• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oregon House passes drug bill

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
49,614
Reaction score
55,243
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oregon Department of Justice - Law Enforcement Profiling Bill Passes House; Statement From AG Rosenblum

HB 2355 is, on its face, a bill to stop racial profiling by police. How does it accomplish this task? By decriminalizing hard drugs.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2355/Introduced

This law puts all kinds of restrictions on law enforcement and orders myriad new police procedures designed to prevent racial profiling. It also reduces many drug possession crimes to misdemeanors. For example, possession of less than 200 hits of acid would be a misdemeanor. Less than 10 grams of meth or coke would be a misdemeanor as would less than 5 grams of heroin. Folks, that's a LOT of hard drugs and I'm not so sure it's a good idea.
 
Good news. The war on drugs needs to end.
 
Oregon Department of Justice - Law Enforcement Profiling Bill Passes House; Statement From AG Rosenblum

HB 2355 is, on its face, a bill to stop racial profiling by police. How does it accomplish this task? By decriminalizing hard drugs.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2355/Introduced

This law puts all kinds of restrictions on law enforcement and orders myriad new police procedures designed to prevent racial profiling. It also reduces many drug possession crimes to misdemeanors. For example, possession of less than 200 hits of acid would be a misdemeanor. Less than 10 grams of meth or coke would be a misdemeanor as would less than 5 grams of heroin. Folks, that's a LOT of hard drugs and I'm not so sure it's a good idea.

Bear in mind the quote about insanity that keeps getting falsely attributed to Einstein.




The War on Drugs failed, period. That doesn't necessarily mean we should let CVS sell heroin, but it does mean that continuing to attempt to treat addiction with jail just plain doesn't work, except for a very small set of individuals who say it scared them straight. For everyone else? Well, the "drug problem" hasn't gone anywhere.

All tough-on-crime approaches did for us is to massively increase the prison population in the country at a tremendous socio-economic cost. I suppose it also kept more ADAs and police officers employed.
 
Never could understand why someone would want to use some of the hard drugs that are available today. Yes, the war on drugs has been a drain on LEO and has not stopped the use of drugs. One could say it is just like the war on poverty, which also has failed at a huge financial cost.

Wonder what the impact of the Oregon law will be on the health care system. My take, you want to use drugs and OD. Don't expect to be saved. You want to use drugs and you hurt/kill someone while driving. Expect the book to be thrown at you. (Feel the same way about alcohol use)

Don't expect taxpayers to pick up your medical bill when you develop health issues.
 
Bear in mind the quote about insanity that keeps getting falsely attributed to Einstein.




The War on Drugs failed, period. That doesn't necessarily mean we should let CVS sell heroin, but it does mean that continuing to attempt to treat addiction with jail just plain doesn't work, except for a very small set of individuals who say it scared them straight. For everyone else? Well, the "drug problem" hasn't gone anywhere.

All tough-on-crime approaches did for us is to massively increase the prison population in the country at a tremendous socio-economic cost. I suppose it also kept more ADAs and police officers employed.

I totally agree that treatment is more likely to produce positive results than incarceration does but that doesn't mean decriminalizing hard drugs is a good idea.

Here's the problem, most of the people busted for possession also have other charges wrapped up in the whole affair. Maybe they were busted for an assault or a burglary AND they had drugs. The drug possession is often more of an aggravating factor than it is the reason for the arrest itself. People get all wrapped up in "he got 5 years for crack" and ignore the fact that the possession just added to the sentence instead of being the reason for the sentence.
 
Sounds good to me. Granted, I am in favor of decriminalizing all drugs, but I realize that is a hard sell. Making them misdemeanors sounds like a good middle ground to me.
 
Oregon Department of Justice - Law Enforcement Profiling Bill Passes House; Statement From AG Rosenblum

HB 2355 is, on its face, a bill to stop racial profiling by police. How does it accomplish this task? By decriminalizing hard drugs.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2355/Introduced

This law puts all kinds of restrictions on law enforcement and orders myriad new police procedures designed to prevent racial profiling. It also reduces many drug possession crimes to misdemeanors. For example, possession of less than 200 hits of acid would be a misdemeanor. Less than 10 grams of meth or coke would be a misdemeanor as would less than 5 grams of heroin. Folks, that's a LOT of hard drugs and I'm not so sure it's a good idea.

