# Oregon becomes the first state to decriminalize hard drugs like cocaine and heroin



## Gardenlover (Nov 18, 2020)

I couldn't believe this when I read it.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oregon-first-state-decriminalize-cocaine-heroin-measure-109/


----------



## MarciKS (Nov 18, 2020)

The marijuana I can understand if it's medical marijuana. But seriously...cocaine...heroine and meth? WTH are they thinking?


----------



## ClassicRockr (Nov 18, 2020)

Now many "users", like Millennials will be flocking to Oregon. Just like they did, and are still doing, to Colorado that legalized recreational pot. However, since we've returned to Colorado, we've not smelled any or seen any sold. Of course we don't live in a big city, like Ft. Collins, Denver or Colorado Springs.


----------



## Don M. (Nov 18, 2020)

Oregon seems to becoming a rather "strange" place.  Between all the protests and riots they've had in recent months, and now making it legal to use addictive drugs, that State may become a real haven for the nations lunatics.


----------



## raybar (Nov 18, 2020)

Since so-called "war on drugs" has been so spectacularly unsuccessful, perhaps it's time to try another approach.


----------



## asp3 (Nov 18, 2020)

I think that the word decriminalize is misleading.  It makes posession more like a traffic ticket with a $100 fine and required attendance in an addiction recovery program.

So to me it means that people processing small amounts of these drugs will not have to go through the court system.  This will save the state money in both the court system and the jail system.  It also forces them into a program that may help them deal with their addiction or drug use.

It's not as if they are let off without their drugs being confiscated, it just means they won't have to go to court unless they want to fight the charges or to jail.

Here's that text from the article:

The Oregon drug initiative will allow people arrested with small amounts of hard drugs to avoid going to trial, and possible jail time, by paying a $100 fine and attending an addiction recovery program. The treatment centers will be funded by revenues from legalized marijuana, which was approved in Oregon several years ago.


----------



## rgp (Nov 18, 2020)

raybar said:


> Since so-called "war on drugs" has been so spectacularly unsuccessful, perhaps it's time to try another approach.



 That is what I have been thinking for a few years now. I mean if the drug heads want it ? ... Let them have it. Cut the street price / profit, maybe cut some of the related crime?

If it kills them? I really don't care. Keeps the funeral business going...........


----------



## Gary O' (Nov 18, 2020)

asp3 said:


> I think that the word decriminalize is misleading. It makes posession more like a traffic ticket with a $100 fine and required attendance in an addiction recovery program.


No matter how you slice it, it's a step down
It's a statement on today's society

Looks like Portland will even beat out Amsterdam 

Glad I live in southern Oregon, where plain folks just wanna work for an honest living


----------



## asp3 (Nov 18, 2020)

Gary O' said:


> No matter how you slice it, it's a step down
> It's a statement on today's society
> 
> Looks like Portland will even beat out Amsterdam
> ...



We disagree, I see it as a step up and addressing the problem of addiction as opposed to making people suffer for their bad choices.

I found Amsterdam to be a delightful place myself.

So are you saying that people who want to do drugs don't want to work for an honest living?


----------



## chic (Nov 18, 2020)

During this insane time, I wouldn't condemn anyone. Maybe it's a good idea.


----------



## 911 (Nov 18, 2020)

This is old news. The reason the state uses the word "decriminalize" instead of "legalize" is because by Federal law no state can make laws that supersede Federal laws. This can be found in the Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI Clause 2. (I had to look up the Article and clause numbers, in case someone wishes to fact check me.

The reason that I knew this was because I have read several cases where people from states that allow MJ to be smoked, used or whatever, have been caught with it in states that do not allow it and PA is one (for now). The owner of the MJ that I caught on an Interstate after a traffic stop for speeding and going off the side of the highway was, "Well, it's legal in my state, so I am allowed to carry it and use it.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 18, 2020)

Has anyone who wanted, or was desperate enough, to use those addictive drugs, ever been stopped by making their use a criminal offense?  Has it worked any better than Prohibition did a century ago?  Did people stop drinking?

Criminalizing this kind of stuff absolutely never works. It just drives it underground.

However, it might be true that Oregon will now see an influx of users. If I lived there, I wouldn't be too thrilled about that.


----------



## DaveA (Nov 18, 2020)

Sunny said:


> Has anyone who wanted, or was desperate enough, to use those addictive drugs, ever been stopped by making their use a criminal offense?  Has it worked any better than Prohibition did a century ago?  Did people stop drinking?
> 
> Criminalizing this kind of stuff absolutely never works. It just drives it underground.
> 
> However, it might be true that Oregon will now see an influx of users. If I lived there, I wouldn't be too thrilled about that.


But as other states follow suit, an they will, albeit slowly, it'll all level off.  I'm sure that most of us weren't around during Prohibition but wasn't it the same thing, based around alcohol?  Illegal drinking establishments, gangs and killings flourished the same as today's dug users/sellers in some locations. 

All mind altering drugs should be treated in the same manner, whether liquid, powder or whatever.


----------



## Manatee (Nov 18, 2020)

Some politicians haven't got a lick of sense.


----------



## asp3 (Nov 18, 2020)

Manatee said:


> Some politicians haven't got a lick of sense.


Which way are you directing that, to the ones moving forward or the ones staying with the model that isn't working?

In either case this was a voter approved measure so it wasn't just politicians it was the electorate of Oregon.  It might have been written by members of the legislature (I don't care enough to find out) but it's the voters who approved it.


----------



## jerry old (Nov 18, 2020)

asp3 said:


> We disagree, I see it as a step up and addressing the problem of addiction as opposed to making people suffer for their bad choices.
> 
> I found Amsterdam to be a delightful place myself.
> 
> So are you saying that people who want to do drugs don't want to work for an honest living?



I've never know anyone that ' wanted to do drugs'
 I've know many that -drugs devoured, leaving them a husk.
You do not tinker with something you cannot control.  
Some can take alcohol or leave it alone; drugs are a different kettle of fish.

Yes, we need a national plan to deal with addiction, not what is proposed in Oregon.


----------



## ClassicRockr (Nov 18, 2020)

911 said:


> This is old news. The reason the state uses the word "decriminalize" instead of "legalize" is because by Federal law no state can make laws that supersede Federal laws. This can be found in the Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI Clause 2. (I had to look up the Article and clause numbers, in case someone wishes to fact check me.
> 
> The reason that I knew this was because I have read several cases where people from states that allow MJ to be smoked, used or whatever, have been caught with it in states that do not allow it and PA is one (for now). The owner of the MJ that I caught on an Interstate after a traffic stop for speeding and going off the side of the highway was, "Well, it's legal in my state, so I am allowed to carry it and use it.



