Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

drugpolicy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 242 posts

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#161

Post by 0xffff2 »

pacifist wrote: post #154
GuB-42 wrote: post #46

Just to make things clear, decriminalization is not legalization. Drugs are still illegal, and users risk a $100 fine, especially if they are uncooperative. The difference is that it is now a civil violation instead of a crime, so no record, no jail time, kind of like a parking ticket. Drug trafficking is still a crime.

"especially if they are uncooperative." Oh yeah. I really don't like the idea of an officer having discretion in these situations. First sign of bad legislation IMHO.

Police officers always have discretion. It would be impossible to legislate that away. It's been a while since I read the law (I'm an Oregon resident, so I read it before I voted for it), but I'd imagine that the law doesn't give any particular discretion in enforcement, but in the real world an officer can always choose not to issue a ticket/make an arrest.

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#162

Post by sandworm101 »

throwawayboise wrote: post #147
sandworm101 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speeding is a crime. If a cop suspect you of speeding they can pull you over, search your car and basically ruin your entire day if they so choose. Proper decriminalization would mean that cops, even with strong suspicions that you are carrying drugs, would not be allowed to stop/search. That would be akin to a parking ticket.

THey still need cause to search your car. Not that they won't manufacture it if they want to. But I've been pulled over for speeding, expired tags, and other minor traffic issues a few times and have never had my car searched.

>> But I've been pulled over

So you did get pulled over. So you were in detention/arrest (insert lawyer debate here) as in you were physically stopped. At that point the cop can search your car. He probably did. He almost certainly looked in the back seat and counted the number of passengers/objects there, something he could not do as you sped by. He then examined your life in that he looked to see if you had outstanding warrants and whether your insurance/license/registration was all in order. Had he wanted to, he could remove you from the vehicle and pat you down for weapons. Speeding, being a crime, allowed him to do these things that parking tickets do not.

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#163

Post by giantg2 »

throwawayboise wrote: post #147
sandworm101 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speeding is a crime. If a cop suspect you of speeding they can pull you over, search your car and basically ruin your entire day if they so choose. Proper decriminalization would mean that cops, even with strong suspicions that you are carrying drugs, would not be allowed to stop/search. That would be akin to a parking ticket.

THey still need cause to search your car. Not that they won't manufacture it if they want to. But I've been pulled over for speeding, expired tags, and other minor traffic issues a few times and have never had my car searched.

The level of what qualifies as probable cause varies by state too. For example, I've heard that the courts in MD have held that police can pull you over and search your car on the basis that the owner has a carry permit from another state (as shown in NCIC when scanning your plate).

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#164

Post by ogre_codes »

netizen-9748 wrote: post #152
ogre_codes wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly agree. I think a lot of drugs should be legalized. Some which I think are addictive/ destructive enough where they should be kept illegal. Bath salts, crack cocaine, are good examples of the latter. I also think we should be deliberate in how we tread this path.

What compound is 'bath salts'? Is there more than one? Do they do different things?

As I said, it should be a deliberate approach with specifics. Blowing it open all at once might be... really bad.

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#165

Post by valuearb »

ogre_codes wrote: post #136
valuearb wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug “trafficking” should absolutely be legal. While Decriminalization is laudatory and beneficial, it solves far fewer problems than outright legalization. With decriminalization: 1) drug users will still not know what they are actually consuming. They can very easily invest drugs heavily mixed with other drugs, or dangerous chemicals. This will lead to far higher levels of accidental overdoses and is a path to more…

I'm not going to argue this because I agree in many (most?) cases. But I do think there is value in taking a measured approach to the problem as opposed to opening the flood gates.

The measured approach is a problem too. You see it in marijuana legalization, where some state’s are so restrictive about licensing sakes outlets that legal weed costs more than illegal.

How can that kill off a dangerous black market?

Someone who is going to try heroin is going to try heroin. They can live a mostly long, healthy, productive life if they get clean drugs and needles. Where are they going to get that from decriminalization?

An idea I’ve noodled around with is adding drug (and alcohol) consumption as a badge to your drivers license. Every time you go to a drug dispensary you have to show your license.

If you get out of line, driving intoxicated, or commit any crimes while drunk or high they take your license until you complete rehab. And if you go too far off the deep end, maybe they keep your badges off your license for a very long time.

At least that way we can eliminate all the other crimes the war on drugs helps create.

