Failure of Measure 110 requires a new approach to drugs

Oregon needs to find a way to push more addicts into treatment and to send the message that just because drugs are legal doesn’t mean using them is a good idea

The most discouraging political problems are the ones where there’s widespread agreement on a problem, partial agreement on a solution and little, if any, progress on implementing a solution.

Measure 110 represents perhaps Oregon’s most glaring recent failure to solve a such a problem, in part because of implementation mistakes and in part because the writers of the ballot measure ignored suggestions that could have produced a better solution.

In his column yesterday, Gary Conkling focused on the need to get more drug addicts into treatment. That’s the part of the solution on which there is widespread agreement. The important question is: What is the best way to do that? Measure 110 mostly dodged that question. Subsequently, drug overdoses in Oregon are soaring while fewer than 1 percent of those eligible for treatment under Measure 110 are seeking help. Oregonians view the policy as a failure, polls shows, and Measure 110 has drawn negative attention globally.

I’m less optimistic than Gary that increasing addiction counselors and other resources will solve the current disaster on Portland streets. (As Gary pointed out, there also are disasters out of public view that are equally urgent to address.) Certainly, increased treatment resources should be part of the solution. But two other things are equally important: a means for pushing addicts into a well-run treatment system and a proactive effort to reduce the number of future addicts. Currently, neither exists in Oregon.

Those who receive citations for drug possession in Oregon can be fined up to $100, which are removed if they call a hotline and have a health assessment. The threat of fines has not been enough to convince users to call the hotline – a step well short of actually seeking treatment. Of the 4,000 who received citations during the first two years of the program, only 200 called the hotline. Only 40 of those expressed interest in treatment, The Economist reported.

This is not surprising. Addicts do not usually voluntarily seek treatment. It takes some combination of persuasion, coercion and desperation. To be fair, the threat of jail was not particularly effective at directing addicts into treatment, either. It’s biggest advantage over the current system was that it at least sent a message that drug use is a bad idea. It always has been and always will be true that the best way to avoid addiction is to never use drugs. (Yes, the same is true for alcohol, which has long been legal except for the brief experiment with prohibition.)

However, most Oregonians agree with Measure 110 proponents’ contention that drug laws disproportionately hurt the poor and minorities – a contention supported by statistics. That leaves us with two truths: The previous legal treatment of drugs didn’t work, and Oregon’s version of drug decriminalization hasn’t worked.

The first step in finding a middle ground is to determine the best way to get addicts into treatment. Coercion almost certainly has to be part of the equation. “Trying to get people into treatment through citations does not work,” Keith Humphreys of Stanford University told The Economist.

I don’t have enough expertise to navigate the legal and practical limitations that must be considered when designing a pathway to treatment. However, a reasonable first step would be keeping the current system for the first offense with some type of increased penalty if a person is issued a second citation and had not sought help after their first offense – at least by calling the hotline and preferably in a more significant way such as visiting a counselor or entering a treatment program.

The path to reducing the number of people who become addicts is a little clearer – and something Oregon has experience doing. When gambling was legalized, there was a concerted effort by the state and others to discourage irresponsible gambling. Commercials discouraging over-drinking are common. But decriminalization of drugs did not come with a similar effort. Absent warnings about drug use, decriminalization sent the message “drugs are OK.”

The state should immediately start an ad campaign that says, in effect, “drugs are legal in Oregon because there’s no fair way to police their use, but other than light, occasional use of marijuana, using drugs for non-medical reasons is a bad idea.” Yeah, I know that’s not exactly catchy. But the state has a history of producing eye-catching commercials. It can come up with something. This is within its skill set.

How effective will ads be, even if they are well done? Who knows? I’m realistic, though. The best case is to slightly reduce the number of addicts. But the past two years has shown us that if we don’t even try to discourage drug use and we make the most minimal of efforts to direct addicts into treatment, drug use will soar.

Mark Hester is a retired journalist who worked at The Oregonian for 20 years in positions including business editor, sports editor and editorial writer.