Oregon bill decriminalizes possession of Drugs

originally posted by: silo13
a reply to: Aliensun

Thanks for a bit of sanity in all this.

Pot? Sure.

All the rest?

NO WAY!

Seriously? This is what you want 'legal'? Why not just go out and shoot them and put them out of their misery.

You stupid sogs.

Hate to break it to you, but methamphetamine is already legal, and being used daily by people all around the country.

Desoxyn

For years on end. Funny, the people who legally get a clean product don't show up in YouTube videos with sores all over their face. It's almost like doing a drug made from chemicals under your sink is bad for you.

Maybe if there was a way people could get what they're going to get anyway in a safe, clean manner, a lot these sore faced meth addicts wouldn't exist..

Punishing a drug user is the opposite of helping them and society. Maybe one day society will see that.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Generally a law violation needs to occur before law enforcement could act on the criminal side. From the medical side they cant force someone to go to the hospital unless they present a danger t themselves or others (homicidal / suicidal ideations). Absent that the person can just leave AMA.

Disorderly conduct / public intox laws are restrictive and are unconstitutional in some states (like mine).

As for treatment verse incarceration I think Portugal had an interesting idea. If someone is caught with "hard drugs" they got a choice. Going through a rehab type clinic or going to jail and doing time. It is dependent on type of drug and how much a person is in possession of. Also after so many failed rehab attempts that is no longer an option - straight to jail if convicted.

Legalizing drugs of the magnitude described is, as someone else pointed out, dangerous from a fiscal liability aspect. Who pays for their medical from overdoses / injuries / adverse side effects that impact health / injuries or damages to other people etc? We are going broke as it is at all levels of government and adding in another nanny layer wont help.

a reply to: projectvxn

Exactly, didnt Portrugal recently do this with staggering results IE reduction of use and crime?

a reply to: BlueJacket

A lot of libertarians and conservatives would disagree with me on the treatment approach for addiction to drugs that Portugal took.

But, IF that money is going to be spent anyway on a law enforcement approach to addiction, then it would stand to reason that treating addiction with that same money would make sense, if we are to pivot decriminalization that is.

a reply to: underwerks

man, did you catch that opening disclaimer? Harsh stuff.

METHAMPHETAMINE HAS A HIGH POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE. IT SHOULD THUS BE TRIED ONLY IN WEIGHT REDUCTION PROGRAMS FOR PATIENTS IN WHOM ALTERNATIVE THERAPY HAS BEEN INEFFECTIVE. ADMINISTRATION OF METHAMPHETAMINE FOR PROLONGED PERIODS OF TIME IN OBESITY MAY LEAD TO DRUG DEPENDENCE AND MUST BE AVOIDED. PARTICULAR ATTENTION SHOULD BE PAID TO THE POSSIBILITY OF SUBJECTS OBTAINING METHAMPHETAMINE FOR NON-THERAPEUTIC USE OR DISTRIBUTION TO OTHERS, AND THE DRUG SHOULD BE PRESCRIBED OR DISPENSED SPARINGLY. MISUSE OF METHAMPHETAMINE MAY CAUSE SUDDEN DEATH AND SERIOUS CARDIOVASCULAR ADVERSE EVENTS.

a reply to: Xcathdra
Im ok with drug diversion programs. But in many instances rehab is just a holiday where they will still get their drugs. They are more likely to get clean from a straight stint behind bars. I known only 3 people that had to go to rehab. They all said they were still doing drugs inside the rehab, and they were court ordered! How does that happen?
Im not talking about the stuff that is supposed to ween them off either. Corruption or lax enforcement I guess??

a reply to: underwerks

It is a schedule II narcotic, meaning its valid for certain medical conditions and can only be authorized by a Doctor with a written prescription requiring a signature of the Doctor (they cant phone it in / use a hospital order system). It also means there are strict guidelines on manufacturing and distribution / delivery.

Now, are you telling us that meth users are going to go to their doctor in hopes of getting meth prescribed to them for a medical condition they dont have?