Boy, 911, people can/do give the craziest excuses for doing/having something illegal, don't they? I'm sure you have even more stories than this one.


----------



## ManjaroKDE (Nov 18, 2020)

The cost index for Oregon housing is horrendous (either rentals or outright purchases), so I don't think we'll see a large influx of people here.  There may be a few transients passing through but to get any type of housing along the Pacific coast is a budget stopper.  Nevada, Idaho or Montana may be their final resting place, so to speak.  Then property taxes kick in you get a double whammy just to have a warm place to sleep.


> Sunny said:
> 
> 
> > However, it might be true that Oregon will now see an influx of users. If I lived there, I wouldn't be too thrilled about that.


----------



## Gary O' (Nov 18, 2020)

asp3 said:


> So are you saying that people who want to do drugs don't want to work for an honest living?


Oh, they want to, they just can't

Don't get me started on this
I've got too much family/personal experience


----------



## asp3 (Nov 18, 2020)

jerry old said:


> I've never know anyone that ' wanted to do drugs'
> I've know many that -drugs devoured, leaving them a husk.
> You do not tinker with something you cannot control.
> Some can take alcohol or leave it alone; drugs are a different kettle of fish.
> ...



I've known more than a few who enjoyed doing drugs.  They know their limits and know how to control their use to avoid it interfering with their normal drug free days.  I've also known some who are not able to control themselves well and aren't as sharp when working as they could be.

I do agree that some people shouldn't consider using drugs based on family addiction history.  However not everyone who uses "hard drugs" is doomed to addiction and ruining their life.

I was not in Vietnam so I cannot comment on this personally, but I've read reports about heroin use by US soldiers in Vietnam and evidently it was more widespread than reported by mainstream media.  According to the study below 34% of soldiers used heroin while in Vietnam, 20% showed signs of addiction there but only 1% of them were re-addictied after their return to the US even though 10% of them tried the drug here after returning.  Here's that study https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/add.13584 .

People in South America (I think mainly Peru and Bolivia) use coca tea as a mild stimulant without addiction or dependence.  I tried it while I was in Peru and would love to have it here as well, but since it comes from the raw materials that cocaine (which I've never tried) is made from it isn't available here.


----------



## fmdog44 (Nov 18, 2020)

_A nationwide push to relax drug laws took a significant step forward Tuesday as voters made Oregon the first state to decriminalize the possession of *small amounts** of street drugs such as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine*. Meanwhile, five more states legalized marijuana for adults._

Yes folks and as we all know coke and heroin and meth users always buy in *small amounts*. Note these are street drugs not drugs regulated by he govt. Beating someone to death should also be legalized in Oregon as long as it was done in a caring and giving state of mind.


----------



## jerry old (Nov 18, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> _A nationwide push to relax drug laws took a significant step forward Tuesday as voters made Oregon the first state to decriminalize the possession of *small amounts** of street drugs such as cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine*. Meanwhile, five more states legalized marijuana for adults._
> 
> Yes folks and as we all know coke and heroin and meth users alw*ays buy in small amounts. Note these are street drugs not drugs regulated by he govt. Beating someone to death should also be legalized in Oregon as long as it was done in a caring and giving state of mind.*



I always thought the   population of Oregon and Washington State were decent, law-abiding people.
I'm sure the current influx of ''Freaks" is not representative of these two states. (Hopefully)


----------



## asp3 (Nov 18, 2020)

jerry old said:


> I always thought the   population of Oregon and Washington State were decent, law-abiding people.
> I'm sure the current influx of ''Freaks" is not representative of these two states. (Hopefully)



So you are saying that decent law abiding citizens cannot possibly agree with reducing the penalty for drug possession and requiring those who are caught with drugs to attend addiction recovery programs.  Well then call me a indecent law abiding citizen.

Your hypothesis that there has been in influx of "freaks" (nothing condescending about that designation) that has reached the 50+ percentage of voters required to pass such a measure in Oregon seems pretty ridiculous.


----------



## jerry old (Nov 18, 2020)

Mood altering drug or alcohol has always been sought by all civilizations.
America has chosen to criminalize drug use-right
Those that seek a alternate reality have their reasons.
They are not criminals In the Beginning; however, there are few that can control their need for more drugs.
They cannot work, they have to feed their 'Monkey.'  

To those few that can control their addiction contribute to the overall problem.
I've met ONE that could use drugs on a semi-regular basis; that was twenty years ago, I wonder if he became an addict.

Alcohol/drugs  demean the person.  
Jail, prison is not the answer.
Abstinence does not exist as a cultural norm
Drugs/Alcohol are a part of our culture and we have no workable concept on how to deal with it.
We deal with the aftermath: Vehicle wrecks, robberies, killings, children without anyone to support them...
Substance abuse issues fill court dockets and will continue to do so.
If you choose to be a part-time user-I hope you do fall into the abyss


----------



## AnnieA (Nov 18, 2020)

asp3 said:


> I think that the word decriminalize is misleading.  It makes posession more like a traffic ticket with a $100 fine and required attendance in an addiction recovery program.
> 
> So to me it means that people processing small amounts of these drugs will not have to go through the court system.  This will save the state money in both the court system and the jail system.  ...


Decriminalizing for small amounts to take a burden off the court system makes perfect sense.  Then sentence dealers and pimps to the maximum.


----------



## Ruthanne (Nov 18, 2020)

Great and no they will stop seeing it is a crime.


----------



## asp3 (Nov 18, 2020)

jerry old said:


> If you choose to be a part-time user-I hope you do fall into the abyss



I find your closing line to be rather cruel.  Are you saying that you wish people who are able to successfully be part time users to get hooked and have their lives fall apart?


----------



## Ruthanne (Nov 18, 2020)

asp3 said:


> I find your closing line to be rather cruel.  Are you saying that you wish people who are able to successfully be part time users to get hooked and have their lives fall apart?


Thank you I could not have said it better.


----------



## Geezerette (Nov 18, 2020)

This is not a topic I can debate, I feel it’s a surrender to the criminals instead of keeping on trying to rid the state of them and their lethal wares. Starts with slacking off on enforcing the laws already on the books.


