Oregon county decriminalizes heroin, meth and coke

arthurdent

By Stephen C. Webster
Monday, October 11th, 2010 -- 9:52 pm

It's crunch-time for many municipalities across the United States, but for one county in Oregon, that means a little more than in most.

The district attorney in Multnomah County, the state's most populous area with over 710,000 residents, announced recently that it can no longer prosecute dozens of crimes thanks to an ever-shrinking budget.

Caught with small amounts of heroin, cocaine or methamphetamine? It's a ticket. So's a hit-and-run accident. Small-time shoplifting? You'll still get arrested, but it's still just a violation.

For these and other lesser crimes, the district attorney will simply refuse to prosecute.

Still, police have been directed to continue operating as normal, making arrests as they see fit, and it'll be up to the county's attorneys to decide what gets prosecuted.
Story continues below...

In spite of the relaxed penalties for numerous crimes, chances are the drunk driver who recently rear-ended the county's sheriff will see the business end of a judge's gavel.

But it might take a while: Schrunk's staff was recently cut by 27 percent, according to statements provided in a media advisory.

"In a perfect world, you commit a crime, you'd be prosecuted for what it is," district attorney Mike Schrunk told The Oregonian. "[We] don't have unlimited funds."

Other crimes which the county will adjust to violation level include trespassing on non-commercial property, "theft or forgery in the second degree," harassment, interfering with a police officer, interfering with public transportation, resisting arrest (non-injury) and criminal mischief in the second degree.

The district attorney's full memorandum was available online (PDF link) at time of publication.

In spite of the budgetary rue, Multnomah County is one of only a few in the nation that is piloting a program that affixes GPS tracking bracelets to youths convicted of gang-related crimes: a practice widely criticized by civil rights groups.

Electric_Delta

Sounds lovely.

Kel Varnsen

It's a ticket. So's a hit-and-run accident

So if you hit a person or another car and drive away and they catch you later you only get a ticket? That's crazy.

Drowned Out

arthurdent wrote:

"In a perfect world, you commit a crime, you'd be prosecuted for what it is," district attorney Mike Schrunk told The Oregonian. "[We] don't have unlimited funds."

:shock: wow. That's quite the statement. Things have gotten this bad, huh?

While I support drug law reform, even for the drugs listed in the thread title...my thinking (with hard drugs) has always been to take the legal/enforcement savings and invest it in harm reduction programs...this is more of a budget band-aid which doesn't sound like it will do anything to improve the drug abuse situation. I don't see this making the situation any worse tho, either.

Kel Varnsen

Drowned Out wrote:

While I support drug law reform, even for the drugs listed in the thread title...my thinking (with hard drugs) has always been to take the legal/enforcement savings and invest it in harm reduction programs...this is more of a budget band-aid which doesn't sound like it will do anything to improve the drug abuse situation. I don't see this making the situation any worse tho, either.

It might make things worse. I mean if you legalize things small scale on the county level it might draw more users and dealers to move, or at least set up shop in that county. I mean sure your average dealer in oregon probably doesn't have the cash to pick up his life and move to somewhere like Holland. But a dealer selling in the next county over might drive to this county and start selling there instead. And yes carrying large amounts of drugs and dealing would probably still get you thrown in jail but this means your customers don't have to fear getting thrown in jail, and as long as the dealers are smart and only carry small amounts of product at a time, they probably aren't going to get arrested either.

eyedclaar

Members of the Tea party everywhere must be celebrating. I mean, it gets the gubmint out of our personal business, right? Personally, I'm all for it. If they aren't willing to make alcohol, nicotine, and donuts illegal, than nothing should be.

Drowned Out

Kel Varnsen wrote:

It might make things worse. I mean if you legalize things small scale on the county level it might draw more users and dealers to move, or at least set up shop in that county. I mean sure your average dealer in oregon probably doesn't have the cash to pick up his life and move to somewhere like Holland. But a dealer selling in the next county over might drive to this county and start selling there instead. And yes carrying large amounts of drugs and dealing would probably still get you thrown in jail but this means your customers don't have to fear getting thrown in jail, and as long as the dealers are smart and only carry small amounts of product at a time, they probably aren't going to get arrested either.

Unless you think demand will change with the law, the suppliers would be mistaken to move there - they'd just flood the market and drive prices/profits down. I don't see demand increasing. I mean...would you do heroin just cause it wouldn't land you in jail anymore?

mikepegg44

Drowned Out wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

It might make things worse. I mean if you legalize things small scale on the county level it might draw more users and dealers to move, or at least set up shop in that county. I mean sure your average dealer in oregon probably doesn't have the cash to pick up his life and move to somewhere like Holland. But a dealer selling in the next county over might drive to this county and start selling there instead. And yes carrying large amounts of drugs and dealing would probably still get you thrown in jail but this means your customers don't have to fear getting thrown in jail, and as long as the dealers are smart and only carry small amounts of product at a time, they probably aren't going to get arrested either.