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#166

Post by umvi »

ttul wrote: post #156
sandworm101 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> bringing all drugs into a regulatory framework that is guided by health outcomes Outcomes for who? The individual or the population? Seriously. Ask a doctor and they would probably agree that, for a particular patient, having access to legal safe alternatives is a good thing. But ask them about drugs as a whole, for the entire population, and the answer will always be "less is better but zero is best." Stemming th…

I'm not advocating selling heroin at the corner store. Perhaps it should be sold over the counter at pharmacies? A licensed pharmacist can advice the buyer of the risks and can connect them with resources to help with addiction if there is a desire for that. We already massively promote and sell alcohol nearly everywhere. It's a deadly drug that is more dangerous to use than many illegal drugs. Tobacco is similarly b…

> We already massively promote and sell alcohol nearly everywhere.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Alcohol and tobacco are "grandfathered in" to the current system due to widespread usage for centuries. If I were king for a day, alcoholic beverage marketing would be made immediately illegal, but in our current democracy there's no way the alcohol lobby would allow that.

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#167

Post by pacifist »

0xffff2 wrote: post #161
pacifist wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"especially if they are uncooperative." Oh yeah. I really don't like the idea of an officer having discretion in these situations. First sign of bad legislation IMHO.

Police officers always have discretion. It would be impossible to legislate that away. It's been a while since I read the law (I'm an Oregon resident, so I read it before I voted for it), but I'd imagine that the law doesn't give any particular discretion in enforcement, but in the real world an officer can always choose not to issue a ticket/make an arrest.

Really? How about in the case of armed robbery? Or murder? Can they choose not to arrest? Yes, but there will be serious consequences. BTW I voted for it too.

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#168

Post by jMyles »

Alex3917 wrote: post #51

> Today, Oregon became the first state in the United States to decriminalize possession of small amounts of all drugs and greatly increase access to treatment, recovery, harm reduction and other services. There are other states where drug possession is only a misdemeanor, e.g.: https://apnews.com/article/0216054dc6cd453f8d83de8bbc84caeb https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/ACT/pa/pdf/2015PA-00002-R00HB-07...

> There are other states where drug possession is only a misdemeanor, e.g.:

You say "other" as if that's the case in Oregon. As of today, it's no longer a misdemeanor (or in some cases, a felony).

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#169

Post by giantg2 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #162
throwawayboise wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THey still need cause to search your car. Not that they won't manufacture it if they want to. But I've been pulled over for speeding, expired tags, and other minor traffic issues a few times and have never had my car searched.

>> But I've been pulled over So you did get pulled over. So you were in detention/arrest (insert lawyer debate here) as in you were physically stopped. At that point the cop can search your car. He probably did. He almost certainly looked in the back seat and counted the number of passengers/objects there, something he could not do as you sped by. He then examined your life in that he looked to see if you had outstan…

"Speeding, being a crime, allowed him to do these things that parking tickets do not."

That's not entirely true (excluding the pat down). The "search" you are talking about is simply plain sight/smell/etc. A cop writing a parking ticket can look through the window of your car and run the plates to see if it's stolen, lacking registration, etc. In either case they need probable cause to do an actual search of your vehicle.

Not to mention, they can stop (in most states) you even if you didnt commit a crime, like at a DUI checkpoint.

Re: Drug decriminalization in Oregon begins today

#170

Post by umvi »

nitrogen wrote: post #130
sandworm101 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> bringing all drugs into a regulatory framework that is guided by health outcomes Outcomes for who? The individual or the population? Seriously. Ask a doctor and they would probably agree that, for a particular patient, having access to legal safe alternatives is a good thing. But ask them about drugs as a whole, for the entire population, and the answer will always be "less is better but zero is best." Stemming th…

illegality also suppresses uptake by new users. Clearly that's not true, as evidenced by the enormous illegal drug trade. Highly regulated availability of safer substitutes for the worst drugs might reduce uptake of those worse drugs. Balling all "drugs" into one category and declaring them legal for traffic and sale is a horrible idea. That's not what the parent comment said. They specifically said based on health.

> Clearly that's not true, as evidenced by the enormous illegal drug trade. Highly regulated availability of safer substitutes for the worst drugs might reduce uptake of those worse drugs.

Hold on, that logic isn't sound. You are saying because the illegal drug trade is enormous, therefore the illegal status of drugs has no suppressive effect on new user uptake? Why can't both statements be true? "The illegal trade is enormous and making drugs legal would make the drug user base even more enormous"

Illegality status might suppress 50% of new users and impulse buyers, who knows. You can claim illegality does not suppress 100% (that much is clear), but I guarantee illegality has suppressed some non-zero % of potential users from trying it.

Post reply on HN