----------



## Ruthanne (Nov 18, 2020)

Geezerette said:


> This is not a topic I can debate, I feel it’s a surrender to the criminals instead of keeping on trying to rid the state of them and their lethal wares. Starts with slacking off on enforcing the laws already on the books.


I guess you assume that people that use cocaine and other drugs are automatically criminals maybe you might think about that.


----------



## Gary O' (Nov 18, 2020)

jerry old said:


> I always thought the population of Oregon and Washington State were decent, law-abiding people.
> I'm sure the current influx of ''Freaks" is not representative of these two states. (Hopefully)


It's gettin' bad, Jerry
Mostly the Portland area
Ten/fifteen years ago, Portland was a pretty decent place to abide
No more


----------



## Gary O' (Nov 18, 2020)

AnnieA said:


> Decriminalizing for small amounts to take a burden off the court system makes perfect sense. Then sentence dealers and pimps to the maximum.


That does make sense.
The good thing, whether prosecuted or not, the dealers will suffer financially
If the hard drugs are made easier to get, the lack of demand will lower the price


----------



## Pepper (Nov 18, 2020)

If only I could use cocaine I could finally clean my apartment and no, I'm not joking.


----------



## jerry old (Nov 18, 2020)

asp3 said:


> I find your closing line to be rather cruel.  Are you saying that you wish people who are able to successfully be part time users to get hooked and have their lives fall apart?




I'm saying your part of the problem.


----------



## DaveA (Nov 18, 2020)

How easily people overlook what they do on a daily basis and demonize someone doing the same thing.  One guy's smoking a joint in his back yard while his neighbors working on a six pack.  Both enjoying themselves.

Just down the block another guy's injecting himself on a regular basis, while his neighbor is drinking himself into his daily stupor.  Both are ruining their marriages and families.

From what I read here, the drinker will not be a problem as he can control himself at any time while the druggie is hopelessly lost in lala land.

One guy bought his stuff from a shady character while the other bought his (legally) from the local package store.

Anyone see any hypocrisy here? Some folks maybe and others see no similarity whatever.  Amazing, how blind we can be about our own habits compared to those around us.


----------



## Ruthanne (Nov 18, 2020)

jerry old said:


> I'm saying your part of the problem.


Perhaps it's not him who is the problem.


----------



## Ruthanne (Nov 18, 2020)

Many years ago alcohol was criminalized and people put in jail for it.   Look at it now.  Cocaine used to be sold over the counter in the USA earlier in its history.  We take drugs every day to alleviate symptoms.  What if those too were criminalized? 

Why should people be put in jail for enjoying the recreational drug of their choice?  To each their own I say.

Other countries have decriminalized many drugs and drug isn't always a bad word.


----------



## Don M. (Nov 18, 2020)

Back in the 1920's, alcohol was prohibited, and all that did was allow the Mafia to become powerful and rich.  With today's drug laws, the street gangs rule large parts of our cities, and the Mexican drug lords have become millionaires.  Back in the 1800's, Laudanum (cocaine) was widely used as cough medicine and pain killer.  
People have, and always will, find some means to "soften" their personal worries.  The trick is to find some way to supply that need without it being taken over by the criminals.


----------



## win231 (Nov 18, 2020)

It's perfectly OK with me.  If drug addicts are able to legally buy whatever drugs they want, maybe they won't have to commit robberies of businesses & homes to get things to fence for drug money.  And it might prevent home invasion robberies.
That will save me money on ammunition as well as costs of replacing carpeting & re-plastering & re-painting.


----------



## asp3 (Nov 18, 2020)

Deleted


----------



## C'est Moi (Nov 19, 2020)

DaveA said:


> How easily people overlook what they do on a daily basis and demonize someone doing the same thing.  One guy's smoking a joint in his back yard while his neighbors working on a six pack.  Both enjoying themselves.
> 
> Just down the block another guy's injecting himself on a regular basis, while his neighbor is drinking himself into his daily stupor.  Both are ruining their marriages and families.
> 
> ...



No "hypocrisy" at all; one is ILLEGAL and the other is not.   Get it now?


----------



## C'est Moi (Nov 19, 2020)

Ruthanne said:


> I guess you assume that people that use cocaine and other drugs are automatically criminals maybe you might think about that.


Yes, as long as they are using _illegal _drugs, they are criminals.


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 19, 2020)

asp3 said:


> I think that the word decriminalize is misleading.  It makes posession more like a traffic ticket with a $100 fine and required attendance in an addiction recovery program.
> 
> So to me it means that people processing small amounts of these drugs will not have to go through the court system.  This will save the state money in both the court system and the jail system.  It also forces them into a program that may help them deal with their addiction or drug use.
> 
> ...





AnnieA said:


> Decriminalizing for small amounts to take a burden off the court system makes perfect sense.  Then sentence dealers and pimps to the maximum.



Yes, a lot of people mistake "decriminalizing" for "legalizing."  The two terms mean vastly different things.


----------



## JimBob1952 (Nov 19, 2020)

That's nothing.  In Seattle they're trying to decriminalize...crime.  At least everything that's not a felony.  

https://komonews.com/news/local/sea...esult-in-dismissal-of-many-misdemeanor-crimes


----------



## jerry old (Nov 19, 2020)

C'est Moi said:


> No "hypocrisy" at all; one is ILLEGAL and the other is not.   Get it now?


Oh yea, true-but, but, but hypocrisy is a cultural norm.  
I'm a law-abiding citizen most of the time
.
I'm not going to purchase any illegal drugs, but if you offer to deliver a
brand new riding lawn mower to my home for three hundred dollars, it puts me in a quandary.

Whether I bought this stolen lawn mower is not the point: the point is I Considered It!
That makes me a hypocrite yes, no, what?


----------



## win231 (Nov 19, 2020)

Don M. said:


> Back in the 1920's, alcohol was prohibited, and all that did was allow the Mafia to become powerful and rich.  With today's drug laws, the street gangs rule large parts of our cities, and the Mexican drug lords have become millionaires.  Back in the 1800's, Laudanum (cocaine) was widely used as cough medicine and pain killer.
> People have, and always will, find some means to "soften" their personal worries.  The trick is to find some way to supply that need without it being taken over by the criminals.


Laudanum is a type of opium.  I only heard of it when I watched "The Shootist."  James Stewart prescribed it to John Wayne.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauda... of,alkaloids, including morphine and codeine.


