Drug decriminalization measure would radically change approach to addiction

Here's what you need to know.

Oregonians are voting on a ballot measure that would radically change how the state addresses drug addiction.

Measure 110 hopes to fund new addiction treatment and recovery programs and decriminalize noncommercial posession of small amounts of drugs.

But as kezi 9 news reporter chris lueneburg shows us-- others worry that the system being proposed will let addicts slip between the cracks.

"neither supporters or opponents of measure 110 deny the growing drug problem across the state.

But supporters also take issue with the criminal justice system serving as the pipeline towards treatment."

Dr. william foster, an emergency room physician in florence, says he regularly sees withdrawl and other symptoms of drug addiction.

"multiple times a month, i see a patient who that is the primary reason they are in the emergency department."

Unfortunately, he says addiction isn't something he's equipped to address.

Some call the result "treat and street."

"often i feel that it's a revolving door.

I treat them for their urgent problem and send them out the door knowing full well that i haven't really effected the underlying problem."

Measure 110 would establish addiction recovery centers and increase funding for treatment programs accountability council appointed by oregon health authority.

Foster calls it a good start.

"i feel frustrated that i have so little that i can offer these patients."

But that's only half of the equation aims to decriminalize small quantities of drugs.*that means if you get caught& you simply pay a 100 dollar fine.

Or you can go to an addiction recovery center for a health assessment.

That assessment is a substance disorder screening by a credentialed professional it's not treatment.

After that, case managers at the centers*can help connect them to treatment and other resources& but only if that person*chooses to seek it out.

"i would have paid the fine and told myself that i can handle it on my own, and that i'll quit tomorrow.

The problem is, tomorrow never came."

Jim o'rourke is a portland criminal defense lawyer who is himself in long term recovery.

He opposes the measure.

He believes it would destroy existing pathways to treatment and replace them with an inadiquate system.

"the state of oregon has plenty of assessment and referral resources already.

We don't need any more of those.

What we need is more residential treatment beds."

Many counties --- such as lane --- already offer drug court and other programs& o'rourke says that the trend amongst counties is to begin diversion programs that connect addicts to treatment without any court proceedings at all.

"that is the path of progress.

That path of progress will be interrupted by this measure, and a lot of people will lose the opportunity to be motivated to do something they can't do themselves because they are addicts."

Douglas county sheriff john hanlin fears that without the threat of punishment, access to drugs and the number of individuals with addiction will increase.

"what's going to be a deterrent?

There's not going to be a deterrent, if there's no criminal penalty there's no threat of or danger of the police come crashing through your door."

"right now people continue to use despite the possibility of penalties and the convictions.

Why not try a new approach?"*that was brook reinhard, executive director of pubilc defender services of lane county, who supports the measure.

"typically, a client of mine who gets involved with a drug related crime, if they don't qualify for drug court or cant do other treatment based solutions, they do a little jail up front, but then if they mess up probation, they're likely to do 60 days or more of jail later.

And that's really destabilizing when we are just talking about substance use."

He believes that in the endregon's criminal justice system is simply overburdenednd small possession cases take too many resources.

Commercial nat this measure also has a considerable financial impactt would require 57 million dollars annually using marijuana revenues funding between 2021 and 23 for the state school fund by 73 million dollars and mental health services by 36 million among other funding reductions to state police, cities and counties.*"it would be a radicallhenew approach first of it's kind in the nation& as the state struggles to save lives from the grip of addiction.

In the newsroom,