After hearing hours of controversial testimony on Measure 110 in Congress, legislative hearing I was struck by how everyone who testified last week for and against the recriminalization of hard drugs came from the same place.
Opioids like fentanyl are dangerous, their continued use negatively affects the mind and body, and dependence on such drugs can destroy lives, lose families, and tear apart the fabric of a humane society. Everyone acknowledged this, at least tacitly.
Another observation: The people who shared the most compelling stories of family tragedy and personal loss said that no matter their view on Measure 110, the addiction crisis is a public health crisis and that effective treatment is essential. They seemed to agree that access to the Internet is the most urgent and necessary response. .
But beyond this initial reaction, we are lost. We are divided in our appreciation of the lessons learned from the War on Drugs and our willingness to consider the range of responses needed to overcome this human crisis at hand. A return to a public health model may help get us back on a common track.
Public health advocates like to talk about upstream and downstream distinctions when it comes to chronic diseases and systemic health issues. Addressing the causes of these problems, such as unhealthy diets, unsanitary living conditions, and unequal access to early diagnosis and care, will improve our ability to respond to needs downstream on the epidemic scale. It is often the most effective way to control what overwhelms you.
But this does not seem to be a distinction that opponents of reinstating criminal penalties for harmful drug use are willing to acknowledge. They also oppose lighter penalties for sustained use, such as creating a Class C misdemeanor with the option of diversion into treatment, as proposed by Democratic lawmakers. Joint Committee on Addiction and Community Safety Response. Proponents of Measure 110 focused instead on downstream needs for more and better treatment options.
Yes, we need to strengthen our capacity to deliver effective treatment. But we also need to recognize the multiple upstream causes of today's addiction crisis and how those causes are exacerbating current challenges.
In this upstream environment, Measure 110 has become our own problem.
Tolerance of the use of non-prescription opioids and related hard drugs has made them easier to obtain and harder to stop. Furthermore, allowing the public use of such drugs fosters disgust and resentment towards an issue that requires our understanding and involvement. On the other hand, most people who suffer from addiction choose not to seek treatment. It's as if we sowed seeds into rain clouds in watersheds that were already threatening to overwhelm social infrastructure, and accepted the idea of ”don't look up” against the ensuing floods.
There is a clear need for better funded efforts to expand treatment capacity. But that's also not enough. In a society governed by 911 measures, continued reliance on late-stage voluntary treatment models may never be able to stem the epidemic of addiction.
Measure 110 does not deserve all the blame for the current crisis. That's just one of many causes, including the toxicity of the drugs currently on the market. But that's a mistake we made and we need to fix it.
I was one of the majority of Oregonians who voted for Measure 110. This is in part due to the injustices and failures of the punitive criminalization regime and wishful thinking about the ability of those in the throes of addiction to respond to offers of treatment. . I'm not going to vote for it today, and I don't want to go back to the law that was in place before it was passed.
Let this be the lesson learned from Measure 110. We cannot afford to focus solely on building and improving our treatment systems without doing a better job of blocking the supply and access of dangerous drugs and putting limits on the amount of dangerous drugs allowed when they are used. It has led to early intervention for people who use such drugs in public and are on the road to addiction.
What I confirmed at last week's hearing was that some kind of criminal penalty for sustained use with meaningful diversion options for effective treatment would address the upstream flaws in Measure 110 and the that it is necessary at this moment to correct a greater evil. wake up.
Get the morning headlines delivered to your inbox