----------



## fmdog44 (Nov 19, 2020)

I guess some here don't get it. They legalized heroin. HEROIN!!


----------



## asp3 (Nov 19, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> I guess some here don't get it. They legalized heroin. HEROIN!!



Indeed, some people don't get it.  Nothing in that measure was legalized, it was decriminalized.  There is a huge difference between the two.


----------



## Gardenlover (Nov 19, 2020)

Serious question - what is the difference between legalized vs decriminalized? Does it boil down to basically getting a fine instead of jail time? Similar to getting a speeding ticket?

Decriminalization seems like the first step towards legalizing it.


----------



## asp3 (Nov 19, 2020)

Gardenlover said:


> Serious question - what is the difference between legalized vs decriminalized? Does it boil down to basically getting a fine instead of jail time? Similar to getting a speeding ticket?
> 
> Decriminalization seems like the first step towards legalizing it.



That's a good description of it.  According to the article I read about the measure that passed there is now a $100 fine and mandatory participation in an addiction recovery program.  I posted the same information near the start of the thread.


----------



## Gardenlover (Nov 19, 2020)

asp3 said:


> That's a good description of it.  According to the article I read about the measure that passed there is now a $100 fine and mandatory participation in an addiction recovery program.  I posted the same information near the start of the thread.


Yes, I read the entire thread, but the difference between the two still seems a bit muddled to me.

I guess I'd boil it down to: Does the punishment fit the crime.


----------



## jerry old (Nov 19, 2020)

Gardenlover said:


> Yes, I read the entire thread, but the difference between the two still seems a bit muddled to me.



I think that was the intent


----------



## asp3 (Nov 19, 2020)

Gardenlover said:


> Yes, I read the entire thread, but the difference between the two still seems a bit muddled to me.
> 
> I guess I'd boil it down to: Does the punishment fit the crime.



It depends on whether you think it's more useful to put people who are in possession of small amounts of controlled substances in jail or in treatment programs.

To me I think the punishment does fit the crime.  It also reduces the cost of dealing with those with substance abuse issues by taking out the court and jail costs.  Others disagree with me, but it appears that a majority of those who voted on the measure in Oregon agree with me.


----------



## Phoenix (Nov 19, 2020)

I live in Oregon.  I'm not a druggy, and this will not impact my life.  The court system needs to be freed to deal with serious crimes.  There is only so much money to attend to everything.  We are not being flooded with riffraff here anymore than any other place is.


----------



## Gardenlover (Nov 19, 2020)

Felons may lose the following rights. The last three are what I consider to be the biggies of ever returning to what society deems a normal life.
Right to Bear Arms
Right to Vote
Right to Travel Abroad
Other Political Rights
Parental Rights
Loss of Benefit Programs
Employee Discrimination

With this in mind, I think people who are in possession of small amounts of controlled substances would be better served with treatment programs.

My thoughts are focused on the user not a dealer and of course the punishment changes if other crimes are committed while under the influence.


----------



## 911 (Nov 19, 2020)

Let’s be clear about this issue. If a state decriminalized an otherwise illegal drug, it simply means that if you are caught with an illegal substance, the courts are able to go easier on that person, unless they are on Federal lands where only Federal law would apply. 

Will decriminalizing the laws in Oregon draw addicts into the state. I would think it would be possible, but time will tell.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 19, 2020)

C'est Moi said:


> Yes, as long as they are using _illegal _drugs, they are criminals.


Does that include your s/o?


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 19, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> I guess some here don't get it. They legalized heroin. HEROIN!!


I betcha they didn't legalize it; they probably "decriminalized" its personal use.


----------



## Gaer (Nov 19, 2020)

Legalize heroin in the middle of an opiod crisis?  Bethumped, I am.


----------



## asp3 (Nov 20, 2020)

Gaer said:


> Legalize heroin in the middle of an opiod crisis?  Bethumped, I am.



Once again, it isn't legalized, it's possession has been decriminalized.  It is still illegal to possess the decriminalized substances but it's more like parking in a red zone as opposed to writing a bad check or shoplifting. (I'm comparing criminality of the acts as opposed to the societal seriousness)


----------



## Sunny (Nov 20, 2020)

So, what is the penalty for having a decriminalized substance?  A fine, rather than doing time in prison?


----------



## Pepper (Nov 20, 2020)

Sunny said:


> So, what is the penalty for having a decriminalized substance?  A fine, rather than doing time in prison?


It's no longer a felony, but a misdemeanor.


----------



## Gary O' (Nov 20, 2020)

asp3 said:


> Once again, it isn't legalized, it's possession has been decriminalized. It is still illegal to possess the decriminalized substances but it's more like parking in a red zone as opposed to writing a bad check or shoplifting. (I'm comparing criminality of the acts as opposed to the societal seriousness)


One can rationalize

but

no matter how one sees it, it's a step in the wrong direction

I do know the court system is a joke, a turnstile
No room in the jails
....and if one does go to jail, they don't stay long

Maybe decriminalization is an answer for now

But, down the line, it's just a step....down the spiral staircase


----------



## WhatInThe (Nov 20, 2020)

Makes a good social justice issue ie individual right to chose. But the public at large is at physical danger from these users just like a drunk driver. And with the rehab they'll need it will be frequently be at the taxpayers expense.


----------



## asp3 (Nov 20, 2020)

Gary O' said:


> One can rationalize
> 
> but
> 
> ...



It's the way you see it not "no matter how one sees it".

We see how well criminalization of substance use has worked so far.  It's time to try something different.

I find it sad that we as a society are OK to put people in jail and pay for it because they are using illegal mind altering substances.  But we don't want to pay for programs to help them prevent or deal with their addictions and allow them to function as productive members of society.


----------



## asp3 (Nov 20, 2020)

WhatInThe said:


> Makes a good social justice issue ie individual right to chose. But the public at large is at physical danger from these users just like a drunk driver. And with the rehab they'll need it will be frequently be at the taxpayers expense.



Since we're generally OK with the laws that try to prevent people using alcohol from being a physical danger we can just apply those laws to them.  I think most "drunk driving" laws are more under the influence laws any way so they already work.


----------



## C'est Moi (Nov 20, 2020)

Pepper said:


> Does that include your s/o?


I'm not aware that my "s/o" is exempt from the law.


----------



## Gary O' (Nov 20, 2020)

asp3 said:


> It's the way you see it not "no matter how one sees it".