There are some new opioids that seem too dangerous to legalize, but that aside the WoD perhaps the most destructive policy our gubment ever came up with. How many Mexicans died because we told their government they had to participate in this war? How many Americans have died because the stuff isn't legal and regulated?

Dumb policy - but just follow the money.
 
I totally agree that treatment is more likely to produce positive results than incarceration does but that doesn't mean decriminalizing hard drugs is a good idea.

Here's the problem, most of the people busted for possession also have other charges wrapped up in the whole affair. Maybe they were busted for an assault or a burglary AND they had drugs. The drug possession is often more of an aggravating factor than it is the reason for the arrest itself. People get all wrapped up in "he got 5 years for crack" and ignore the fact that the possession just added to the sentence instead of being the reason for the sentence.

Before the government made coke, heroin and morphine illegal, where were all of the stories of addicts robbing people and dying in the streets? It didn't happen, because they could buy it in products or get it from doctors. Drive something underground, this is what you get.
 
Sounds good to me. Granted, I am in favor of decriminalizing all drugs, but I realize that is a hard sell. Making them misdemeanors sounds like a good middle ground to me.

While that sounds great from a personal liberty standpoint I don't see how it helps society, addicts or communities suffering from the blight of drugs. In my experience, the best way to get an addict cleaned up is to keep them away from whatever they're addicted to while helping them figure out how to keep themselves away from the temptation.

Drugs tend to be a key factor in most property crime and a lot of violent crime. They also tend to exacerbate underlying mental health issues many addicts have. Simple decriminalization doesn't address any of those issues.
 
Before the government made coke, heroin and morphine illegal, where were all of the stories of addicts robbing people and dying in the streets? It didn't happen, because they could buy it in products or get it from doctors. Drive something underground, this is what you get.


Before opium based drugs were made illegal addicts simply died from the effects. Opium dens were as popular, maybe more so, than saloons. Before 1900 if you made it to 50 you accomplished something. Furthermore, while you might well be prescribed an opium or cocaine based product by your doctor all it usually did was mask the symptoms of whatever you had until you died.
 
Before opium based drugs were made illegal addicts simply died from the effects. Opium dens were as popular, maybe more so, than saloons. Before 1900 if you made it to 50 you accomplished something. Furthermore, while you might well be prescribed an opium or cocaine based product by your doctor all it usually did was mask the symptoms of whatever you had until you died.

If you are interested in the subject, read this:
https://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Scream-First-Last-Drugs/dp/1620408902

Some of what you wrote is off-base. I'm not picking calling it false, just incomplete. It's really interesting how horrible the problem got once the illegality was established and organized crime took over the market. There were addicts before that, but most fed their habits cheaply and easily, with clean drugs, and worked productively in society. The difference pre/post illegality is quite stark.
 
Before opium based drugs were made illegal addicts simply died from the effects. Opium dens were as popular, maybe more so, than saloons. Before 1900 if you made it to 50 you accomplished something. Furthermore, while you might well be prescribed an opium or cocaine based product by your doctor all it usually did was mask the symptoms of whatever you had until you died.

Yes and no.

Yes, there were deaths.



But he still has a good point. The actual overdose deaths are largely (1) someone used to bad **** getting good **** and shooting too much, (2) stuff that's cut in, like fentanyl, (3) long-term damage to the cardiovascular system/liver/kidneys from all sorts of stuff that is deliberately cut in (the worst probably being meth, since people really aren't making this methodically other than, say, the makers of Desoxyn).

Of course, it probably didn't help that cocaine was originally supposed to be a cure for alcoholism (among other things), and heroin doubled as a cough suppressant and cure for morphine addiction (go figure). But at least things were standardized, even if not to the degree the FDA requires.




Take a look at the Swiss and their heroin program.
 
