this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
93 points (93.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35772 readers
963 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Rooki@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
L3s@lemmy.world
ja2@lemmy.world
_MoveSwiftly@lemmy.world
93
How can the Oregon government make drugs illegal again with no public comment periods or voter input at all? (lemmy.world)
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Their main excuse? Police were never properly trained on how to handle possession and use cases so they now want to offer immunity for a misdemeanor if you take treatment instead. If not, you get a misdemeanor and the draconian shit starts all over again. Source

top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 69 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I am an Oregonian. The Legislative Assembly is caving to public pressure.

I want to first say that this isn't about whether decriminalisation works. The views I am about to present are not necessarily held by me, but I am merely talking about the existence of these opinions because they deserve discussion.

People, in Oregon, generally viewed the decriminalisation programme as a failure. The Legislative Assembly failed to fund the necessary companion programmes and police training that would have been needed to give it the best chance of succeeding. Instead, when the referendum passed and decriminalisation came into force (without the involvement of the Legislative Assembly), they decided to just let it fail.

The reasons why decriminalisation failed are debated, but only a small subset of voters are privy to this debate and even understand the arguments. The rest see a failed experiment where the Government just legalised all drugs. It's easy to believe the latter and since it sounds logical to most people, that's where they stop thinking about it.

As a result, a majority of Oregonians believe that decriminalisation has failed, and the Legislative Assembly is acting on that.

Some people in this thread are blaming pharmaceutical companies and lobbying. That is a knee-jerk, unreasoned and ignorant reaction that fails at any amount of serious scrutiny and reflects an utter ignorance of what Oregonians actually think. If anything, pharmaceutical companies would have everything to gain from people having easier access to their products.

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 4 points 7 months ago

We didn’t do the access to treatment part correctly, from my perspective. OPB’s Oregon On the Record had some good interviews about this. The real heavy lifting was getting people into treatment and off drugs, but we didn’t fund it well.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Because citizens stepped over hobo shit in front of their front door one too many times, went to their representatives and said "this shit has to stop!" and the representatives went "You're right! There ought to be a law!"

It's a State version of this:

https://youtu.be/SZ8psP4S6BQ

[–] huginn@feddit.it 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Ah yes. Shitting in the streets. Classically a problem caused by drugs and definitely not anything else.

Good news! Because drugs are illegal now we don't have to build housing for the ever increasing homeless population!

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I mean, it is sort of a common thing in areas where heroin use is prevalent due to its effect on the digestive system.

The thing is, the law provided for treatment options and other ways to help addicts, but it was never implemented, probably on purpose to get this exact outcome.

[–] ShepherdPie@midwest.social 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The problem with this entire argument is that this was occurring long before the ballot measure passed in 2020 when "using drugs gets you a trip to jail." Putting people in jail once again is just wasting our tax dollars because it obviously didn't work as a deterrent before and won't work not.

After failing to fund any treatment centers like the law mandated, state Dems caved to Republican propaganda in order to do better in this year's election.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 5 points 7 months ago

Yeah, of course. Drug use has been going up in other states that didn't go down this route. It's a health issue, not a criminal issue, but there's too many people that are profiting off throwing scores of people in prison.

Decriminalisation should go hand in hand with defunding police and funding housing, health and education, so of course the police isn't going to be cooperative if you're trying to do that.

[–] huginn@feddit.it 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The point is that people are doing drugs on the street because the street is where they live.

If druggies have homes they do drugs at home.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 5 points 7 months ago

Yeah, of course. But they were unwilling to fund that aspect of the decriminalisation.

[–] kadotux@lemmings.world 1 points 7 months ago

That's well said!

[–] loomi@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The jailing has the street level appearance of fewer homeless on the street since they move to the jail for a bit. So while it’s going to cost the tax payer, the tax payer is going think “hey cool the homeless encampment is gone! Progress!”

Drug addiction and homelessness are really insidious problems.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Under 110 the choice was "Get treatment or get a $100 ticket that will never be enforced."

Out of 16,000 people ticketed, less than 1% called the toll free number to ask for treatment.

Under the new rules it's "Get treatment or go to jail."

I wonder which will be more effective in getting people treatment?

[–] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 3 points 7 months ago

Heard an interview from people trying to help with the program saying there were 1 hr hold times on the number to call for help. Which got you another time to call for an hour hold time. It was poorly done.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

Because voter input is all an illusion.

[–] HubertManne@kbin.social 10 points 7 months ago

Ultimately because its how the legislative system works. If drugs had been put into the state constitution as a right then they could not.

[–] nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 7 months ago

Making decisions is the whole point of repesentives. If you don't like their choices, don't vote for them. Unfortunately, most places use first-past-the-post voting, which tends to result in 2 extreme parties, and people end up having to vote for the one that sucks less.

[–] cerement@slrpnk.net -1 points 7 months ago

dollars = votes, pharma companies provided plenty of voter input …

[–] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world -4 points 7 months ago

What are you going to do about it?

[–] nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de -5 points 7 months ago

Making decisions is the whole point of repesentives. If you don't like their choices, don't vote for them. Unfortunately, most places use first-past-the-post voting, which tends to result in 2 extreme parties, and people end up having to vote for the one that sucks less.