No, it's a fact
Read your history books
Those of Rome contain the most recent exemplary history

Hey, we've had our 200 years of excess
All thru recent history, that's pretty much the norm
Then, the fall

But, think what you may

I do agree, you can't legislate morality


----------



## jerry old (Nov 20, 2020)

The topic demands a discussion of the Criminal Justice System which is archaic.
Substance abuse has been a social/cultural problem for over a hundred years.
Our court system is not equipped to deal with any problem that does not involve
putting the offender in jail.                                                         

This takes us to the Dept of Corrections...
which is a convoluted mess...

You can legislate morality (SORT'A)   you can make the transgressor very sorry
that *He Got Caught*, curtailing his behavior is another matter entirely.


----------



## asp3 (Nov 20, 2020)

Gary O' said:


> No, it's a fact
> Read your history books
> Those of Rome contain the most recent exemplary history
> 
> ...



You said that "no matter how one sees it it's a step in the wrong direction"

You then said it is a fact because of history.  You fail to take into account we know so much more about addiction and psychology.  Also I challenge you to show evidence of this step being take before in history because it hasn't.  There weren't addiction recovery programs in the past.

You also bring up Rome but they still thought that health was regulated by the humors of the body.  So I take anything they did to have been done without modern knowledge.

Drugs were decriminalized in Portugal in 2001 and it lead to a number of positive effects.  An article from November 2018 is available here https://transformdrugs.org/drug-decriminalisation-in-portugal-setting-the-record-straight/

So what you said is not a fact unless you restate it somehow.  There is also evidence that it is a step in the right direction based on the results of the decriminalization in Portugal.  So I think you'd be hard pressed to make your statement that it's a step in the wrong direction a fact.  I do agree that it is a reasonable opinion but once again that's how you see it rather than no matter how you see it.


----------



## Gary O' (Nov 20, 2020)

asp3 said:


> I do agree that it is a reasonable opinion but once again that's how you see it rather than no matter how you see it.


Sounds good to me
Guess dealing with my daughter's addictions, and the ordeal of her failed legislated treatments, have me biased.
Forgive me

I sincerely hope you're right


----------



## asp3 (Nov 20, 2020)

Gary O' said:


> Sounds good to me
> Guess dealing with my daughter's addictions, and the ordeal of her failed legislated treatments, have me biased.
> Forgive me
> 
> I sincerely hope you're right



I'm sorry you've had to live with your daughter's addictions.  Thankfully I can only imagine how difficult that's been and that still would not allow me to know how it feels to be in your position.  I can see how your experience would make you wary of such changes.  I do agree that what we have now isn't as effective as it needs to be, but we are learning and improving.

I hope I'm right too.


----------



## asp3 (Nov 20, 2020)

Here's another article from Time about Portugal's programs that includes steps that have been taken in other areas as well.

https://time.com/longform/portugal-drug-use-decriminalization/


----------



## MarkinPhx (Nov 20, 2020)

I attend between 3-5 AA meetings a week. In my time of sobriety I also have attended several HA, CA, and NA meetings. I am friends with many who I would not have given the time of day twenty years ago but now are outstanding and responsible citizens (truth be told I would not have given myself the time of day twenty years ago). Many I met did receive harsh jail terms and found a program that fit their needs while in jail. I also know many who only continued their habit while in prison or jail (drugs in prison is very common and often easier to get then on the streets) and only recovered when they got out and went into rehab. One can argue all they want about whether or not decriminalization will work in the United States and it is certainly a topic that has my interest but the one truth will remain and that is a person will only recover if he or she wants to . No jail term is going to deter a person from using if they want to and no forced rehab center will change a person's behavior either if he or she is not willing to make a change in their life and admit that they are an addict. 

I know this is a rather ambivalent post regarding the topic but there is not an easy solution and I am not sure if there is a right or wrong answer. In my opinion the prison times that have been given in the past have been rather harsh but there is a whole different side to look at also. Many addicts who are in prison are not there because they were busted for possession. They are in prison or jails because they stole , cheated or extorted to get money to feed their habit. In those cases, I am 100 % behind any jail time given to them. But for simple possession ? I lean towards lighter jail time with a mandatory rehabilitation program. One thing that I wish would happen is more money spent for rehab programs while the offender is in jail. I know several people who spent up to three years in prison for DWI charges but where not introduced to a program such as Smart Recovery or AA until they were released from prison. Yes, there are AA programs in prisons and jail but often the meetings are not offered on a consistent basis. 

One other quick note..I have met many who ten years ago I would have given the time of day to but are now struggling with their addiction because they got into some random accident, were prescribed pain kills, and became addicts. It is not some made up plot for the Hallmark Channel, it is reality. 

 We can discuss all we want if this will work in Oregon but the most important thing to remember is nothing will work at all until the addict is ready to admit that they are an addict and needs some type of help. Sorry for the ramble.


----------



## Gary O' (Nov 20, 2020)

MarkinPhx said:


> We can discuss all we want if this will work in Oregon but the most important thing to remember is nothing will work at all until the addict is ready to admit that they are an addict and needs some type of help. Sorry for the ramble.


So very true


----------



## jerry old (Nov 20, 2020)

So which one of you guy is going to start a thread about the Criminal Justice System?

The limitations of the courts to deal with   substance abuse and the abuses in the Dept of Corrections.

I have a more than adequate knowledge of how these systems operate, but  I'm not  sure I have the  tenacity
to discuss how inadequate they are.


----------



## Gary O' (Nov 20, 2020)

jerry old said:


> So which one of you guy is going to start a thread about the Criminal Justice System?


Might be considered political?
If so, big no no here


----------



## fmdog44 (Nov 20, 2020)

asp3 said:


> We disagree, I see it as a step up and addressing the problem of addiction as opposed to making people suffer for their bad choices.
> 
> I found Amsterdam to be a delightful place myself.
> 
> So are you saying that people who want to do drugs don't want to work for an honest living?


You're insane! Amsterdam is a delightful place?! By the way people that do drugs do not want to work. They tolerate work to support their addiction until the addiction take precedence over work.


----------



## fmdog44 (Nov 20, 2020)

asp3 said:


> It depends on whether you think it's more useful to put people who are in possession of small amounts of controlled substances in jail or in treatment programs.
> 
> To me I think the punishment does fit the crime.  It also reduces the cost of dealing with those with substance abuse issues by taking out the court and jail costs.  Others disagree with me, but it appears that a majority of those who voted on the measure in Oregon agree with me.


