Don't Blame Decriminalization for Oregon Drug Deaths
Oregon lawmakers recently voted to recriminalize drugs after voters approved landmark reforms in 2020.

In March, Oregon legislators overwhelmingly approved recriminalization of low-level drug possession, reversing a landmark reform that voters endorsed in 2020. Although critics of that ballot initiative, Measure 110, cited escalating drug-related deaths as a reason to reinstate criminal penalties, there is little evidence that decriminalization contributed to that problem.
Deaths involving opioids have been rising nationwide for more than two decades. That trend was accelerated by the emergence of illicit fentanyl as a heroin booster and substitute, a development that hit Western states after it was apparent in other parts of the country.
"Overdose mortality rates started climbing in [the] Northeast, South, and Midwest in 2014 as the percent of deaths related to fentanyl increased," RTI International epidemiologist Alex Kral noted at a January conference in Salem, Oregon. "Overdose mortality rates in Western states did not start rising until 2020, during COVID and a year after the introduction of fentanyl."
That lag explains why Oregon saw a sharper rise in opioid-related deaths than most of the country after 2019. But so did California, Nevada, and Washington, neighboring states where drug possession remained a crime.
"After adjusting for the rapid escalation of fentanyl," Brown University public health researcher Brandon del Pozo reported at the Salem conference, "analysis found no association between [Measure 110] and fatal drug overdose rates." Kral concurred, saying "there is no evidence that increases in overdose mortality in Oregon are due to" decriminalization. That conclusion is consistent with the results of a 2023 JAMA Psychiatry study, which found "no evidence" that Measure 110 was "associated with changes in fatal drug overdose rates" during the year after decriminalization took effect in February 2021.
The expectation that decriminalization would boost overdose deaths hinges on the assumption that it encourages drug use. Yet an RTI International study of 468 drug users in eight Oregon counties found that just 1.5 percent of them had begun using drugs since Measure 110 took effect. And contrary to the claim that decriminalization attracted hordes of drug users to the state, the subjects' median length of residence in Oregon was 24 years.
Because Measure 110 did not address the iffy quality and unpredictable potency of illegal drugs, it is not surprising that overdoses continued to rise. Those problems are created by drug prohibition and exacerbated by efforts to enforce it.
The government's crackdown on pain pills pushed nonmedical users toward more dangerous substitutes, replacing legally produced, reliably dosed pharmaceuticals with products of uncertain provenance and composition. Worse, the crackdown coincided with the rise of illicit fentanyl, which is much more potent than heroin and therefore made safe dosing even trickier.
That phenomenon also was driven by prohibition, which favors highly potent drugs that are easier to conceal and smuggle. Treating drug users as criminals compounds the harm caused by prohibition while ignoring the perverse impact of existing policies.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Sure, even the Progressives couldn't stand the damage from this law. If people probably as stupid as the Progressives can see the harm, even Reason should be able to see it.
If ONLY Trump’s erections hadn’t been stolen, and Spermy Daniels was still Our Queen, Who Art Drenched in Vaseline, NONE of this shit would still be happening!!!
PS, this law this, and this law that! This law towards legalizing, or this LATER law re-outlawing that which people are going to do anyway? ALL of the oh-so-BRILLIANT commenter-critics descend here in DROVES, and few of them can be bothered to write clearly!
Anyplace run by the left is not a good example of how anything should be done. What Oregon proves is if you vote for leftists everything goes wrong. Not that drug use has any inherent evils justifying draconian laws regarding its production, transportation and sale.
Like "criminal justice reform", Sullum is trying to rationalize why the public rejecting a favored policy is wrong to do so.
And some folks are trying to rationalize why the USA should be turned into a micro-managing, authoritarian police state, giant open-air prison, micro-managing all of our lives to Make Us All Better People, while the Government Almighty can NOT even stop drug abuse (and sex abuse, etc.) in prisons!
Let us just ignore the significant quality of life decline following these policies, then.
Your implied cause and effect hypothesis was just refuted by the entire article! What next, the eclipse is coming... Beating the drums is what causes the demon-dragon to un-eat the sun god!
"The public" didn't reject it - this was a legislative move to overturn a direct referendum. In other words, the political elite is rejecting Sullum's favored policy, not the public.
