pistol, one rifle and one shotgun and that's not for household that's per person.

Down south you're allowed to shoot somebody trying to break into your neighbor's house. If you think there's somebody inside at risk. That's One of the reasons I love living in the south.
Click to expand...
Drugs and guns are just a stellar combination.... Nothing more reassuring than a 3-day meth bender with some loaded and modified AR-15s and a couple of 1911s for 'close engagement events'. Those shadow people will think twice!
 
tryptakid said:
Drugs and guns are just a stellar combination.... Nothing more reassuring than a 3-day meth bender with some loaded and modified AR-15s and a couple of 1911s for 'close engagement events'. Those shadow people will think twice!
Click to expand...
I don't think that was relevant to my post, but yes it's probably true.

I know when I had my break from reality because of overprescription of amphetamines, I thought shadow people were trying to break into my house and I definitely shot at them.
 
snmfmy said:
I don't think that was relevant to my post, but yes it's probably true.

I know when I had my break from reality because of overprescription of amphetamines, I thought shadow people were trying to break into my house and I definitely shot at them.
Click to expand...
Glad it wasn't the mailman.

What was your prescribed dose that resulted in said break, if you don't mind me asking?
 
LucidSDreamr said:
The ones that everyone is using I imagine. Meth crack fent.

The rich tech ppl in the cities can still have their mdma And psychendelic orgies legally

This is strictly to target the poor, so ppl on drugs that make you poor and useless (crack, meth, fentanyl). I guess some ppl can be functional on meth but those ppl won’t be harassed but will be sad their drug is being made illegal again
Click to expand...

Have you been to Portland lately?

It makes Seattle look nice
 
Last edited:
I could see this coming.

Firstly, the thing is that decriminalisation alone doesn't cut it. Ok so the user is no longer punished for possession, but all the undesirable dangerous elements of having the drug itself remain illegal remain unmitigated, ie the product is unregulated and unsafe, there is no quality control and no possibility of consumer protection; the user has to keep supplying himself from the black market with many committing crime because of artificially inflated prices etc.

Secondly, introducing a more liberal policy that is restricted to certain few locales will have the predictable consequence of creating a concentrated 'drug hot spot' and drawing every junkie for miles around. You might read up on the situation at Platzspitz / Letten in Switzerland a few decades ago, where a large open drug scene had developed that was quasi-tolerated because the police had mostly become resigned to it. Word soon got around that you wouldn't get hassle for openly buying & using there, and conditions were of unimaginable squalor.

Thirdly, a majority of street drug users have untreated mental health issues at the root of their problems, or at least it's a heavily contributing factor, and there's pretty much zero provisions to assist them in that regard. It does not help that they of necessity remain in illegality and therefore stigmatised by society.
 
Last edited:
TheUltimateFixx said:
I could see this coming.

Firstly, the thing is that decriminalisation alone doesn't cut it. Ok so the user is no longer punished for possession, but all the undesirable dangerous elements of having the drug itself remain illegal remain unmitigated, ie the product is unregulated and unsafe, there is no quality control and no possibility of consumer protection; the user has to keep supplying himself from the black market with many committing crime because of artificially inflated prices etc.

Secondly, introducing a more liberal policy that is restricted to certain few locales will have the predictable consequence of creating a concentrated 'drug hot spot' and drawing every junkie for miles around. You might read up on the situation at Platzspitz / Letten in Switzerland a few decades ago, where a large open drug scene had developed that was quasi-tolerated because the police had mostly become resigned to it. Word soon got around that you wouldn't get hassle for openly buying & using there, and conditions were of unimaginable squalor.

Thirdly, a majority of street drug users have untreated mental health issues at the root of their problems, or at least it's a heavily contributing factor, and there's pretty much zero provisions to assist them in that regard. It does not help that they of necessity remain in illegality and therefore stigmatised by society.
Click to expand...
Season 3 of The WIre highlights this perfectly with "Hamsterdam".

Addiction is a symptom of human suffering. While legalization may reduce some of the ways that suffering is perpetuated, it's also creating a whole lot of space for pockets of suffering to fester. Moving away from criminalization and 'dealing with substance use from a public health perspective' (something my earnest colleagues are often so happy to regurgitate in a thinkpiece on Twitter) means that you actually have to implement public health interventions or else... you create a cesspool.

You can't just nice the problem away. Legalization without some kind of alternative system of addressing the issue is dousing a bonfire with gasoline.
 
Makes me think of the Prescription Drug Monitoring program (PDMP). I heard about it before but never knew exactly what it was. I was recently prescribed Gabapentin and from researching I saw it was on the list of monitored drugs in my state. I guess in some states its listed as a controlled drug.

I went on the state website to see if I can educate myself on it. Its not very user friendly in my opinion. I was shocked to see how law enforcement has access to it, from other readings some say that was the initial intent of the program, basically for law enforcement to go after anyone and everyone diverting controlled meds, which now at least in my state it seems a warrant is now needed to access records. Further reading some claim its an overdose prevention tool.
 
OceansState said:
Makes me think of the Prescription Drug Monitoring program (PDMP). I heard about it before but never knew exactly what it was. I was recently prescribed Gabapentin and from researching I saw it was on the list of monitored drugs in my state. I guess in some states its listed as a controlled drug.