Oregon is where one goes to to lay in their own urine and declare everyone else is a fascist.


----------



## Gary O' (Nov 20, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> Oregon is where one goes to to lay in their own urine and declare everyone else is a fascist.


Not all of Oregon

Just this general area here;



The rest of us are somewhat normal


----------



## jerry old (Nov 20, 2020)

i dunno know,  you get locked up without funds your going to be in trouble.  Asst DA's are only concerned on conviction:innocent or guilty.
Once in prison, you there-the guilt of the inmate has been decided-your going to stay there until your release date. 
 Innocence or guilt was decided in the courts- "We don't want to hear about it.
  no one does

You want to attend college courses, you want AA/ NA Classes, you want some type of job training-
taxpapers will not accept this is necessary-  we want you locked away, away from nothing more.


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 20, 2020)

Pepper said:


> It's no longer a felony, but a misdemeanor.


Actually, decriminalizing removes something from the criminal law area completely and puts it in the civil law arena.  Thus it does not become a misdemeanor, which is still criminal law, but becomes a civil infraction, like a traffic ticket or a citation for having too much junk in your yard.  Also, decriminalization only applies to possession for personal use, and not to those who deal drugs.  Way too many people, IMHO, have landed in jail for possession of small quantities of substances.

One of the good things about making it a civil infraction is that an ancient drug bust doesn't end up costing someone a professional license or a job years later.


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 20, 2020)

jerry old said:


> i dunno know,  you get locked up without funds your going to be in trouble.  Asst DA's are only concerned on conviction:innocent or guilty.
> Once in prison, you there-the guilt of the inmate has been decided-your going to stay there until your release date.
> Innocence or guilt was decided in the courts- "We don't want to hear about it.
> no one does
> ...


This very much depends on the state.  Many states offer education, treatment, etc. to inmates and some even earn college degrees while there.


----------



## asp3 (Nov 21, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> You're insane! Amsterdam is a delightful place?! By the way people that do drugs do not want to work. They tolerate work to support their addiction until the addiction take precedence over work.



Must you denigrate someone because they disagree with you?  There are so many other ways to tell someone that you disagree other than saying they are insane.

Yes, I did find Amsterdam to be delightful.  I was only there for three days but we did get all over the city and I don't recall it being unpleasant anywhere.  Paris on the other hand was a different story, but that's not relevant here.

I think you've bought into the story that the only people who use drugs are addicts or future addicts.  I have known many people who love their work and love their recreational drug time.  You might not have run into many yourself, but you could say you were unaware of any people who were able to successfully use drugs and who still loved their jobs or at least enjoyed working and didn't only do it so they could afford drugs.

I do agree that using drugs is a slippery slope for some people and that some people would be better off not using drugs.  However when drugs lose their illegal status I think it provides a better environment for discussing responsible drug use, how to realize when your drug use is becoming a problem and for providing help for those who are having problems with drugs.


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 21, 2020)

I've known a number of casual users of drugs, mostly marijuana, but some harder drugs as well, who basically used them like others use alcohol and never drifted into addiction.


----------



## doat (Nov 22, 2020)

Feed the bacteria and watch it grow.


----------



## Sunny (Nov 22, 2020)

If we substitute the word "alcohol" for "drugs," every word said in this thread so far could still apply.

There are people who have let alcohol take over their entire lives, live only for the next drink, and many have sacrificed their life, their health, their job, their family and friends, for their addiction.

There are people who consider alcohol a tool of the Devil, and will not go near it. Or don't use it because they have seen other lives ruined by it. Or are allergic, or just don't like it. When this country had Prohibition, people were locked up for using it. (Sound familiar?)

Most people use it in moderation, for recreational use, relaxation, socialization, etc. It usually does no harm, as long as they refrain from driving, and might be a positive element of life. Obviously, the majority of people have felt that way about it since Biblical times.

So, jerryold, do you feel that users of alcohol should all be locked up indiscriminately?  Probably not. Does looking at it that way change your slant on the drug question a little? Do you think the criminal justice system should take measures to stop any and all use of alcohol? And if someone is locked up for that reason, that he has no rights?


----------



## Sunny (Nov 22, 2020)

fmdog, Amsterdam is a tourist destination for many young adults. (Or was, before Covid, when people still traveled.)  I thought it was a fascinating city back in the 1950's when I visited there; obviously, it could be very different now. But my grandson and his girlfriend were there a couple of years ago, and they liked the city a lot. And they are NOT drug users. 

You sound bitter about Amsterdam, fmdog. Did you have a bad experience there?


----------



## jerry old (Nov 22, 2020)

`Alcohol makes the mind all fuzzy,
Sunny, how are you going to keep alcohol (impaired drivers) off the   road?
'A couple of beers with the guys,' turns into vehicular homicides.
Alcohol triggers domestic violence

Drugs-economics is a major problem, if not the major problem with substance abuse,.
A drug head will do just about anything to obtain funds for drugs-burglary, robbery...

Substance abuse is not a problem that law enforcement or the judicial system can counter: So what do we do?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sunny Says:
"Most people use it in moderation, for recreational use, relaxation, socialization, etc. It usually does no harm, as long as they refrain from driving, and might be a positive element of life. "

Moderation? Moderation?  what is that?
Industrial towns build a facility, there is real estate scramble to get bars built.
Few adult males can gauge their alcohol content before they get behind a wheel.
Alcohol is a ritualized male behavior, I cannot speak for the females.


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 22, 2020)

jerry old said:


> `Alcohol makes the mind all fuzzy,
> Sunny, how are you going to keep alcohol (impaired drivers) off the   road?
> 'A couple of beers with the guys,' turns into vehicular homicides.
> Alcohol triggers domestic violence
> ...


Wow -- you really have taken a hard line on alcohol.

I disagree, which of course matters not at all, but the US tried prohibition and it didn't help at all, but only got organized crime into the mix.  Which is a lot of the problem with drugs --  the crime that surrounds their use.


----------



## jerry old (Nov 22, 2020)

I suppose I should mention I have close to thirty years of working in the substance abuse field.


I know virtually nothing about those that can drink alcohol and curtail their drinking before it impairs their
judgement.
The same with drugs, I've not encounter any that understand moderation.

  I've only seen the 'mean parts' of substance abuse; consequently, my opinion is biased.

