 We learned new words recently and one of these new words is re-criminalization and as I've heard from the news in Oregon the state legislature is going to approve a bill that would re-criminalize drug use. Is that correct? That is correct. The state legislature did pass the bill to re-criminalize drug possession. It's still waiting for the governor to sign and the governor has a few more weeks to decide whether or not to sign a veto but all indications are that the governor is going to sign the bill and it would be enacted to re-criminalize possession of drugs for personal use. How does it make you feel? It's very disappointing. I think that they were valid concerns by the people who live in Oregon about the visible site of homelessness, there was an increase in homelessness and there is also a rise in overdose rates but none of those issues are connected to decriminalization. During the COVID pandemic there were housing policies that prohibited evictions so somebody couldn't were protected if they weren't in their housing. Months after decriminalization took effect the state removed those restrictions and so we saw these external factors of housing policies that led to a number of people who are unhoused now in a homeless and on the streets so decriminalization in Oregon was wrongfully blamed for homelessness even though it's not connected, it's really connected to housing policies and a high shortage of affordable housing so those are factors disconnected to decriminalization but unfortunately people who are opposed to decriminalization or in support of a criminal approach use that to spread misinformation claiming that one caused the other when the evidence does not support that. The second thing is that the overdose rates in Oregon are directly tied to the arrival of fentanyl which is a very powerful synthetic opioid. Fentanyl hit the markets on the west coast which includes Oregon around 2019 and 2020 and it coincided with the implementation of decriminalization. Oregon faced similar rates to many other or every other region in the country that was confronted with fentanyl proliferating the market and two independent research studies found no connection between decriminalization and the law change and the rising overdose rates because of the arrival of fentanyl and they have directly identified fentanyl as the cause of the overdose crisis in Oregon but also in the west coast but overall in the United States. Unfortunately as I mentioned people who are committed to a criminal approach sees that information and blame decriminalization on it so I think there were two main external factors disconnected to decriminalization that opponents to any kind of progressive reform capitalized on and used it to put pressure on the legislature to do something. As far as I know there is even a study they point to which showed that there was an increase of overdoses after decriminalization how do you see that? It is true that there was a rise in overdose rates in Oregon but it is also true that there is a rise in overdose rates in every other state around Oregon where the drug laws have remained the same or they criminalize drug possession. Oregon the only difference is that there was a law change but all the surrounding states California, Washington, Nevada, all west coast states they criminalized drug possession and had similar rates of overdose. Oregon is also not an outlier if you look at the data throughout the United States every region that has had fentanyl proliferating the market has had similar rates of overdose you see the rise in overdose rates coinciding with the arrival and the proliferation of fentanyl. Do you think that behind or beyond the movement of recriminalization was a genuine concern from citizens who are walking on the street and just just witnessing these things or it was like that is a politically motivated? I think that the valid concerns about citizens were weaponized by people who opposed decriminalization. Those valid concerns were manipulated and used as an excuse to put pressure on the legislature to do something. There's public suffering on the streets and that is really a result of government policies historically in not funding services in not ensuring that there's accessible housing options that there is affordable housing so they have valid concerns if you see public suffering on the streets and you want something to be done. Decriminalization is a scapegoat for that and politicians wanting to do something said okay well we will roll back that policy thinking that that's a solution it's not a solution because the housing crisis is going to continue unless there are meaningful resources invested in housing and supportive services. We're going to continue seeing the problems of public suffering. When decriminalization was passed the promise was that there will be significant resources mobilized. How did it go? Thank you for pointing that out. I mean decriminalization is removal of criminal penalties but also expanding access to a whole host of services to assist people who are along a spectrum of drug use. The law did identify a very specific funding source to expand access to services and eventually the funding did go out but they were very long delays in getting through that process of sending the funding out so eventually services were funded but they were very long delays it's not like the services could be implemented immediately and available immediately so they were long delays in getting the services out while decriminalization was in effect and so that delay also meant that people didn't have access to the services that they needed but eventually the funding did go out and even with this new bill where the governor to sign it that portion of decriminalization and measure 110 remains intact the state has recommitted to funding all of the services that measure 110 created so that's you know certainly a positive development in this in this legislation I do think that it was shortsighted however to reinstate criminal penalties. Proponents of criminalization often say that people who struggle with drug problems need some a certain nudging from the criminal justice system to deflect them to the treatment system what do you think about that. Well what I will say is that we've had 50 years of a heavy criminal justice approach and still we have in the United States rising rates of overdose that you know the system has been completely ineffective in connecting people to the services that they need and we have five decades of evidence to show that when you look at measure 110 decriminalization it was barely a year after the funding went out for these services that now the legislature after one year they've repealed a program after one year it's a program in its infancy it was never given an opportunity to show the promise that it can work but getting back specifically to your question the evidence is very mixed to that mandated coerce treatment is effective you know the gold standard for care is that there should be voluntary access to treatment for those who want and need it but we know the failures of the criminal approach from decades of experience and there's no reason to think that jailing someone