A couple of weeks ago I got a request from a reader for my thoughts on Oregon and their recent changes to drug policy. This is a longer newsletter, but it’s an important topic and one of the biggest issues right now regarding how we approach drugs and addiction.

In November of 2020, Oregon voters passed Measure 110, which ended criminal penalties for low-level drug possession. Since then, Oregon has come under immense scrutiny for this policy shift.

So did Oregon voters do the right thing in 2020, and should other states follow? Or did they make a terrible mistake that we should all learn from?

I’ve read cases from both sides that offer lots of statistics in their favor. There’s a stat for any point you want to make, no matter what side you fall on. But I don’t think you need stats to make a decision on whether decriminalizing drug possession is the best way to go. Here’s why…

Should someone be arrested just because they’re in possession of a certain substance? Some people say that an arrest is what people need to help them change. It’s a shock to the system that will put them on a healthier path, or so the thinking goes.

Let’s think about what an arrest for drug possession is most likely to do for two categories of people: People who aren’t addicted to the drug they’re in possession of and people who are addicted to it.

People who aren’t addicted to a drug don’t need an intervention, and certainly not a nuclear option like criminal justice involvement. It’s easy to see this when we think about legal drugs like alcohol. People who have a couple of beers on the weekend or a glass of wine with dinner are using a drug — but they’re not addicted to it.

For someone who is not addicted, an arrest poses far more danger than alcohol because an arrest can expose them to abuse in jail, loss of employment, their kids being put in foster care, loss of housing, etc. Each one of those outcomes can have years-long impacts on health and well-being, which affects the whole family and community.

Arresting someone for drug possession who is not addicted is perhaps the best way to destroy their life, not improve it.

People who are addicted to a drug may be helped by some sort of intervention, but an intervention that increases trauma in their lives is the worst possible thing we could do for them. We know now that trauma is one of the biggest risk factors that makes a person susceptible to developing an addiction, yet arrest and incarceration are incredibly traumatic.

For instance, the period of time when a person is most likely to be sexually assaulted while incarcerated is in the first 72 hours. We’re forcing people who are likely already in need of healing from trauma into a traumatic environment, and then scratching our heads when it doesn’t solve their addiction.

Incarceration is the perfect environment to tip a non-addicted person into addiction or deepen the struggle of a person already suffering. It’s a spectacular backfire.

For some people, personal freedom is why they think arresting people for drug possession is wrong. The government should not be policing what we choose to ingest. That’s a valid reason, but I want to highlight that whether or not you’re ideologically motivated, arresting someone for possessing a drug is a terrible way to improve outcomes and a great way to destabilize lives. I think most of us would agree that’s the opposite of the goal.

Oregon did the right thing by removing arrest as a response to drug possession. Two factors people point out as evidence that Measure 110 should be reversed are rising overdose death rates and the homelessness crisis.

First, the overdose crisis is a contamination crisis — and decriminalizing possession doesn’t fix that at all. It can’t. Only opening avenues for consumers to access quality-controlled drugs can address the contamination epidemic. Decriminalizing possession can keep people out of jail, but it can’t keep them from getting contaminated drugs and dying.

Second, people living on the streets is a heartbreaking problem. It’s incredibly hard on the health and well-being of the person who is unhoused, and it’s incredibly hard on the surrounding community.

One important thing to remember is that homelessness is also a problem in cities across the country where they have not decriminalized possession of drugs. It’s not unique to Oregon. But it is a huge problem.

A key distinction to make is that decriminalizing drug possession does not mean decriminalizing all behavior of people who use drugs.

With any policy or approach, there’s a danger of the pendulum swinging too far. After years of locking people up for minor drug infractions, we risk swinging all the way to the other extreme and not arresting anyone who uses drugs, even if they’re committing other crimes. Neither extreme is good or in the interest of public safety. A healthy society is not a lawless one.

For instance, if a person engages in theft, they should be arrested — even if the root cause is their addiction. This is where drug courts might be most helpful. They can provide accountability and justice after a legitimate crime while also addressing the core problem.

Drug courts may also be a good option for other behaviors that break the law or city ordinances where addiction is the real problem. I’m aware that drug courts aren’t perfect, but they can be a helpful tool when the criminal justice system needs to be involved.

As with almost everything in life, extremes are unhelpful, and real solutions lie on a nuanced path somewhere between.

So how does this solve homelessness? It doesn’t. Arresting people might help the community feel good that “something is being done,” and it removes the person from view for a short time, but it’s not a solution. The community doesn’t want to just feel good, they want problems solved.

If anything, an arrest just compounds the harm in a person’s life, making it even harder to rebuild when they’re ready to take that step. We can’t arrest our way out of addiction, and we can’t arrest our way out of homelessness.

I don’t know the answer to ending homelessness, but there are programs like Community First! Village in Texas that are successfully helping people who’ve been chronically unhoused find community, purpose, belonging and permanent homes. They’ve got a lot more answers than I do, but just because the real solutions are hard and complicated doesn’t mean we should fall back on failed ones.