Oregon becomes the first state to decriminalize hard drugs like cocaine and heroin

If we substitute the word "alcohol" for "drugs," every word said in this thread so far could still apply.

There are people who have let alcohol take over their entire lives, live only for the next drink, and many have sacrificed their life, their health, their job, their family and friends, for their addiction.

There are people who consider alcohol a tool of the Devil, and will not go near it. Or don't use it because they have seen other lives ruined by it. Or are allergic, or just don't like it. When this country had Prohibition, people were locked up for using it. (Sound familiar?)

Most people use it in moderation, for recreational use, relaxation, socialization, etc. It usually does no harm, as long as they refrain from driving, and might be a positive element of life. Obviously, the majority of people have felt that way about it since Biblical times.

So, jerryold, do you feel that users of alcohol should all be locked up indiscriminately? Probably not. Does looking at it that way change your slant on the drug question a little? Do you think the criminal justice system should take measures to stop any and all use of alcohol? And if someone is locked up for that reason, that he has no rights?
Under the law (statute) in Pennsylvania, alcohol is considered a drug and PA is not the only state that declares this to be true. Because alcohol acts as a depressant in the central nervous system, it has been declared as a drug and is treated as the same.

While training a new Trooper, we had stopped a driver for driving 'under' the speed limit on the PA Turnpike. (The act of doing this is very dangerous to everyone in the vicinity of this driver.) The highway is posted and states that drivers must do a minimum of 45 mph. This driver was only going 33 mph. While questioning him, the new Trooper and myself noticed him slurring his speech and also unable to stand still without leaning left and right. We performed a field sobriety test and he failed, which gave us probable cause to take him to the hospital to have his drug drawn for a BAL test. His blood alcohol level was a 1.1, which was .03 over the legal level. We charged him with a DWI only and forgave the under speed citation.
 

Serious question - what is the difference between legalized vs decriminalized? Does it boil down to basically getting a fine instead of jail time? Similar to getting a speeding ticket?

Decriminalization seems like the first step towards legalizing it.

When an offense is so called de-criminalized, it simply means that any possible incarceration time is voided/repealed. If there is no statutory provision for jail time, one is not entitled to a court appointed attorney or Jury trial. It's still illegal to possess.

Legalizing a drug means it was once prohibited, and then permitted to possess, or it was never codified in any way to begin with. If Oregon has a Home Rule provision parallel to Ohio, say it was an infraction under state law, a municipality can still codify it as a higher crime/offense, which concerning MJ possession, some do.
 
Last edited:
Yet another POOR decision from the Oregon politicians...
My belief is that the Federal government should step in... Addiction to these drugs removes the choice of not to do them, or at least makes it much harder, IMO.
I have personally seen several lives & familes ruined by these drugs (along with crank (crystal methamphetamine)

Enjoy!
 
Last edited:
Yet another POOR decision from the Oregon politicians...
My belief is that the Federal government should step in... Addiction to these drugs removes the choice of not to do them, or at least makes it much harder, IMO.
I have personally seen several lives & familes ruined by these drugs (along with crank (crystal methamphetamine)

Enjoy!

Have you read any of the studies they based their decision on? If not how can you determine whether or not they made a poor decision? It might be another one you disagree with but that doesn't make it a poor decision. You should try looking into the reports of the effectiveness of drug criminalization in Portugal.

Have you ever considered that some of the lives and families you've personally seen ruined might have benefitted from the ability to try to deal with the drug problem without having to worry about someone ending up in jail because they were admitting to using a drug that carries criminal penalties for possession and/or use?
 
First, some of us are using cocaine, and heroine, right now. It is a billion$ business. We have found that there is absolutely no way to prevent some from using those drugs. We can only incarcerate them after the fact. And that hasn't worked well for us. Having draconian antidrug laws only ramps up the cost to the user, and greatly increases the amount of violence in drug organizations., not to mention corruption and contempt for the law. We are so dead set to not let anyone get away with doing anything illegal, we don't understand that these are addictions, and by taking away that substance induces the addicted to do whatever to get the drug. Being "hard assed" on drugs is only increasing other crime, and "hard time" is only ramping up violence. We are the ones, who made "drugs"" illegal". We are the ones, who made it a crime. So how can we live with the scourge of drug use!!!!! The same way we learned to live with ,and tax tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and in some areas prostitution.
 