I view substance abuse as a destroyer of all that is decent.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 22, 2020)

@jerry old 
You see the folks who come to you voluntarily to seek help, or are court-ordered, which probably means they wouldn't seek help on their own.  Right?

Most people I've ever known can handle their liquor and stop/slow down before getting drunk.  They pace themselves.

Respect is due to you for working in the field.  Thank you.


----------



## Phoenix (Nov 22, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> Oregon is where one goes to to lay in their own urine and declare everyone else is a fascist.


Thank you.  I live in Oregon.  No ones does that here.  One of the biggest drug problems in this country is the opioid epidemic, and it is spawned and fed by the medical and pharmaceutical industries.  People are so quick to be critical and judgemental.


----------



## fmdog44 (Nov 22, 2020)

Gary O' said:


> Not all of Oregon
> 
> Just this general area here;
> 
> ...


"Portlandia"


----------



## jerry old (Nov 22, 2020)

A ditty of  great import

In the 1960's, the Auto Manufactures were concerned about absenteeism cutting into their profit margin.
The United Auto Workers Union were also concerned with this problem.
Both parties  knew substance abuse was the primary problem with absenteeism SO
they hammered out a contract that covered sixty days a year (thirty days at a time) for hospitalization
for MENTAL/ EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS.
At that time substance abuse was considered an emotional problem:
'Their screwing up their lives with drugs and alcohol, they gott'a be crazy right?
So, we will put them in the crazy house."

True, the greater society had considered drunks as being 'not normal.'
We do not have a word for 'not normal,' so we call them crazy.

Other unions followed the UAW to obtain contracts for hospitalization for substance abuse; as well
as non-union workers that had company paid hospitalization.
The only facilities available for substance abuse were:  "Put them in a crazy house.'

Hospitalization was the engine that drove our treatment of substance abuse
Without funds the treatment of substance abuse problem may have found a
better alternative BUT, it was so profitable.
The money from hospitalization was and is the methods we used/ and still us to treat substance abuse.
*It does not work.*


----------



## Sunny (Nov 22, 2020)

"Moderation? Moderation?  what is that?"

Jerry, here's an example. This afternoon, I met a friend (female) at our local restaurant, and we each ordered one glass of wine. That's it. We sat sipping our one glass each for nearly two hours!  We scheduled our meeting primarily to enjoy our conversation with each other; the wine was a pleasant extra, but definitely not the main focus. In fact, we started out saying, "Let's get together for some wine or coffee, it;s been a long time since we had a chat."

Just pointing all this out because I think it is a perfect example of moderate enjoyment of alcohol.


----------



## Gardenlover (Nov 23, 2020)

jerry old said:


> Hospitalization was the engine that drove our treatment of substance abuse
> Without funds the treatment of substance abuse problem may have found a
> better alternative BUT, it was so profitable.
> The money from hospitalization was and is the methods we used/ and still us to treat substance abuse.
> *It does not work.*


What does work?


----------



## Butterfly (Nov 23, 2020)

I know a lot more people who use alcohol in moderation than I've ever known people who abuse it.


----------



## DaveA (Nov 24, 2020)

Butterfly said:


> I know a lot more people who use alcohol in moderation than I've ever known people who abuse it.


I do as well, but I would assume that the same goes for some forms of the so-ca;;ed "drugs".  In my particular case, it's the hypocrisy of alcohol users ( nor necessarily abusers) who constantly complain about the same (non abusers) who partake of marijuana as a recreational outlet?

I use neither but I can sympathize with the casual drug user when they are constantly berated by the same level of alcohol users.

If you need mind-altering substances, they're all in the same boat - -take your choice.  If you don't, then you drink coffee or tea and eat powdered donuts.


----------



## asp3 (Nov 24, 2020)

DaveA said:


> If you need mind-altering substances, they're all in the same boat - -take your choice.  If you don't, then you drink coffee or tea and eat powdered donuts.



Caffeine is a mind altering substance and sugar is as well.  They're just both relatively safe and very socially acceptable.


----------



## 911 (Nov 24, 2020)

Sunny said:


> If we substitute the word "alcohol" for "drugs," every word said in this thread so far could still apply.
> 
> There are people who have let alcohol take over their entire lives, live only for the next drink, and many have sacrificed their life, their health, their job, their family and friends, for their addiction.
> 
> ...


Under the law (statute) in Pennsylvania, alcohol is considered a drug and PA is not the only state that declares this to be true. Because alcohol acts as a  depressant in the central nervous system, it has been declared as a drug and is treated as the same.  

While training a new Trooper, we had stopped a driver for driving 'under' the speed limit on the PA Turnpike. (The act of doing this is very dangerous to everyone in the vicinity of this driver.) The highway is posted and states that drivers must do a minimum of 45 mph. This driver was only going 33 mph. While questioning him, the new Trooper and myself noticed him slurring his speech and also unable to stand still without leaning left and right. We performed a field sobriety test and he failed, which gave us probable cause to take him to the hospital to have his drug drawn for a BAL test. His blood alcohol level was a 1.1, which was .03 over the legal level. We charged him with a DWI only and forgave the under speed citation.


----------



## Phoenix (Nov 24, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> "Portlandia"


That was a stupid show.  I assume you have learned to not believe everything you see.


----------



## Gardenlover (Nov 24, 2020)

@jerry old, I'm still waiting to hear what works. [asking for a close friend]

Or should all ye who enter here abandon all hope?


----------



## DaveA (Nov 25, 2020)

asp3 said:


> Caffeine is a mind altering substance and sugar is as well.  They're just both relatively safe and very socially acceptable.


I guess your info will limit my driving ability after a stop at Dunkin' Donuts or Starbucks.  Have to call someone to come and get me if my mind isn't altered to the extent that I can't operate my phone.


----------



## ohioboy (Mar 20, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> Serious question - what is the difference between legalized vs decriminalized? Does it boil down to basically getting a fine instead of jail time? Similar to getting a speeding ticket?
> 
> Decriminalization seems like the first step towards legalizing it.



When an offense is so called de-criminalized, it simply means that any possible incarceration time is voided/repealed. If there is no statutory provision for jail time, one is not entitled to a court appointed attorney or Jury trial. It's still illegal to possess.

Legalizing a drug means it was once prohibited, and then permitted to possess, or it was never codified in any way to begin with. If Oregon has a Home Rule provision parallel to Ohio, say it was an infraction under state law, a municipality can still codify it as a higher crime/offense, which concerning MJ possession, some do.