The "its legal in the US" position is a bit off base since it doesnt take that aspect into account.


ETA - Also consider that medical prescription drugs are specific in their dose, delivering a consistent dose with predictable patient responses. People getting high / tweaking off street grade Meth run into the issue of the very first bump being the highest they will ever get. It is one of the reasons they keep taking more and more of it. They are trying to recreate the very first time, which will never happen.

Secondly street grade uses ingredients that arent used in medical grade, creating another part of the high they wont get from medical grade.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
I known only 3 people that had to go to rehab. They all said they were still doing drugs inside the rehab, and they were court ordered! How does that happen?

Hence the issues with fiscal liability and the dangers of creating anther tax payer funded nanny layer.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: underwerks

It is a schedule II narcotic, meaning its valid for certain medical conditions and can only be authorized by a Doctor with a written prescription requiring a signature of the Doctor (they cant phone it in / use a hospital order system). It also means there are strict guidelines on manufacturing and distribution / delivery.

Now, are you telling us that meth users are going to go to their doctor in hopes of getting meth prescribed to them for a medical condition they dont have?

The "its legal in the US" position is a bit off base since it doesnt take that aspect into account.

If it is a requirement of legal use, yes.

Understand, when I'm talking about legalization or decriminalization, I don't mean you walk into a store and there's meth in a package on a shelf. All users of drugs that have the ability to be dangerous to that person need to be properly educated on the dangers of said drug.

Maybe a required course with a test, and then you are prescribed your monthly or weekly amount. One of thr fallacies I see in the arguments of opponents of decriminalization is a belief that legalization means smack will be sold at the gas station down the street, when that isn't the case.

Ignorance is what makes drugs as deadly and as dangerous as they are. With education, you can mitigate that. And in the process help the person and society.

a reply to: underwerks

In all my years in law enforcement I have very rarely come across people willing to readily admit they are a drug user. Its like trying to legalize prostitution with the mindset control over the industry will help. Again you run into the issue of people not really wanting to openly admit they are prostitutes.

I understand your argument however my issue, after dealing with people who were strung out on drugs across the spectrum, is a lot of times the only reason law enforcement gets involved is because the person on drugs did something that violated the law. That violation occurred because they were on drugs.

I have had the unique experience of fighting with a guy on PCP. 9 officers from 2 jurisdictions is what it took to get the guy under control and in custody. Once we got to the hospital he started round 2, throwing officers around like rag dolls.

Some of these drugs can affect how a person experiences / process normal signals from the body, like pain receptors. Some of these drugs literally can create a brain response where instead of processing pain as pain they process pain as a color or smell. It means pain is not registering, which means the greater the risk of a deadly force encounter.

I just think that people who want to legalize all drugs have never been on the receiving end of a combative / violent person who is strung out. Or has never seen the aftermath of a drug fueled assault... or a drug fueled car accident... The other issue is addicts would rather spend their money on their next fix instead of food and clothes for their kids.People sometimes resort to theft in order to get the cash or steal items to sell for cash to get their next fix.

I just think its asking for a whole lot of trouble with nothing positive to be gained from it.

Just my opinion of course.

a reply to: underwerks

This is actually progress, because drug use is a health/mental issue, not a criminal one and now perhaps more studies can be funded to help understand and treat drug addiction.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: BlueJacket

A lot of libertarians and conservatives would disagree with me on the treatment approach for addiction to drugs that Portugal took.

But, IF that money is going to be spent anyway on a law enforcement approach to addiction, then it would stand to reason that treating addiction with that same money would make sense, if we are to pivot decriminalization that is.

I support drug legalization as the war on drugs has clearly failed. It is costing too much money and nobody with two functioning brain cells would claim the war against drugs has been successful. We have to accept the fact there is a percentage of the population that are idiots. Society has to decide the best way to handle these losers.

I rather the money we are spending keeping these people in jail could be better spent on rehabilitation and other addiction services.

I'm actually for legalizing all manner of vices... gambling and prostitution included.

a reply to: underwerks

I pretty much always Flag threads anything to do with this sort of topic. Although I dont always get around to digging into them. I'm trying to quit (ATS)!

a reply to: Xcathdra

First off, your knowledge of pharmacology seems to be lacking. No drug, including PCP, reroutes your pain response so it's perceived as a color or smell. True, some numb the pain response to a certain degree, but that's as far as it goes.

Drugs like PCP can be dangerous, depending on the dose. Which is where the education comes in. And with a standardized product, people can correctly titrate their dose to avoid the butt-naked running down the street fighting with cops experience.

It seems as a law enforcement officer you're following the prevailing notion in law enforcement that it's the drugs, when in reality it's the climate of illegality that makes these drugs so dangerous and detrimental to the person and society.

When everything is above board and not forced underground, it's better for everyone.

ETA: Even though I disagree, I respect your opinion. I've been on the other side of the drug war my whole life, and seen the damage that's been done. You probably have a different view.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: underwerks

I pretty much always Flag threads anything to do with this sort of topic. Although I dont always get around to digging into them. I'm trying to quit (ATS)!

Just ween yourself off a little at a time, but your input is valued by some, I am sure.

a reply to: Xcathdra

People sometimes resort to theft in order to get the cash or steal items to sell for cash to get their next fix.

This right here is where it hurts. I had to suffer that very experience and it was not pretty. I cut off a friend of mine of fifteen years that I was helping out when he was homeless. Steal from me, whatever I understand. Steal from my wife, oh thats grounds for something physical right there. But steal from my children?? Disowning my former friend after putting him in some pain on Christmas Eve is where that ended up.

We were real close good friends for fifteen years. But that man was just no longer the person I knew, hit rock bottom too hard. I was his last lifeline after everyone else turned him away, even his own sick mother.

People think that controlling drugs is the rule, not the exception. The problem is it is the opposite. Those that can regulate and manage their habits are the exception, and destroyed lives are the rule. For every one person that can actually function as a crack addict, hundreds more are destroying their own lives and those of their friends and loved ones from their actions.

And PCP, that is probably the worst thing somebody can put in their body. It will put them in another world that no individual will be able to tame. Like you said, it takes a small army just to get somebody on that stuff into custody.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Interestingly, I watched a TV program where a program was giving severe alcoholics measured drinks periodically throughout the day, to keep them at a normal functional range. The same can be done for any drug, in my opinion. Of course, these are for the severe cases. With more studies, perhaps they can find a drug where the user will loose that wanting feeling.

a reply to: underwerks

My experience says otherwise on pain perception and different drugs. In one incident there was a pursuit where the driver was on meth. He wrecked out pretty bad and ended up with 2 broken arms. While waiting for medical he was chatty and was not aware his arms were even broken. It was not processing in his brain.

any drug can be dangerous and like anything the drug combined with the persons tolerance to it and their activity while on it all come into play.

As for drugs verse legality as I stated before a large bulk of law enforcement encounters with people who have illicit drugs on them / in their system is because a law violation already occurred. Further those individuals arent arrested in their own home but out in public or on private property they arent welcome to be on.

If people want to do drugs then restrict it to your private residence. The moment you come out into public and create a danger for yourself / people around you then we have issues.

If drugs were legalized how many people would remain in their homes? I ask because as it stands now, the bulk of people we come into contact with who are strung out are out in public now, when its illegal. I doubt legalizing drugs will cause those individuals to all of a sudden remain in their residences.

Here is the other downfall of laws like that: Employment.

Most companies, in states that allow for the use of say Pot, still have policies that are 0 drug tolerant and if one pees hot, they may still be fired or not get employed. Last time a case like that went up through the courts, was from Colorado.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Here is the other downfall of laws like that: Employment.

Most companies, in states that allow for the use of say Pot, still have policies that are 0 drug tolerant and if one pees hot, they may still be fired or not get employed. Last time a case like that went up through the courts, was from Colorado.

Time to protest or take it to court for human rights violation if the law says it's legal.

a reply to: underwerks

I starred and flagged you on this one.

It's about time we start treating addiction as a medical issue and not a crime.