Have you read any of the studies they based their decision on? If not how can you determine whether or not they made a poor decision? It might be another one you disagree with but that doesn't make it a poor decision. You should try looking into the reports of the effectiveness of drug criminalization in Portugal.

Have you ever considered that some of the lives and families you've personally seen ruined might have benefitted from the ability to try to deal with the drug problem without having to worry about someone ending up in jail because they were admitting to using a drug that carries criminal penalties for possession and/or use?
I don't need "studies"; I have have had to sit on people to keep them from damaging themselves and others, I also have long term experience with friends who have become addicted; and their families... I'm no expert but personal experience with people addicted to crack, crank coke, and heroin is all the proof that I need to make up my mind... along with seeing the wreckage they leave.

No longer though; if someone gets started on any of these they leave my life... trying to maintain contact/friendship with them is too hard on me.

Even pot sometimes causes significant psychological and personal problems... I won't even go into the damage that I have witnessed due to alcoholism.

These substances were made illegal for a reason (justifiably so, IMO).

I don't believe locking addicts up is the solution, however possessing the drugs themselves as well as their distribution should remain a crime.
Decriminalization is tacit approval, IMO.

Enjoy!

EDIT; BTW sorry for the rant!
 
Last edited:
...and now making it legal to use addictive drugs...
No, read the article! It says:
The Oregon drug initiative will allow people arrested with small amounts of hard drugs to avoid going to trial, and possible jail time, by paying a $100 fine and attending an addiction recovery program.
Decriminalize is not the same as "legalize".

It is a smart move, why tie up the police and courts and prisons with dealing with petty drug use....rather- getting these users into recovery programs is a far more constructive and to-the-point approach.
 
My opinion is the drugs should be not just decriminalized, but actually legalized. I hate organized crime and legalizing takes jobs away from the actual dangerous criminals. Being legal and being good are completely different, just because I think they should be legal doesn't mean I think people should do them.
 
It is wrong to blame Mexicans, Colombians and anybody else there for the drug problem. The cause of the drug problem is Canada & the USA because they buy the drugs. If there was no market for illegal drugs, there would be no problem. Maybe there are just too many people now on this planet?
 
I have never used any addictive drug, nor do I knowingly have any acquaintances who have done so. Not even for the 18 years that I lived in WA state, which seems to be getting a bad rap all of a sudden.

Putting any addictive drug into your own body is the height of stupidity, IMO. But can't every single thing that is said against addictive drugs also be said against alcohol? Did the period of prohibition in this country accomplish anything at all? People who wanted a drink knew where to find one.

Alcohol is also addictive, for many people. It affects thinking, behavior, often causes violence against other people, destroys health, wrecks families, and causes umpteen automobile tragedies. Yet it is legal.

Some people (most of us) can get away with the use of small amounts of it. Some people should never go anywhere near it. But even for those people, having a drink does not put them in prison, cost them their jobs and their relationships, not unless they do something illegal or abusive when under the influence. Why shouldn't drugs be treated the same way? Think how great it would be to get rid of the drug cartels, for one reason!

Marijuana is probably in a different category. I don't think it is even addictive. From what I understand, it causes peaceful dreaminess, not violence. It's probably responsible for a lot less criminality than alcohol. Yet, because of its leftover image from the 60's, there are those who still want to lock people up for using it.
 
Love lists, looking over the most dangerous cities in America. Not one city in Oregon placed in the top 10 or for that matter not one in the top 25 most dangerous. Of course that's just one observer's opinion. Still like the PacNW & rain over most places.
 

Last edited:

Back
Top