I went on the state website to see if I can educate myself on it. Its not very user friendly in my opinion. I was shocked to see how law enforcement has access to it, from other readings some say that was the initial intent of the program, basically for law enforcement to go after anyone and everyone diverting controlled meds, which now at least in my state it seems a warrant is now needed to access records. Further reading some claim its an overdose prevention tool.
Click to expand...
So, this is an issue that has some variance depending on the state you're in - my current understanding is that Law Enforcement at the state and local level must provide a warrant to access specific information about prescriptions be issued by a provider OR to a patient. There are some built in alerts that can be automatically generated in the event of suspicious prescribing where there would be notification of an abnormally high amount of prescribing by a specific provider, or suspicious patient behavior (multiple attempts to fill at multiple pharmacies, same class different drug fills at different pharmacies etc. - for example). The DEA has attempted to make claims that they do not need to follow state laws and can access these records without a warrant, but this has been successfully challenged in court requiring an active investigation already in place (i.e. no

The nature of access provided to law enforcement officials has changed over time. In 1998, 3 states permitted at least some law enforcement officials to access PMP data on request, with no requirement that the request be tied to an enumerated investigatory purpose or court order. Six states (46.2%) required an active investigation to be underway for some law enforcement to access identifiable PMP data. (Oklahoma appeared to permit some officers to access the database with no showing, while requiring that others be involved in an investigation.) One state permitted law enforcement access with a judicial subpoena or court order, and an additional 3 states permitted law enforcement access, but the law did not clearly specify what standard was employed.



In 2005 the same 3 states (12.5%) permitted law enforcement access without any link to an investigation, while 12 (50%) required an active investigation, 3 required a subpoena, 2 (8.3%) required probable cause, and 3 required some other showing. By 2011, the proportion of states permitting unfettered access had dropped to 11% (5 states), while 22 (47.8%) permitted access pursuant to an active investigation, 10 (21.7%) permitted access by subpoena, and 5 imposed some other requirement. Nine (19.6%) required a showing of probable cause. The law in 3 states did not appear to permit law enforcement to access PMP data. Some states permit access via multiple routes.
fishing expeditions).

From a review a few years ago:
The nature of access provided to law enforcement officials has changed over time. In 1998, 3 states permitted at least some law enforcement officials to access PMP data on request, with no requirement that the request be tied to an enumerated investigatory purpose or court order. Six states (46.2%) required an active investigation to be underway for some law enforcement to access identifiable PMP data. (Oklahoma appeared to permit some officers to access the database with no showing, while requiring that others be involved in an investigation.) One state permitted law enforcement access with a judicial subpoena or court order, and an additional 3 states permitted law enforcement access, but the law did not clearly specify what standard was employed.

In 2005 the same 3 states (12.5%) permitted law enforcement access without any link to an investigation, while 12 (50%) required an active investigation, 3 required a subpoena, 2 (8.3%) required probable cause, and 3 required some other showing. By 2011, the proportion of states permitting unfettered access had dropped to 11% (5 states), while 22 (47.8%) permitted access pursuant to an active investigation, 10 (21.7%) permitted access by subpoena, and 5 imposed some other requirement. Nine (19.6%) required a showing of probable cause. The law in 3 states did not appear to permit law enforcement to access PMP data. Some states permit access via multiple routes.
Click to expand...

Their original intention was to reduce misuse of the system leading to multiple prescribers issuing one person overlapping prescriptions (oxycodone from 1 MD and hydro from another) - individuals could pay cash to avoid detection by insurance companies, use different pharmacy chains to not draw suspicion in one chain's system etc. (for reference, I've done both of these things, successfully, back when I was using dope 2004-2008.). There seems to be some speculation that the efficacy of PDMPs as an overdose prevent tool is mixed at best. I would argue from personal experience that it has some impact on highly motivated drug seeking individuals to game the system for legitimate pharmaceutical substances that can be misused. I also think it's helpful in identifying corrupt prescribers who can use their capacity to write for these drugs in an exploitative manner - this is something that was well known in the 00s where prescribers would trade prescriptions for money, drugs, and sexual favors. There were a number of high profile arrests that took place of such physicians, some of whom I knew professionally as I started working in the field as a clinician in 2010.

All of that said, when we look at the reality of American drug use, it's one more way to monitor/interdict/punish without there being a balanced investment in recovery/treatment. We are desperately short of detox, short term and long term residential beds - with programs that people *actually want to access* in even shorter supply. Drug use will not go away by legalizing everything, and it will not go away by monitoring and punishing. Drug use is a part of the human experience, and has been since prehistory and pre-humanity. At it's best, it's tied to celebration, human connection, and self-exploration, and at its worst it's tied to escaping suffering in ways that often perpetuate suffering. We are much closer to the latter than the former.

Drug culture has changed, moving away from the collective revelry of MDMA and raves, and into a mixture of silos from people using alone on their computer, to small gatherings amongst friends, to crack house/trap houses, wet shelters, the street, underground Overdose Prevention sites, and the like. My suggestion - go to a music festival this summer and take some mushies or some MDMA with other people who are celebrating, connect with that aspect of substance use. As Johan Hari and many others have repeated - *The opposite of addiction isn't sobriety, it's human connection*.
 
It's because Portland is an open air sewer of drug use with no penalties. I was there a month ago and I can't believe what a POS it has become since 2015 when I was last there.

I'm all for HR but it needs to be balanced with enforcement.
 
Jen X said:
Yes because the war on drugs certainly worked 😵‍💫
Click to expand...
I think the lawmakers got so high on their decriminalized drugs that they forgot what they are about to do they had been doing for the last 60 years to produce the current situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top