95
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Democratic lawmakers in Oregon on Tuesday unveiled a sweeping new bill that would undo a key part of the state’s first-in-the-nation drug decriminalization law, a recognition that public opinion has soured on the measure amid rampant public drug use during the fentanyl crisis.

The bill would recriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs as a low-level misdemeanor, enabling police to confiscate them and crack down on their use on sidewalks and in parks, its authors said. It also aims to make it easier to prosecute dealers, to access addiction treatment medication, and to obtain and keep housing without facing discrimination for using that medication.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social 12 points 8 months ago

Do you think kids should be subjected to people shooting up drugs when playing outside or when going to school?

I am anti drug war personally but if any situation led to it being easier for kids to be subjected to that, that seems like a worse world.

[-] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 23 points 8 months ago

Wont someone think of the children!?!??!?!?!!??!?!?!??!

Very "Hello fellow kids" kinda comment with that "im anti drug war..." part

Beyond all that, countries like Netherlands have safe injection sites where users can get clean needles, be in a safe space for consumption, test kits for safety, and monitors to watch for accidental overdoses.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 7 points 8 months ago

Oregon doesn’t have that kind of funding or ability to organize. Portland is a massive shit-show of mismanagement.

I don’t want drug use to be a crime either, but ffs this isn’t the way.

[-] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 8 months ago

Harm reduction sites already exist in Portland and provide many of those services. The US justice department has traditionally been a block for doing more.

[-] Spiralvortexisalie@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

The drugs laws in place since the 80s have essentially made providing any type of support to a drug user in the United States a federal offense. This is why safe injection sites in New York City took decades to open and essentially opened in defiance of Federal rulings against such sites source. Corporate Counsel for the City of New York has essentially dared the Federal government to come stop them citing a public health emergency in preventing overdoses, and the U.S. Attorney (Prosecutor) for the Southern District of NY (where the sites are) promising swift enforcement (which has yet to materialize) source

[-] Bitrot@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 8 months ago

I'm glad the second article got into the history a bit. Regardless of what the prosecutor is saying, the Biden DoJ has signaled more openness, but the election could change things quickly.

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

That doesn’t mean the funds have been used appropriately.

[-] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 13 points 8 months ago

All these negative effects are consequences of the war on drugs, not the drugs themselves. If society treats drug addicts as patients instead of as criminals, things get better. This has worked every time it's been tried. The only reason it isn't done in a larger scale is people who benefit from the war on drugs preventing it.

[-] ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Do you think if we stop the war on drugs, that will reduce the number of homeless drug addicted people? I don't think it will. There's need to be more to it than that, otherwise you're literally not preparing for the 2nd half of that foot drop.

I largely agree alot of these problems are a result of criminalizing drug use but decriminizing doesn't solve some of these problems with homeless folks which is probably more related to mental health services.

[-] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 2 points 8 months ago

Ending the war on drugs will not solve every problem. But at least things will stop getting worse. And it'll make it far easier to tackle all the other problems.

[-] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Yes. Why hide the world when it's right in front of them? Tall to the child, tell them what is happening and do not imply judgement. Unless you feel the need to talk shit about those with drug addiction, then that's your personal thing but most folks find that kind of thing distasteful since its metaphorically kicking someone while they are stuck in a life they can't get out of. And many do want out, want to quit, but they lack the help and resources to escape. So if you are upset at seeing this and want others to "think of the children", ask yourself what you will do about it?

tHiNk Of TeH kIdS!!!!!!11!!!1!!

[-] ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

It's a relevant point. We don't allow cigarette companies to advertise to children so should it be acceptable to advertise crack or coke?

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

The ban on tobacco advertisements is a relatively recent thing.

We're inundated with ads for alcohol and pharmaceuticals.

Super unhealthy sugar-filled snacks and breakfast cereals made up like 90% of TV commercials when I was growing up.

[-] ZahzenEclipse@kbin.social 1 points 7 months ago

Yeah and we need to stop those too.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 2 points 8 months ago

That's one reason why more progressive areas have safe injection sites. Wanna guess who's generally against those?

this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2024
95 points (100.0% liked)

News

22907 readers
3108 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS