Let’s take a break from election results to look at an election result: Oregon decriminalized hard drugs:
Oregon became the first state to decriminalize small amounts of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs on Election Day, according to New York Times’ Thomas Fuller. In South Dakota, Montana, Arizona and New Jersey, voters chose to legalize recreational marijuana. Mississippi also adopted an initiative to create a medical marijuana program for patients with debilitating conditions.
These Election Day results effectively mean cannabis is now legal across a broad swatch of western states, from Arizona to Montana.
Due to Oregon measure 110, the possession of small amounts of harder drugs like heroin and cocaine will now amount to a violation, similar to a traffic ticket. It is no longer punishable by jail time. The Oregon measure passed by 60 percent of the vote and serves to help treat people with addictions rather than giving them jail time.
“This is the most significant reform in our nation’s failed drug policies in a generation,” The Executive Director of Drug Policy Alliance Kassandra Frederique told Washington Post’s Jaclyn Peiser. “It’s particularly significant because most people don’t realize that drug possession is the number one arrest in the country.”
Reasons this is a good thing:
However, decriminalization is only a halfway measure that doesn’t break up illegal drug cartels, doesn’t prevent minors from getting hooked, and does nothing to prevent junkies from continuing to commit property crimes to continue feeding their habit. Legalization and regulation of the drug trade are the far more promising avenues to reducing crime and drug abuse that simple decriminalization. There are myriad possible ways to test different carrot-and-stick measures (like legalized drug use licenses…but only for the employed; welfare recipients need not apply) to see which works best.
I fully believe that drug prohibition should be ended at the federal level because it’s not an enumerated power of the federal government. Let each state decide its own approach to narcotics and look at the resulting data to see what policy mixture works best.
Tags: 2020 Election, Austin, Democrats, drugs, Elections, heroin, marijuana, Oregon, Portland, War on Drugs
The concern this topic always raises for me is this–now that junkies can score and use drugs as they wish, it seems logical that usage will increase. With an increasing minimum wage, is anyone going to pay Joe Meth Head $15 an hour at the drive-through window while he shoots up on his break? If not, and if there is no good reason to limit his intake, the only possible means for him to buy his stuff are: 1) theft and petty crime; 2) welfare; or 3) prostitution. Which of these does not make the people around him suffer? I suppose that the state can begin providing drugs free of charge, but then the taxpayers still suffer–first, in paying for drugs, syringes, a place to administer and staff, and second in more deaths and hospitalizations.
As I understand it, employers can still prohibit drug use as part of their terms of employment, using drug tests to enforce their policy.
That said, this does put more pressure on employers to figure how to do that reliably.
Andrew, you are dead right.
How are the Meth Heads and Stoners going to pay for their room, board and drugs?
We can’t all expect Joe Biden to find us a cushy job in a foreign country.
So theft, robbery and prostitution will expand as a result.
And what of the children of the drug addicts? And the children that are born as a result of prostitution and being too stoned to use birth control?
Who pays for that?
You know the answer.
We do.
A stoned society is not a productive society – and soon enough, you will run out of other people’s money.
Sing it, brother
Consumtion and possession are decriminalized, but someone has to sell them, and that is still a criminal offense. With increased demand will come increased supply, and suppliers don’t take kindly to neighborhood competition. This law may succeed in lowering overall crime, but violent crime is sure to spike.
My concern about drug legalization is that the drugs involved have both short-term and long-term effects on physical and mental capacity. We sort of understand the first, but how will we test for the intoxicated operation of a motor vehicle (which affects public safety). We are just learning about the second, for instance the long term effects of marajuana. There is one task which every citizen is expected to perform, and which affects every other citizen: voting. In a time when responsible, aware voting is more important than ever, can we afford to have a sixth or an eighth of our voters permanently impaired?
Give me one positive result of legalizing drugs. Will it cut drug usage? Will it cut crime? Will it make better citizens? We all know the result of increased drug use.
1. Remove profit streams from criminal drug cartels.
2. Opportunity to pull junkies off the street and into programs.
3. Tax revenue.
4. Fewer overdose deaths due to regulation/control of venues.
5. Ability to restrict sales to underage users.
6. Remove incentive for drug turf wars should reduce violence.
7. Remove incentives for smuggling = easier border enforcement and fewer bribes of officials.
8. With no drug war, ability to prune parts of federal government, reign in overreach, and help restore federalism (overturn Wickard vs. Filmore).
9. More parallels with how eliminating alcohol prohibition reduced influence of organized crime.
10. If each state pursues its own drug legalization scheme, we’ll collect more data on what works and what doesn’t.
This all assume functioning cities, law enforcement, charities, etc., which is not going to happen in deep-blue cities defunding the police. But since those same cities are already starting to refuse to enforce laws against drug use…