The problem is that once such a thing fails, it gives massive ammunition to future naysayers that get to conveniently ignore all the implementation failures because campaigning for/against will ultimately boil down to bullet points.
I disagree to an extent. Oregons drug decriminalization failed because of a few reasons that are plain to see:
- The people who wrote the measure did not prescribe how it should be done, just what it should achieve.
- The measure demanded changes be immediate, which didn't jive with a very slow running, heavy bureaucracy like Oregons government. More importantly, time was not given for the social services pipelines to fill with cash and plans.
- The law did not also ban public drug use, it depended on the legislature doing this - which they never did. This was the big tipping point. You don't forget the smell of meth or fent, especially outside your grocery store or kids school.
This was a master class in when head in the clouds thinking meets legislative elites who are outright insulted when the people flex their voice.
I do think we'll revisit this again in the future, but hopefully next time we at least ban public drug use.
This is a thing we can do and make work, plenty of other places have had success with it, we just keep doing things in the most Kafka-esque way possible.
Which places, and what do you call success?
The only place in the world that seems to have drugs handled properly is Singapore.
Legalization + proper harm reduction + strict enforcement on public (ab)use is ultimately the way. You get a triple win of tax income, freed up police resources and less pressure on the healthcare system.
"The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor from sleeping under bridges" - Anatole France
Ideally before we ban public drug use with punitive measures we solve free housing for the homeless. It is a known problem, specifically in Portland, that people come here to be homeless. That is a problem in itself because our tiny city can't shoulder the nations burdens. I was mainly speaking directly to what backfired with our approach to substances. Public drug use, whether it be alcohol or otherwise, should not be on the general public to deal with.
If your idea only succeeds when the smartest people are running it, and they can’t make any mistakes, then it’s not actually a good idea.
Do you stop the car, take a look at everything, make changes, and then put the car back on the road? Do you pull into pit row, change the tires in <10s with top off of the tank, and then get back in the race? Do you take advantage of the run flat tires you chose in advance anticipating the this would be the likely outcome while hoping the other 3 tires stay inflated?
If the current situation isn't work, the worst thing to do is nothing. Paralysis by analysis can be deadly
Alas, language is not so flexible.
Imagine that Biden campaigned in 2000 extensively off a hoax that Trump called nazis fine people. This was well supported by professional media.
That he was defending people at all associated with the unite the right protest that went all neo Nazi is crazy. Why bother trying to point out that there were “good” and “fine” people protesting the statue when we all know what was going on at that event? It minimizes what happened, and reduces the blame on the literal Nazis marching and driving into crowds.
It wasn’t a “hoax”, but it was choice editing. But if you look at the spirit and context, it’s effectively what happened.