140
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2024
140 points (95.5% liked)
politics
19086 readers
4214 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
110 was a massive failure that needs to be un-done, any issues with less problematic drugs can be handled on a one by one basis like we did with marijuana.
The measure was a good idea. The implementation was a failure. The plan included opening rehabs and encouraging/requiring addicts to get treatment if caught, but that part of the plan was never implemented.
So they never really committed to measure 110. They only tried half of it. So strange that a good idea would fail when only half of it was implemented.
Requiring treatment was never part of the plan.
The idea was you give people a $100 citation, and they get it waived by calling a toll free treatment number.
Out of 16,000 citations, less than 150 people called the number.
Not entered treatment mind you, they never even called the number.
KGW news reports that the treatment facilities were never built and that the citations for this program were never created. They also report that special citations to issue and instructions to contact any number were never given to police. So, there were no "new" citations issued, no new instructions given to the recipients of the standard (pre 110 style) citations and so there is no reason to expect anyone to call anything.
This was an implementation issue from the very beginning. They never even tried to issue the new citations. They used their same old citations without giving any instructions to call anyone. And they never built the specific facilities to support any of the potential new citation recipients. The only part of measure 110 that seems to have been implemented was not jailing people for drug possession.
Police issued standard citations and a business card with the number to call and instructions to call the number to get the $100 ticket waived.
Out of 16,000 tickets, less than 150 people called.
We didn't need to spend millions on treatment centers for < 150 people.
The folks supporting 110 argue more people would have called if we had given them "special" tickets. There's absolutely no evidence for that.
So what did the 16,000 people actually DO?
Needle exchanges, methadone, nalaxone. All the things that let them keep using instead of getting clean.
2/3 of these are just things that let them not die as a result of use, and methadone is generally used to facilitate getting clean and minimizing withdrawal symptoms, so what exactly are you going on about here? People will use heroin regardless, but if you would prefer more entirely avoidable deaths, sure, get rid of needle exchanges and nalaxone, and enjoy community transmission of HIV and Hepatitis going up along with overdose deaths. That'll really teach 'em, I'm sure.
These aren't programs that facilitate ongoing use amongst addicted populations, they're just stop-gap measures that mitigate the worst outcomes within these groups, which impact everyone. If you think people are just going to stop shooting up because they can't get a clean needle or might OD on something that's been cut, I don't know where you've been for the last 40 years.
Methadone CAN be used to get clean, is SUPPOSED to be used to get clean... Surprise! It's also abused:
https://www.addictioncenter.com/opiates/methadone/
This statement is disingenuous. The citations aren't "special" just because they are specific. The change in citation involves educating the recipient on the program and what will happen if they do not engage in the program. The "special" citations are clear, written instructions designed specifically to encourage addicted and often unhoused people to participate.
What was done instead was a small number of non-informative business cards (which were often not provided anyway) and regular (uninformative) tickets issued by officers who received zero training on encouraging participation in the program. There were no general orders created for police requiring them to provide instructions to ticket recipients and no training of any kind on implementing the new measure.
Police need to be trained and instructed on how to implement something like this. They can't be expected to guess what's needed or to make it up as they go. They cannot be expected to make an effective verbal sales pitch to an addict, or to even try without training. That is not an appropriate way to implement such a measure.
The few police who did their best to verbally explain it and handed out business cards did so on their own, without training or standard process. This program was simply never fully implemented.
The instructions were covered with the traditional ticket, verbal instructions, and the business card.
What makes you say it was a failure?
It didn't do the #1 thing that was promised and that was get more people into treatment.
So we got all the problems from massive increased drug use, and none of the benefits of getting more people into treatment.
I understand your frustration, but I don't think making drugs more illegal again is going to decrease the problem, though. The whole country is getting problems from increased drug use. The Fentanyl and Xylezene epidemic is all over the country now.
I think a better solution would be to actually force drug users into treatment when caught, don't give them the option. Giving them criminal charges isn't a push to getting an addict clean, though. It just makes it harder for them to find a job, which will lead to more despair and drug use.
Let me pose you two scenarios:
You get a $100 ticket, which you can ignore, or you can seek treatment.
You're going to jail or get treatment. Pick one.
Which one do you think is going to be more effective in guiding people to treatment?
We know #1 was useless. Less than 1% chose treatment.
Small studies on #2 show it works. You can't give them the choice.
https://www.yesmagazine.org/social-justice/2023/10/10/police-drug-crimes-treatment
I can't agree with you more there. The way that Oregon decided to go about it was too lax. I was just adding that the way the rest of the country handles it isn't the way to really help the problem either. That method is too harsh.
We need to decriminalize and regulate the drugs for harm reduction, and force users of hard drugs into treatment. I am totally okay with jail if they refuse the help. Just don't ruin drug users lives even more with a criminal record, for the crime of ruining their own lives.