You might want to look at the public sentiment on this one. Nobody likes junkies lying on the streets or wandering your neighborhood late at night.
Exactly right.
Portland Oregon is already a shithole - people want to clean it up. Legalizing drugs that make people unable to be productive members of society is not good in a capitalist society.
Oregon, which is still a libtard hellhole, has seen the light a little bit.
When anyone says “there’s no evidence” 3 times in one paragraph, they’re always lying.
No no no. It is because the people are immoral and immoral people don't deserve liberty. Except Trump, he can be as immoral as he wants.
Did I do that right?
You definitely displayed your TDS and hatred for conservatives properly. The prog virtue signalers approve.
How is it "hatred for conservatives" to describe *accurately* their viewpoint on liberty?
As a general rule they don't view liberty as a birthright for all humankind, but instead they view liberty in terms of a moral hierarchy. Those at the top are most worthy of liberty, those at the bottom are least worthy.
Drug users aren't moral, so they don't deserve the liberty to do drugs.
Slutty women aren't moral, so they don't deserve the liberty to haven an abortion.
Convicted murderers certainly aren't moral, so they don't deserve much if any liberty at all, only a swift execution.
Transgender people aren't moral, they are pedophiles and groomers, so they don't deserve liberty.
Americans are just intrinsically more moral than foreigners, seeing as how they were born in God's Chosen Land, so they are entitled to more liberty than foreigners.
Slutty women aren’t moral, so they don’t deserve the liberty to haven an abortion.
Incidentally, this is why so many of them are comfortable with near-total abortion bans, and yet have exceptions for rape and incest. Because it isn't really about saving the life of the unborn child. It is about policing morality. Slutty women who choose abortion because they are sluts, they don't deserve it. But victims of a crime, they aren't sluts per se, so they do deserve it.
“Babies don’t have the right to be exist, so it’s ok for women to execute them for convenience’s sake as a form of retroactive birth control.”
Ah yes, the Chemjeff way. Inhuman and evil.
Personally I don't agree with abortion being used as birth control. However putting that into law won't stop it. It will just create a black market and all the problems that come with one. So I accept it.
Only slutty women experience birth control failures! Even married women who experience birth control failures with their husbands, are slutty!
I am too lazy to find it (a link), but in very recent years I read that in Israel, young married couples who aren't ready for kids yet (such as students), who have birth control failures, can't get abortions, except for a giant loop-hole! So off the woman goes (often with her husband in hand), to find a Rabbi to LIE to! She must tell the Rabbi that she slept with another man (not her husband), and THEN, with the Rabbi's permission, she can get an abortion!
Speaking of pedophiles and groomers……
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/03/30/chinese-migrant-sent-to-prison-for-having-porn-videos-of-preschool-child/
A Chinese illegal was convicted of possession of kiddie porn. Another Chemjeff open borders success story!
You do realize that the legislature that passed this recriminalization was an overwhelmingly Democrat controlled one and that the governor that signed the bill was a Democrat?
Chemist radical schmuck,
Thomas Locke would be disgusted with your bidenesque communist rantings.
Seems you only believe in your obsequious version of “liberty”
Any human (you are excused) who lives in OR -me- experiences the daily life and community destruction and desecration with the bs “free drugs, free love, free sex and child trafficking rubbish advocated and hotlined for approval.
Please stay in your own personal shithole state -CA I imagine- and keep licking on newsome’s (nuisance) 30 wt hair
Leftist monarchists in Salem/Ptld have destroyed our once great state. Murder, kidnapping, rape, home possession, crimes against free enterprise. Seems you are a big fan of Kate brown trout and Tina Kotex.
Stay out of my state!
"Did I do that right?"
No.
That applies to all of his statements.
If the end user faces no risk for use of illegal drugs, the market for those drugs will increase. Since supplying the drugs is still illegal, then the suppliers will do what they can to meet the demand, including stretching the product with fentanyl.
This is completely predictable.
Thank you. First intelligent comment here.
We have always been at war with Drugasia.
So the will of the citizens lasts less than three years under the fascists?
