July 10, 2017

Oregon on way to beocoming first state to decriminalize all drugs

Activist Post  In an unprecedented move, Oregon is on its way to becoming the first state to decriminalize small amounts of hard drugs such as heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and ecstasy, while also lowering the penalty from a felony to a misdemeanor in some drug-related cases. Two groundbreaking bills were passed by the Oregon legislature this week, and will go to the state’s Democratic governor, Kate Brown, for approval.

5 comments:

greg gerritt said...

Hurray

Anonymous said...

What isn't mentioned in this is that the Oregon House recently passed a bill to make tobacco product sales only available to people 21 and older. They propose doing this on Jan 1, 2018. I despise cigarettes, so I don't mind the bill in principle, but I have a big problem with not grandfathering in 18-20 year olds who can legally buy tobacco in 2017, being excluded from purchases, since they have already been buying them. There are enough 18 to 20 year olds who are addicted to tobacco that it is cruel to take away their tobacco when they are already a legal adult with a history of use.

Sonni Quick said...

It's not cruel. You can stop at 18. That problem is nothing compared to the damage and loss of life and medical problems due to smoking. If an 18 yr old is stupid enough to start smoking and they can't buy it now - they'll find a way anyway. There has been so much destruction of so many lives over pot - which has killed no one, and we should worry about it being cruel to teenage smokers we KNOW it will kill? Really?

Sonni Quick said...

I was raised in Pa Where the drinking age is 21. I went to college in tx where the legal age is 18. I go home to pa at age 20. I've been going to bars for 2 years. Now I can't. But I've been able to buy alcohol for 2years I said. Shouldn't I be grandfathered in as a legal buyer of alcohol for that reason? So, anonymous, your argument is a non argument

Anonymous said...

Sonni Quick,

Crossing state lines and losing the ability to buy alcohol or tobacco, is not the same as having the state you are already living in and able to purchase alcohol or tobacco, suddenly change the rules. So your non-argument is a total strawman without a leg to stand on, for it doesn't compare. States have all sorts of different laws and few those laws cross state lines. Yes, the newly excluded tobacco buyers will find ways around the law, they always do. They did for years before they turned 18.

You are really clueless if you think that most smokers wait until they are 18 and are legally able to buy and try tobacco. Most smokers try their first cigarette by the time they are 13. 80% of smokers start well before they are 18, so the only thing the change in the law is doing is criminalizing people who are already adult long term users. I guess I just don't see the point of making people who are already adults and purchasing to need to return the things they did to maintain their addiction while minors as productive in any way. Smoking is a hard addiction to break and a measly age restriction won't do much for those already buying tobacco. It won't stop anyone who is already addicted, and it's not like the state is offering free quit smoking support. If they won't either grandfather in those who have already been buying legally, or offer them comprehensive aid in quitting, then that is cruel.