Last edited:
Take a look at the Swiss and their heroin program.

Even better, look at Portugal- they decriminalized all drugs- guess what? Their addiction rates fell.
 
Oregon Department of Justice - Law Enforcement Profiling Bill Passes House; Statement From AG Rosenblum

HB 2355 is, on its face, a bill to stop racial profiling by police. How does it accomplish this task? By decriminalizing hard drugs.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2355/Introduced

This law puts all kinds of restrictions on law enforcement and orders myriad new police procedures designed to prevent racial profiling. It also reduces many drug possession crimes to misdemeanors. For example, possession of less than 200 hits of acid would be a misdemeanor. Less than 10 grams of meth or coke would be a misdemeanor as would less than 5 grams of heroin. Folks, that's a LOT of hard drugs and I'm not so sure it's a good idea.


Without reading those long links, how is a misdemeanor a "decriminalization"? Are these merely tickets?

Misdemeanors to my understanding--I have one which I did several months in jail and about 2 years probation for--can come with sentences in jail (not prison). Another distinguishing factor is they are worked out in court between a defense lawyer, prosecuting lawyer, and a judge. Almost always you are found guilty and you are expected to plead guilty, or at minimum no contest. Otherwise the judge typically punishes you with a heavier sentence.

Basically I'm saying that no jury is involved and the cases move a lot faster than felony trials.

A misdemeanor as opposed to a felony simply creates a more productive society and attempts less an assault on democracy (decrease the number of eligible voters). Because mass felonies adversely effects economic efficiency in particular communities heavy hit with felony convictions if not the whole of the nations economic efficiency. Having a felony bars a person from obtaining a number of high paying professions.
 
Never could understand why someone would want to use some of the hard drugs that are available today.

You didn't make your daughter feel like she is a terrible person, with your self righteous judgment because she joined some dance club, and tried more than once to make her feel like her aunt that is an IV heroin addict is and will always be a better person than her? But you are a materialist, so, you assume if she has sufficient material things she won't ever shot heroin while constantly hanging out with her aunt. Because the only evil you understand in this world comes from political parties. And you ignore the warning of Jesus that "Man can not live on bread alone." Beacuae what would Jesus know? You're an American, what the hell could go wrong. "Riches" are only material. They are neither emotional nor spiritual.

So, there you go, that is but one way a person can eventually end up using drugs.

Don't expect taxpayers to pick up your medical bill when you develop health issues.

Well... they already pay for them with alcohol. You didn't know excessive alcohol consumption can lead to Type 2 diabetes? Alcohol leads to all sorts of health problems tax payers in the US routinely pay for.

If there are going to be health problems for meth or heroin use then tax payers are going to pay for those too. So, I don't know if you saying the tax payers won't is to make you feel better? Because in the reality they will.
 
I totally agree that treatment is more likely to produce positive results than incarceration does but that doesn't mean decriminalizing hard drugs is a good idea.

Here's the problem, most of the people busted for possession also have other charges wrapped up in the whole affair. Maybe they were busted for an assault or a burglary AND they had drugs. The drug possession is often more of an aggravating factor than it is the reason for the arrest itself. People get all wrapped up in "he got 5 years for crack" and ignore the fact that the possession just added to the sentence instead of being the reason for the sentence.

And maybe this proposal will correct a large part of the problem you describe? Maybe it will help separate the wheat from the chaff, the legit crimes with victims from the victimless crimes?
 
You didn't make your daughter feel like she is a terrible person, with your self righteous judgment because she joined some dance club, and tried more than once to make her feel like her aunt that is an IV heroin addict is and will always be a better person than her? But you are a materialist, so, you assume if she has sufficient material things she won't ever shot heroin while constantly hanging out with her aunt. Because the only evil you understand in this world comes from political parties. And you ignore the warning of Jesus that "Man can not live on bread alone." Beacuae what would Jesus know? You're an American, what the hell could go wrong. "Riches" are only material. They are neither emotional nor spiritual.

So, there you go, that is but one way a person can eventually end up using drugs.