----------



## Happy Joe (Mar 20, 2021)

Yet another POOR decision from the Oregon politicians...
My belief is that the Federal government should step in...  Addiction to these drugs removes the choice of not to do them, or at least makes it much harder, IMO.
I have personally seen several lives & familes ruined by these drugs (along with crank (crystal methamphetamine)

Enjoy!


----------



## asp3 (Mar 20, 2021)

Happy Joe said:


> Yet another POOR decision from the Oregon politicians...
> My belief is that the Federal government should step in...  Addiction to these drugs removes the choice of not to do them, or at least makes it much harder, IMO.
> I have personally seen several lives & familes ruined by these drugs (along with crank (crystal methamphetamine)
> 
> Enjoy!



Have you read any of the studies they based their decision on?  If not how can you determine whether or not they made a poor decision?  It might be another one you disagree with but that doesn't make it a poor decision.  You should try looking into the reports of the effectiveness of drug criminalization in Portugal.

Have you ever considered that some of the lives and families you've personally seen ruined might have benefitted from the ability to try to deal with the drug problem without having to worry about someone ending up in jail because they were admitting to using a drug that carries criminal penalties for possession and/or use?


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Mar 20, 2021)

First, some of us are using cocaine, and heroine, right now. It is a billion$ business. We have found that there is absolutely no way to prevent some from using those drugs. We can only incarcerate them after the fact. And that hasn't worked well for us.  Having  draconian antidrug  laws only ramps up the cost to the user, and greatly increases  the amount of violence in drug organizations., not to mention corruption and contempt for the law. We are  so dead set to not let anyone get away with doing anything illegal, we don't understand that these are addictions, and by taking away that substance induces the addicted to do whatever to get the drug. Being "hard assed" on drugs is only increasing other crime, and "hard time" is only ramping up violence. We are the ones, who made "drugs"" illegal". We are the ones, who made it a crime. So how can we live with the scourge of drug use!!!!! The same way we learned to live with ,and tax tobacco,  alcohol, gambling, and in some areas prostitution.


----------



## Happy Joe (Mar 20, 2021)

asp3 said:


> Have you read any of the studies they based their decision on?  If not how can you determine whether or not they made a poor decision?  It might be another one you disagree with but that doesn't make it a poor decision.  You should try looking into the reports of the effectiveness of drug criminalization in Portugal.
> 
> Have you ever considered that some of the lives and families you've personally seen ruined might have benefitted from the ability to try to deal with the drug problem without having to worry about someone ending up in jail because they were admitting to using a drug that carries criminal penalties for possession and/or use?


I don't need "studies"; I have have had to sit on people to keep them from damaging themselves and others,  I also have long term experience with friends who have become addicted; and their families... I'm no expert but personal experience with people addicted to crack, crank coke, and heroin is all the proof that I need to make up my mind... along with seeing the wreckage they leave.

No longer though; if someone gets started on any of these they leave my life... trying to maintain contact/friendship with them is too hard on me.

Even pot sometimes causes significant psychological and personal problems... I won't even go into the damage that I have witnessed due to alcoholism.

These substances were made illegal for a reason (justifiably so, IMO).

I don't believe locking addicts up is the solution, however possessing the drugs themselves as well as their distribution should remain a crime.
Decriminalization is tacit approval, IMO.

Enjoy!

EDIT; BTW sorry for the rant!


----------



## Nathan (Mar 20, 2021)

> ...and now making it legal to use addictive drugs...


*No*, read the article!   It says:


> The Oregon drug initiative will allow people arrested with small amounts of hard drugs to avoid going to trial, and possible jail time, by paying a $100 fine and attending an addiction recovery program.


Decriminalize is *not *the same as "legalize".

It is a smart move, why tie up the police and courts and prisons with dealing with petty drug use....rather- getting these users into recovery programs is a far more constructive and to-the-point approach.


----------



## HoneyNut (Mar 20, 2021)

My opinion is the drugs should be not just decriminalized, but actually legalized.  I hate organized crime and legalizing takes jobs away from the actual dangerous criminals.  Being legal and being good are completely different, just because I think they should be legal doesn't mean I think people should do them.


----------



## Happy Joe (Mar 20, 2021)




----------



## Packerjohn (Mar 20, 2021)

It is wrong to blame Mexicans, Colombians and anybody else there for the drug problem.  The cause of the drug problem is Canada & the USA because they buy the drugs.  If there was no market for illegal drugs, there would be no problem.  Maybe there are just too many people now on this planet?


----------



## Sunny (Mar 20, 2021)

I have never used any addictive drug, nor do I knowingly have any acquaintances who have done so. Not even for the 18 years that I lived in WA state, which seems to be getting a bad rap all of a sudden.

Putting any addictive drug into your own body is the height of stupidity, IMO. But can't every single thing that is said against addictive drugs also be said against alcohol?  Did the period of prohibition in this country accomplish anything at all?  People who wanted a drink knew where to find one.

Alcohol is also addictive, for many people. It affects thinking, behavior, often causes violence against other people, destroys health, wrecks families, and causes umpteen automobile tragedies. Yet it is legal.

Some people (most of us) can get away with the use of small amounts of it. Some people should never go anywhere near it. But even for those people, having a drink does not put them in prison, cost them their jobs and their relationships, not unless they do something illegal or abusive when under the influence. Why shouldn't drugs be treated the same way?  Think how great it would be to get rid of the drug cartels, for one reason!

Marijuana is probably in a different category. I don't think it is even addictive. From what I understand, it causes peaceful dreaminess, not violence. It's probably responsible for a lot less criminality than alcohol.  Yet, because of its leftover image from the 60's, there are those who still want to lock people up for using it.


----------



## mrstime (Mar 21, 2021)

MarciKS said:


> The marijuana I can understand if it's medical marijuana. But seriously...cocaine...heroine and meth? WTH are they thinking?


They are thinking to treat addicts medically, rather than make them criminals.


----------



## MarciKS (Mar 21, 2021)

mrstime said:


> They are thinking to treat addicts medically, rather than make them criminals.


i think they need to work on getting the addicts off the drugs. rather than continuing to feed them more.


----------



## ManjaroKDE (Mar 21, 2021)

Love lists, looking over the most dangerous cities in America.  Not one city in Oregon placed in the top 10 or for that matter not one in the top 25 most dangerous.  Of course that's just one observer's opinion.   Still like the PacNW & rain over most places.


----------