No, the will of the people, at equilibrium, is that people act as if narcotics were criminally illegal without prosecuting them. They don’t like the result of their being criminal — violators going to jail — and they don’t like the result of their being non-criminal — violators using them without going to jail. And it’s not like I’m the first to make that observation. They really want to have their cake and eat it too: having people obey without making them obey.
I'd say it's not the drug use but the fact that it is in public and the related crimes that go with it that are invariably excused that people want to go away. Drugs, like sex should not be public displays but they are. If legalizing drugs means also legalizing property theft, vandalism, public urination and defecation then I can tell you the price the average citizen is willing to pay.
These may just be enforcement tactics to make the policy untenable but that's the real world.
I would dispute the use of the term fascist but the Oregon legislature is overwhelmingly Democrat so it does fit( and the governor is also a Democrat).
And of course this isn’t the first time the Oregon legislature overrode a referendum within a few years of passage. In 2014 Oregon voters passed an initiative to ban illegal aliens from receiving drivers licenses from the state. It passed by a 2-1 margin. Three short years later the legislature passed a bill that created special driver licenses for illegal aliens ( and once again the legislature was controlled by Democrats).
I guess the fascist Democrats don’t care about the voters will in Oregon.
Proven last 4 elections
In the long run the only way to get lasting decriminalization, let alone legalization, for narcotics would be a generation-long campaign or trend to popularize their use, as with marijuana. If we got a generation or more of people with widespread illegal use of narcotics, the law would change. That’s about the only way to get toleration; toleration per se as a principle is too unpopular, it has to be that persecution causes some serious adverse side effect on society — and I mean much more serious than we’re seeing.
What could lead to such popularization of narcotics? I shudder to think. It’d probably require society’s becoming hellish enough for a majority or large minority to find narcotics the most attractive alternative.
Either that or a widespread revolt against criminal law in general, both victimful and victimless crimes.
“Victimless crimes”. Biggest straw argument for the blind and intellectually inferior!
That sociological myth keeps perpetuating by socialists , bureaucrats and other numbskulls.
I guess if it does not affect you directly it is deemed victimless.
Just like the Biden crime syndicate is a victim (undeniably as innocent as WJ Clinton) of the Chinese and Russians). Quid pro quo ya know!!
Cheech: Oh, well, man, he had some magic dust, man
Chong: Some magic dust?
Cheech: Yeah, magic dust, y’know? He used ta give a little bit to da reindeer, a
Little bit to Santa Claus, a little bit more for Santa Claus, a little
Bit more…
Chong: And this would get the reindeer off, man?
Cheech: Aw, got ’em off, man?!? Are you kidding, man? They flew all da way
Around da world, man!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnYXgv7maws
Citizens: "There's a problem here."
Politicians holding a hammer: "We can fix it."
I'm sure the drug war will work this time.
You got it! Just like alcohol prohibition!
(1) Liberalization would have retained more popularity if it had been modeled after alcohol legalization:
(a) no public consumption;
(b) no public intoxication (and related behavior problems);
(c) continued enforcement of other laws to maintain a civilized community, eg against theft, vandalism, and squatting in places people care about. "Informal housing" (eg pitching tents) allowed only in specified areas under supervision.
(2) For legalization to work, the government must ensure an affordable and safe supply (as in Portugal). Continued reliance of highly expensive black-market supplies, besides endangering health (overdoses, etc) is an inducement toward theft.
Exactly. I give zero shits if other adults want to get high. I also have zero tolerance for shitty, criminal behavior of said drug using adults. The wacko leftists who run Oregon do. Therein lies the problem.
That's kinda the hold-up for me regarding drug legalization. I have zero problems with people getting high and possibly offing themselves in their own house. What I don't want is a bunch of tweakers loitering in public spaces or running around committing crimes. I don't want the harm that comes with it. Addicts aren't known for good decision making, morals, or being responsible. Reducing the drawbacks to using drugs and engaging in damaging anti-social behaviours causes the public to pay for their bad decisions.
I'm on board with eliminating victimless crimes, but you can't simultaneously stop prosecuting actual crimes committed by these people or drain public resources on them.
Maybe they got tired of junkies sleeping in doorways and robbing people?
Not tolerating the junkie’s criminal behavior is the underlying problem.
I didn't know the law was about criminal behavior.
Who would have thought?
