Model Train Journal

Oregon voters to decide on decriminalising hard drugs in US first
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54761468

Voters in Oregon are being asked to decide whether to decriminalise the possession of small amounts of hard drugs, including heroin and cocaine.

Measure 110 aims to expand access to drug treatment and recovery services, in place of jail time.

Under Oregon's Measure 110, people caught with small amounts of drugs for their personal use will have the option of paying $100 (£77) fines or attending free addiction recovery centres.

The recovery centres would be funded in part by tax revenues from Oregon's legal, regulated marijuana industry.

The amounts covered by the proposed legislation vary for different drugs, and include less than one gram of heroin, or two grams of cocaine.

Violations of the state law against drug possession currently carry a maximum penalty of a $6,250 fine and up to a year in jail.

People who manufacture or distribute the drugs will still face criminal punishment if Measure 110 is approved.

What do you guys think about this. My opine is I don't care. I'm sure this will make the cartels happy.

They will never derive enough tax money from regulated marijuana industry. so they will sue big Pharma for a billion dollars

HONDO74 wrote:Oregon voters to decide on decriminalising hard drugs in US first
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-54761468

Voters in Oregon are being asked to decide whether to decriminalise the possession of small amounts of hard drugs, including heroin and cocaine.

Measure 110 aims to expand access to drug treatment and recovery services, in place of jail time.

Under Oregon's Measure 110, people caught with small amounts of drugs for their personal use will have the option of paying $100 (£77) fines or attending free addiction recovery centres.

The recovery centres would be funded in part by tax revenues from Oregon's legal, regulated marijuana industry.

The amounts covered by the proposed legislation vary for different drugs, and include less than one gram of heroin, or two grams of cocaine.

Violations of the state law against drug possession currently carry a maximum penalty of a $6,250 fine and up to a year in jail.

People who manufacture or distribute the drugs will still face criminal punishment if Measure 110 is approved.

What do you guys think about this.

Bizarre. Not well thought out at all. Expand access to drug treatment and recovery services, in place of jail time? Not sure which costs more, but either way someone is paying the bill. Why not both at the same time..........

They will never derive enough tax money from regulated marijuana industry. so they will sue big Pharma for a billion dollars

Looking at the stock market and marijuana companies traded there, a billion in tax money would seem very much in reach.

You can bet your Bippy that whatever happens the almighty dollar will be a major factor.

I would think the solution is Nobel prize worthy.

E7 wrote:You can bet your Bippy that whatever happens the almighty dollar will be a major factor.

I would think the solution is Nobel prize worthy.

Hard drugs are now legal in Oregon. The game plan is to use the revenue from recreational marijuana to help these poor souls that have become addicted to the hard drugs. Interesting how the states all want the revenue from recreational marijuana. It was only a few years ago that the states were suing the tobacco industry because we have to protect the kiddies from a dangerous additive drug. The kiddies were always able to get all the cigs they wanted. Now they will be able to get all the recreational marijuana they want. Someone will always supply it to them. Probably some street dealer that wants to get them into the hard drugs More money in that.

HONDO74 wrote:

E7 wrote:You can bet your Bippy that whatever happens the almighty dollar will be a major factor.

I would think the solution is Nobel prize worthy.

Hard drugs are now legal in Oregon. The game plan is to use the revenue from recreational marijuana to help these poor souls that have become addicted to the hard drugs. Interesting how the states all want the revenue from recreational marijuana. It was only a few years ago that the states were suing the tobacco industry because we have to protect the kiddies from a dangerous additive drug. The kiddies were always able to get all the cigs they wanted. Now they will be able to get all the recreational marijuana they want. Someone will always supply it to them. Probably some street dealer that wants to get them into the hard drugs More money in that.

I can recall when the first talk of legalizing "grass" occurred, that there was a rush by legitimate??? companies to copyright names for joints.

"Far out, man!"

It may not really be in the best interest of people, but heaven forbid we miss a chance to make a buck out of it!

I can't for the life of me recall where I read that article, but I remember one of the names copyrighted was "Grassmasters".

Cheech and Chong have probably been gigling ever since the pols started legaling weed, and as they have long said, it has in fact, lead to hard drugs!

Much more dangerous drugs, alcohol and tobacco, carry no criminal penalties and cause much, much more harm in terms of social costs. These are what sociologists call "victimless crimes" that only affect the individual who chooses to use the drugs (and their families). Assuming they don't get behind the wheel of a car or other vehicle. Punish the offense if a crime occurs, not the person with the addiction. There are more important things for police to be doing than regulating people's self-destructive behavior when it doesn't affect others. Anyhow, an automatic rifle (perfectly legal in many places) can cause much more harm and we actually encourage the purchase of such devices .

Neil,

I'll drink a beer, you take some fentanyl. Let me know how you make out.

HONDO74 wrote:

E7 wrote:You can bet your Bippy that whatever happens the almighty dollar will be a major factor.

I would think the solution is Nobel prize worthy.

Hard drugs are now legal in Oregon.

Not really. That's all still under Federal jurisdiction and will take an act of Congress to change the designation of a criminal drug.

"I'll drink a beer, you take some fentanyl. Let me know how you make out."

Fentanyl is a prescription drug with known uses. Beer is not . Fentanyl is not a drug of abuse, in general, it's a contaminant of other drugs of abuse that kill people who don't realize that fentanyl is in their "product." If doctors could prescribe heroin, cocaine etc and they were produced to pharmaceutical standards, there would be no fentanyl problem.

My point being. Many more people die of legal alcohol and tobacco use than die from all illegal use of controlled substances put together. As a public health problem, alcohol and tobacco kill orders of magnitudes more citizens than fentanyl. Or heroin or cocaine. Especially if you include automobile and pedestrian deaths due to inebriated drivers. These things need to be treated as medical problems, not legal problems, by and large. We cannot be less successful than the politicians, police and judges are .

The trouble with many so-called social conservatives is they are in favor of freedom. That is, their own freedom to own automatic weapons, discriminate against women, gays, blacks and immigrants. They are in favor of drugs of abuse if they are alcohol or tobacco, but if you want to use your own drugs of abuse rather than theirs that isn't freedom, that's sin. Freedom is for the ideologues or fanatics who agree with them. But not if you are a woman who wants to have access to contraceptives. Or form a partnership with someone of the same sex. Or control your own body if you are a woman. Then, all these deranged libertarians become ardent religious zealots wanting to burn others at the stake, metaphorically speaking. Or at least have the police put them in jail or otherwise deprive them of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You're not allowed happiness that isn't sanctioned in the Old Testament of the Bible. originalism at its finest.

If we ban tobacco . Where would the lost revenue come from?

robert. wrote:If we ban tobacco . Where would the lost revenue come from?

The States didn't ban Tobacco. They sued the Companies for billions of dollars and got it. Now what did they do with the money. The money was supposed to have been used to reduce the number of young people smoking.Because it's known to cause cancer. Now they are suing the big pharma companies for billions of dollars, and the lawyers that specialize in this ( the same ones that were involved in the tobacco lawsuit will make lots of money) It's all about the money. No one gives a shit about the people.

And a couple of years ago there were young people dying from vaping. What the hell were they smoking ?

Neil, Suggest you take a long walk on a short pier.

Being a hypocrite is never fun, is it?

Not in favor of banning tobacco, alcohol or cocaine or hypocrisy.

HONDO74 wrote:And a couple of years ago there were young people dying from vaping. What the hell were they smoking ?

Pretty sure that they still are since the vaping controversy that the FDA had at the top of the list of agenda items got pushed aside.