They effectively did one without the other. From what I’ve been able to gather Oregon is actually one of the worst states for mental health and addiction care. Now of course they realized this and tried to appropriate money to deal with that. But they didn’t get enough and there was no lead time. They decriminalized before the new infrastructure was in place. So all of the aid groups and government health agencies that did exist were playing catch up the entire time. Imagine the crunch with the entire state emergency hiring counselors, trying to buy new buildings for safe use centers, and new inpatient centers; all at the same time.
So the net effect was people watched a drug problem get worse (because COVID did that all over the world) with less tools to deal with it than before. Instead of what they wanted to see, which would have been different tools to deal with it. In the end shutting it down and going back to arrests and courts became an easy case for Conservatives.
The lesson aid groups and governments should take away is not that decriminalization is bad. Just that they must have enough health infrastructure to deal with the problem because there’s a lot of people who would be in the prison system that are going to suddenly be in the health system. And a pandemic is a horrible time to make sweeping policy changes on anything but getting through the pandemic.
I’m glad that you shared this, because it’s good to know the pitfalls when implementing changes in policy. I want a robust and easy access healthcare system anyway, but it’s good to know it’s a prerequisite for softening on drugs.
Removed by mod
A prison sentence is a slave sentence, can’t give up that juicy juicy slave labor so easily.
:(
Unfortunately Oregon just proved decriminalization needs a functioning healthcare system to support it.
For weed I think we’d be fine.
Oh yeah, absolutely. I’m sorry my brain is on empty today.
No worries. Stay safe and sleep well.
How did they prove that? (genuinely asking, not being sarcastic)
They effectively did one without the other. From what I’ve been able to gather Oregon is actually one of the worst states for mental health and addiction care. Now of course they realized this and tried to appropriate money to deal with that. But they didn’t get enough and there was no lead time. They decriminalized before the new infrastructure was in place. So all of the aid groups and government health agencies that did exist were playing catch up the entire time. Imagine the crunch with the entire state emergency hiring counselors, trying to buy new buildings for safe use centers, and new inpatient centers; all at the same time.
So the net effect was people watched a drug problem get worse (because COVID did that all over the world) with less tools to deal with it than before. Instead of what they wanted to see, which would have been different tools to deal with it. In the end shutting it down and going back to arrests and courts became an easy case for Conservatives.
The lesson aid groups and governments should take away is not that decriminalization is bad. Just that they must have enough health infrastructure to deal with the problem because there’s a lot of people who would be in the prison system that are going to suddenly be in the health system. And a pandemic is a horrible time to make sweeping policy changes on anything but getting through the pandemic.
I’m glad that you shared this, because it’s good to know the pitfalls when implementing changes in policy. I want a robust and easy access healthcare system anyway, but it’s good to know it’s a prerequisite for softening on drugs.
You’re a legend, thanks for taking the time to reply, i appreciate it.