now is going to be an opportunity to connect them to services that hasn't happened in the past I'm not optimistic that that's what's going to happen in the future. So we talked about the lack of access to services what about the quality of services in the US like what is available is that evidence-based? I would say that jail-based services are not evidence-based you need a true therapeutic community and a jail is not that setting it's inherently coercive I would say you know for starters within the criminal legal system I don't believe that that is evidence-based. In Oregon before decriminalization and measure 110 the state ranked near lost in access to services and access to treatment and the decriminalization effort was really to try and get the state up to speed on providing services that people need and I think the law and the policy change has taken the state forward towards that but I will say jail-based treatment is never evidence based just because it lacks that therapeutic community. What about harm reduction is that available for drug users in Oregon? So as a result of measure 110 there was a huge investment in harm reduction services and those are continuing to grow so we see that as a very positive development as a result of measure 110 funding and now the legislature is going to continue to support that so certainly harm reduction services based in the community are being provided and assured you know that the legislature should will continue to be funded. Are there any overall prevention sites or supervised consumption sites? There are none not in Oregon and that would have been a certainly a solution to public drug use if people unhoused they have no place to go a drug consumption room would be a way to provide a safer space to consume but it also takes it out of the public eye drug consumption rooms could provide opportunities for access to other services it's really an entry point the state did not choose to do that they chose to do what was politically expedient and appear to be a solution but it's it's really not a solution. Strange considering that across the other side of the border in Canada there are already these services? Yes absolutely yeah there are lots of models from Canada also within the United States like in New York you know many other regions in the world that have drug consumption spaces with remarkable results and the legislature decided no we're not going to do a public health approach we're just going to recriminalize. So the barrier is at the state level and not at the federal level? It's both the state has chosen not to take steps in that direction to authorize it for a as a public health intervention there are barriers at the federal level but the city of New York has opened up supervised consumption sites so overdose prevention centers and you know they haven't faced roadblocks from the federal government I mean I think there does need to be change at the federal level but the state could take steps towards authorizing safe consumption sites even if it's on a pilot basis. The decriminalization measure introduced a public citation system instead of the arrest how did it go? Not very well law enforcement has historically had one tool when they encountered people who use drugs and that was arrest when the law changed and law enforcement was supposed to issue citations as a means to connect people to treatment that did not go very well because firstly the state did not provide any training to law enforcement about what a health approach should look like they did not provide any information on you should issue the citation and provide this information to individuals about how they can access services a lot of law enforcement officers chose not to issue citations and look the other way others might have issued a citation but individuals were unaware what to do with these citations in Oregon the citation was designed as a way to connect people to services but that was not that is not the ideal way people should have access to services directly in the community on a voluntary basis and law enforcement shouldn't have a role measure 110 allowed the citation as a mechanism to connect people to services but of course reevaluating the program that is certainly is not the way when law enforcement they're not equipped all they historically did was arrest people so what will happen now after recriminalization was adopted what can people use drugs expect in Oregon under the new law there's a new drug enforcement misdemeanor which is punishable by up to six months in jail but their off rams from jail there's a period of probation their deflection programs to the extent a county implements them so it's deflection meaning if law enforcement encounters them they can deflect them to services which is very similar to what you know measure 110 was attempting to do with that you know connection to services but the reality is that the state is so has not funded the public defense system there's a severe shortage of public defenders in Oregon and the concern is that people are going to be arrested cycle through the system booked and then released without any kind of connections to services I think that's what is the more likely scenario for others maybe they will be deflected and connected to services my sincere hope is that most people would try and access that the services that measure 110 has already created and that the legislature is committed to continue funding that people would access it in different ways but I think there is a real concern that people are gonna the same people who have historically suffered arrests which are African-Americans and indigenous folks in Oregon are gonna be the ones that are gonna be subject to arrest and potential incarceration and if they don't have access to counsel which you know is mandated by the law it's likely that they may just be booked and released and recycled through the system so what is your message to those people who will say that how you know decriminalization which tried it in Oregon it didn't work I would say it is not true that it didn't work decriminalization was very effective it meant that tens of thousands of people avoided a criminal record as a result of decriminalization for that very short period as a result of decriminalization the state has made massive investments in treatment and housing and harm reduction and supportive services that are needed for people I would also say decriminalization is one step towards a public health approach it is not the solution decriminalization is part of a you know whole series of steps that need to be taken to truly adopt a public health approach I would say to people who think decriminalization was a failure in Oregon and to reconsider that I would say it has not been a failure it was blamed for external factors that were way beyond decriminalization homelessness was not caused by decriminalization that was caused by housing policies the overdose crisis was not caused by decriminalization it was caused by the arrival and proliferation of fentanyl in the drug market all the evidence points to that so decriminalization was not a failure that's what I would I would conclude with thank you so much you're welcome