There in lies your problem
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the Oregon government.
Nothing better than other people’s ‘guns’ (‘gov’ monopoly of guns) demanding/dictating how everyone HAS to save themselves. Other people always knows better than YOU do when it comes to YOU. /s
The Drug War's back baby and y'all know who the good guys and the bad guys are. The good guys are Big Pharma and the bad guys are anyone who doesn't use their products in a manner that Big Pharma profits from.
The COVID vaccine propaganda certainly taught us that.
You really mean BIG GOV. Can’t have one without tacit permission of the bureaucrat bedmate.
BTW didn’t Reason run an almost identical article to this a few months back? Is Sullum hungover from Easter and just rerunning the article because he can’t form a coherent thought today ?
Oy vey! Don't get between Sullum and an Easter celebration.
You have to be a special kind of stupid to read that "analysis" and think decriminalization had nothing to do with the rising deaths.
The issue wasn't fentanyl, the issue is that drug users were no longer incarcerated to dry out - cause the Fuzz didn't bother arresting. So the brain-fried living in tents under bridges started dying faster because the fentanyl-laced drugs were hard to use safely. Heroin is already like walking a knife edge when you long into your addiction - fentanyl just makes it even more of a crap shoot.
The author is a fucktard.
OK. Please explain to this special kind of stupid person why the OD rate rose earlier, coincident with the arrival of fentanyl, and is currently higher on the east coast, where decriminalization never happened.
Also, "drying out" from opiates is known to contribute to many OD's when users return to their former fix without accounting for the loss of tolerance from abstinence.
Couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Methies dry out in 30 days - thats 30 days they are not on the street causing trouble. 30 days they are not playing roulette with Fentanyl enhanced meth.
Heroin addicts need at least 90 days - 90 days they are alive and not walking the edge. Most will do more than 90 days.
I've worked with druggies - nice folks once they dry out. The problem they face is falling back into the same old lifestyle because (a) drugs are cheap and easy and (b) our society makes it harder than hell to reintegrate after jail time.
Fentanyl, via Mexico, kills about 50,000 Americans a year. Yet our illustrious President has the FBI looking for white supremacists at PTA meeting while the border is wide open. We ought to be doing drone strikes on Mexican cartels.
Maybe if America's stupidest generation, GenZ, will vote for the good of America instead of " NOT TRUMP" - maybe.
Couldn’t be more wrong if you tried.
OK, but nothing you said refutes anything I said. In fact I agree with everything you wrote in this post, except the drone strikes. Been there, done that in Colombia.
So I remain stupid, I guess.
What should we blame instead?
Also, this is bogus:
The expectation that decriminalization would boost overdose deaths hinges on the assumption that it encourages drug use. Yet an RTI International study of 468 drug users in eight Oregon counties found that just 1.5 percent of them had begun using drugs since Measure 110 took effect.
See, you're falsely equating "encourages drug use" with "begins using drugs." That's not the problem. The problem is that JUNKIES WHO HAVE EASY ACCESS JUNKIE EVEN HARDER THAN THEY DID WHEN THEIR ACCESS WAS FRUSTRATED BY LAW.
Drug users are not normal, decent, respectable, responsible human beings. They are druggies. If they can get one hit, they'll take one hit. If they can get twenty, they'll take twenty. When we locked them up, they at least had a chance to detox and get away from the crap. Now that you're leaving them to their own devices, they're doing it more frequently, in higher doses, and with reckless abandon.
And anyone with a brain sees the zombie apocalypse that is under every overpass, infesting public parks, taking over abandoned areas, and spreading.
But no, the decriminalization has noooothing to do with that.
Put the bong down, Jake.
So is it not possible to take a single hit and quit for the day? Is it not possible to smoke a single ciggy and quit for the day? Drink of booze? Bite of food? Are they ALL addicted druggies, boozers, and foodies? We MUST have GovernmentAlmighty rule us ALL, every damned day?
Apparently not for the dying junkies of Oregon.
You get it - thanks for commenting. The rest of the commenters (mostly pimple ranchers imo) seem to believe the lie that decriminalization had no effect.
That is why they should raise the voting age to when the prefrontal cortext is fully formed (25).
I see the authoritarian, police-state loving MAGAts are still here.