Unless you think demand will change with the law, the suppliers would be mistaken to move there - they'd just flood the market and drive prices/profits down. I don't see demand increasing. I mean...would you do heroin just cause it wouldn't land you in jail anymore?

also, they will definitely prosecute dealers, it is the users they won't prosecute depending on how much someone has, but I promise you, if someone has 200 grams of meth they are getting prosecuted

arthurdent

Drowned Out wrote:

:shock: wow. That's quite the statement. Things have gotten this bad, huh?

Not really that different than the pay-to-spray fire department I read about here last week. If you keep cutting taxes, eventually you're going to nick something important.

Kel Varnsen

Drowned Out wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

It might make things worse. I mean if you legalize things small scale on the county level it might draw more users and dealers to move, or at least set up shop in that county. I mean sure your average dealer in oregon probably doesn't have the cash to pick up his life and move to somewhere like Holland. But a dealer selling in the next county over might drive to this county and start selling there instead. And yes carrying large amounts of drugs and dealing would probably still get you thrown in jail but this means your customers don't have to fear getting thrown in jail, and as long as the dealers are smart and only carry small amounts of product at a time, they probably aren't going to get arrested either.

Unless you think demand will change with the law, the suppliers would be mistaken to move there - they'd just flood the market and drive prices/profits down. I don't see demand increasing. I mean...would you do heroin just cause it wouldn't land you in jail anymore?

Overall demand might not increase but the demand for drugs in that county might increase as users from other counties go to that county to that county to buy since it would mean they probably wouldn't get stuck buying from an undercover cop, and possession in that county won't mean an arrest.

Kel Varnsen

mikepegg44 wrote:

Drowned Out wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

It might make things worse. I mean if you legalize things small scale on the county level it might draw more users and dealers to move, or at least set up shop in that county. I mean sure your average dealer in oregon probably doesn't have the cash to pick up his life and move to somewhere like Holland. But a dealer selling in the next county over might drive to this county and start selling there instead. And yes carrying large amounts of drugs and dealing would probably still get you thrown in jail but this means your customers don't have to fear getting thrown in jail, and as long as the dealers are smart and only carry small amounts of product at a time, they probably aren't going to get arrested either.

Unless you think demand will change with the law, the suppliers would be mistaken to move there - they'd just flood the market and drive prices/profits down. I don't see demand increasing. I mean...would you do heroin just cause it wouldn't land you in jail anymore?

also, they will definitely prosecute dealers, it is the users they won't prosecute depending on how much someone has, but I promise you, if someone has 200 grams of meth they are getting prosecuted

So then dealers know not to carry 200 grams of meth at a time, it doesn't seem that difficult to me. I mean don't dealers already know to keep only small amounts on your person at any given time, and to stash the rest in your car, or somewhere where you can easily ditch it and the cops can't prove its yours if you get busted?

mikepegg44

Kel Varnsen wrote:

So then dealers know not to carry 200 grams of meth at a time, it doesn't seem that difficult to me. I mean don't dealers already know to keep only small amounts on your person at any given time, and to stash the rest in your car, or somewhere where you can easily ditch it and the cops can't prove its yours if you get busted?

if you want to sell one bag at a time I suppose. But you cannot have large amounts of cash on you either. I would guess that anything considered personal use would be in the neighborhood of no more than an 1/8th. But I could be wrong,might even be a 1/4...not worth risking really.
and I would hope they would not prosecute dealers either, I could care less what anyone wants to put in their bodies. I say make it all legal for everyone to sell. All the DEA agents can then switch to the IRS to get all the unpaid income tax that would be generated by the pot dealers who would forget to pay.

blackredyellow

I wonder how successful they will be arresting dealers... At least when people picked up for possession were facing charges, authorities would have some leverage to get some info out of them for reduced charges.

I don't smoke, but I'm all for legalizing pot.... hard drugs like these tho, it's tougher for me to agree with decriminalizing.

Drowned Out

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Overall demand might not increase but the demand for drugs in that county might increase as users from other counties go to that county to that county to buy since it would mean they probably wouldn't get stuck buying from an undercover cop, and possession in that county won't mean an arrest.

You think the number of people doing that would be significant enough for concern? How many people do you think buy from strangers on the street? Think about it: if you have a connection close to home…are you going to go seek out new connections in another county and risk the drive? You still have to come back to your county. Chances are, if this were happening, the police would be watching the roads back into the adjacent counties. If you’re suggesting that people would move there over this….I doubt it. I suppose if you were a homeless addict, it would be a more attractive place to be…but then…if you’re a homeless addict, you probably don’t worry that much about arrest. Anyway…I don’t really think this development is a positive one – if they’ve made possession a misdemeanour, it’s a step in the right direction….but they’re doing it for all the wrong reasons.