Possession of heroin and fentanyl should be decriminalized. Most people would agree that an individual should not be thrown in prison simply because they have a disease, and addiction is a disease. People suffering from addiction have become consumed by a drug that does not define them. Allowing people to have access to resources and aid to combat their addiction would be more of a service to them rather than locking them up and ruining their futures. This idea is the basis for Measure 110.
In November 2020, Oregon had an interesting idea. The Addiction Aid Advocates helped pioneer a first-of-its-kind referendum called Measure 110, which allowed Oregon to become the first-ever state to decriminalize the possession of drugs, such as heroin, fentanyl and oxycodone. 58% of voters approved of the bill. The basis for the bill was that individuals who suffer from addiction are more effectively treated with healthcare services instead of being faced with criminal punishments. Along with the bill came a new health-centered emphasis on treating individuals who suffer from addiction instead of incarcerating them.
In recent days, election officials and politicians from Oregon have wanted to repeal key elements in Measure 110. They claim that there has been an astronomical rise in the number of overdose-related deaths. Because of this, they want to repeal key elements in Measure 110 and reintroduce criminal punishment for possession, including jail time. Officials cite their reasoning that jail time is a motivator not to do drugs. Regardless, people who are addicted to drugs will do drugs regardless of their legality. People consumed drugs even when Measure 110 did not exist and jail time was still a possibility.
Advocates of Measure 110 have vocalized their disapproval of officials’ recent ideas to repeal key elements of Measure 110. They claim that Measure 110 was never accurately imposed or acted upon by city officials. Additionally, decriminalization is not responsible for the rise in deaths attributed to overdose. A new study conducted by New York University, the Network of Public Health Law and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that the seeming rise in overdose deaths is not a relative cause of Measure 110. The study looked into 13 different states with drug overdose rates similar to Oregon’s in the three years prior to the passage of Measure 110. The overdose rates of those states were then compared to Oregon’s rates during the first year of decriminalization. The research showed that overdose rates rose everywhere and that they did not seem to increase significantly when Measure 110 was released. Thus, the study counters Oregon officials’ idea that Measure 110 is responsible for the increase in overdose deaths.
There are benefits that come with allowing the possession of drugs classified as Schedule I to be decriminalized. Contrary to the belief that jail time is a motivator not to do drugs, the decriminalization of drugs can provide an opportunity for people who are looking for a way out to be able to reach out and get the assistance they need without the fear of being incarcerated. Likewise, in the case of a medical emergency, people who are afraid to call emergency services may be hesitant to do so for fear of criminal punishment. Thus, decriminalizing drug possession could reduce the amount of overdoses.
People have always done drugs and will continue to do drugs because of their addictive nature. The act, alone, of decriminalizing drug possession will not eliminate America’s drug problem. However, it’s been shown that decriminalization would not hurt America’s drug problem. If anything, it will help alleviate the situation, which, in turn. can help reduce America’s drug problem, which is why I believe that the possession of drugs like heroin, fentanyl and other opioids should be decriminalized.
Mike Angelo Rodriguez, FCRH’27, is a political science major from Atlantic City, N.J.