Well... they already pay for them with alcohol. You didn't know excessive alcohol consumption can lead to Type 2 diabetes? Alcohol leads to all sorts of health problems tax payers in the US routinely pay for.

If there are going to be health problems for meth or heroin use then tax payers are going to pay for those too. So, I don't know if you saying the tax payers won't is to make you feel better? Because in the reality they will.

Some tale you spun regarding "my daughter". Sorry , she was raised to be a good person.

I really dislike people who cherry pick and take things out of context. If your going to quote me, quote everything.

"Never could understand why someone would want to use some of the hard drugs that are available today. Yes, the war on drugs has been a drain on LEO and has not stopped the use of drugs. One could say it is just like the war on poverty, which also has failed at a huge financial cost.

Wonder what the impact of the Oregon law will be on the health care system. My take, you want to use drugs and OD. Don't expect to be saved. You want to use drugs and you hurt/kill someone while driving. Expect the book to be thrown at you. (Feel the same way about alcohol use)

Don't expect taxpayers to pick up your medical bill when you develop health issues. "

There is health problems especially with meth users.
 
Some tale you spun regarding "my daughter". Sorry , she was raised to be a good person.

I really dislike people who cherry pick and take things out of context. If your going to quote me, quote everything.

I wasn't making up a story about your daughter. I was taking a guess that you have kids but I was not sure. But even if you had at least one child it could have been a son and not a daughter.

I was presenting a scenario. A simplistic scenario because generally in life, especially as time goes on in a person's life multiple layers to their life increases.

I was presenting a scenario because you said you can not understand.

Maybe it is easier to understand this way. I am personally pretty fiscally liberal. I'm more European than American in this way even though I have never lived in Europe. That said we might both agree that in the United States no one reared in this country has to be poor per se. It makes "no sense" in so far as you and I might acknowledge everyone in the US can enter the middle-class by their mid 20s or certainly by their early 30s. Save except for those minority of people that have some severe disability like autism. But for the rest of us it has always been achievable. In fact, just about every person raised in America has had the opportunity to be financially rich, per se, by even American standards. In other words nearly all of us have had the opportunity to join the ranks of the American upper-class.

So then why are there so many poor Americans? And yes, I'm speaking about those in what economist term "relative poverty" (as well as the homeless on the street in "absolute poverty").

The thing is neither the Republicans or the Democrats have presented reality accurately. In fact, both parties have probably destroyed more American lives than all the bullets and guns on American streets. Because of Republicans and Democrats, indirectly, some kid that had all the potential in the world to one day discover multiple cures for multiple cancers has already died of a drug overdose.

The success of the Mexicans and East Indian Hindus that relocate to the USA might provide some insight or a hint at what prevents generational poverty. But you would have to speak with those people as I have done and in their story you'll keep hearing a recurring theme absent in the Republican and Democratic song.

Wat is the theme of the Republican and Democratic song? The individual.

For the Mexicans with their own businesses and for the middle-class from Indian that come to the United States (nearly always putting their children in college, and more importantly they mandate what their children can major in, and they *guide* them still as young adults) their theme is: the family.

To explain a story is really the domain of the novelist. So, I'm not going to nor can I compose a novel in this post. So, I will leave it at that but to say there are riches, wealth one can have emotionally and spiritually that can help them overcome all sorts obstacles in life. That can propel them to draw out and develop the best in themselves. Contrary to what Democrats might preach and think the psychological state of a person matters a lot in moving from out of poverty into higher socio-economic classes. Something as simple as being willing to put in hard work for low pay.

In short people can be reared with moral flaws, character flaws, or they can weaken emotionally and spiritually over years because mostly all those in their lives are like the serpent in the tree, the Even with the apple, the Cain jealous, the people that want to drive you to hell. They can be your parents that are Democrats. And to fair, even to others parents, people only know what they know. And a lot of people don't know how to get out of poverty. A lot of people do not know how to escape drug addiction even when they are anti-drugs and will not use drugs themselves. Until they do.





But to understand that you would have to understand that man can not live on bread alone.
 
Back
Top Bottom