In February 2021, Oregon rolled out Measure 110, a groundbreaking initiative aimed at transforming the state’s approach to drug offenses. Instead of pursuing arrests, law enforcement now issues citations and guides individuals toward treatment. This approach, heralded as a significant shift from the traditional punitive measures, received 58% of the vote and redirected cannabis tax revenue to fund new recovery programs. As the implementation of Measure 110 progresses, evaluations of its effectiveness have yielded mixed perspectives.
Measure 110, officially known as the Drug Addiction Treatment and Recovery Act, sought to alleviate the penalties for controlled substance offenses, downgrading them from felonies or misdemeanors to a maximum $100 fine, devoid of criminal consequences. Oregon voters embraced this reform, recognizing the urgency of addressing drug addiction and overdoses while advocating for expanded access to drug treatment.
Senate Bill 755 (2021) complemented Measure 110 by establishing Behavioral Health Resource Networks (BHRNs). These networks, operating at the county and Tribal levels, offer comprehensive, community-based services and support for individuals with substance use disorders. The services include screening, intervention planning, substance use disorder treatment, harm reduction services, peer support, and housing assistance. The goal is to adopt a health-centric approach, emphasizing individual needs, cultural sensitivity, and trauma-informed care.
Despite Measure 110’s substantial voter approval, criticisms have emerged. Some argue that the implementation has been slow, particularly in the expansion of treatment efforts. Concerns have been raised about the lack of differentiation in the approach to various drugs and the absence of strong incentives or consequences to guide individuals toward treatment.
While initial complaints centered around the measured expansion of treatment initiatives, recent developments have seen progress. Behavioral Health Resource Networks have gained momentum, enhancing the delivery of services to individuals. However, the comprehensive and uniform nature of Measure 110 has prompted discussions about tailoring responses based on the type of drug involved. The nuanced distinctions between opioids, methamphetamines, and cocaine may require tailored legislative approaches.
One notable absence in Measure 110 is a mechanism to exert pressure or force individuals toward treatment. Advocates suggest building on the successful model of drug courts, granting public officials and judges broader authority to compel compliance with recovery efforts. Critics argue that the existing legal framework, encompassing crimes and penalties related to drug manufacture and trafficking, remains a potent tool for addressing drug-related issues.
A crucial aspect of evaluating Measure 110 involves considering the experiences of other jurisdictions. A delegation from Oregon visited Portugal, which shifted from a criminalized to a health service approach two decades ago. Portugal’s sustained commitment to a health-centric model without reverting to criminalization offers valuable insights.
As Oregon navigates the complexities of implementing Measure 110, policymakers face the challenge of balancing public will with the need for effective execution. While the initiative signals a departure from traditional punitive measures, fine-tuning the approach based on evolving needs and lessons from other jurisdictions remains an ongoing task. The three-year mark since Measure 110’s inception emphasizes the patience, innovation, and collaboration required to gauge its long-term impact on drug policy reform in Oregon.
