I don't think the roll-back of Measure 110 as described is a return to the War on Drugs, to be clear. It basically up the charges a tiny bit, and somehow finds a way to fund a post-conviction counseling session or two that's going to be more expensive than the one they currently can't afford.
This is going to cost so much money, and there won't be much change on the ground level for a decade at the very least, This isn't a problem that goes away because a law got walked back. A few tickets, a whole lot of court dates, and so on isn't going to end it overnight either.
And criminalization of drugs doesn't stop drug use anyway. Look at Kensington Ave in Philadelphia, for example. Drugs aren't decriminalized in Pennsylvania, but just search "Kensington Ave. Philadelphia" on Youtube, watch a few videos, and then go walk around downtown Portland, and ask yourself if you see any difference. It's the nature of addiction in big cities around the entire U.S. (and around the world), because drugs are cheaper and much easier to obtain.
The real kicker of the recriminalization effort is that now cops in Oregon are going to be stuck patrolling every street and writing tons of tickets for trace amount of drugs and won't have time to bust actual traffickers. Instead of shutting off the water pipes, they'll be plugging holes in a bursting dam. I don't know if I'm the only person who noticed or something, but there has been a major uptick in large scale drug busts state-wide in the last few years (source,: choose an article: ). Cops can't work these large scale cases when all their time and resources are spent handing out tickets and trying to find transients who missed court dates and/or mandated drug counseling appointments. So we're spending a bunch of money to make sure some guy everyone calls Dirty Bob gets punished for two grams of whatever it takes to help him sleep under some park bench, all while the cartels and traffickers are bringing in more and more product. More product means more addicts, on top of relapsing addicts. It usually means cheaper product, too, which will draw in more addicts from other places.
It's tough to be out and walk by people smoking foil and nodding out and sometimes outright dying. From experience, it's tough to have to see that on a daily basis. It sucks having human feces on your buildings door-steps every other day. But if the goal is to really stop addiction, the focus has to be on cutting out the sources of the drugs. I'm not pro-drug. As an alcoholic in a years-long full remission, I hate addiction. I didn't like the person I was in my addiction. I dislike seeing addiction bring out the worst in others. I also know from experience that you can't just force a person sober. It has to be their choice. The only thing you can do is make sure there's a support system there to keep them from relapsing and to smoothly transition into a sober* life. I just personally think minimizing availability of drugs by busting the suppliers is a better way of helping people get sober than street level infraction busts is. Hard rugs will always be around. It's just a truth. The best you can do is minimize their availability. Availability is dependent on the amount available, so it makes sense to use your city/county/state drug enforcement department's time and resources to go after the big suppliers instead of the "one-down-perpetual-thousands-to-go" approach of street level busts.
This move to repeal 110 (if only in name and some fineprint) is a bad move, and (imo) a purely reactionary move with no foresight. This is about getting votes, not actually solving any problems. It's an attempt to sweep the problem under the rug. But I think it will backfire and make the problem worse, and with fewer resources to manage the problem. There are ways to make 110 work for addicts, and for Oregon. I think people are giving up on 110 too soon, and I also think they have unrealistic expectations for how repealing 110 will turn out. It's going to be slow, difficult, probably much more expensive than even the highest projected costs, and you're not going to see much change at the street level..
My big problem, in the end, is that this starts to limit the possibilities of approaches to really combat addiction. The problems won't go away, and the solutions get even more limited.
Measure 110 was born in the middle of COVID, and it hasn't even had the chance to grow and meet it's potential. It's been barely 4 years since it got voted in, and it spent its first years in the middle of a pandemic, a violent socio-political climate, a horrible economy (both from domestic policy and more universal COVID-related issues). Portland, especially, has a very serviced-based workforce; bars and restaurants, shops, galleries, performance-based art, outdoors-related stuff, etc. And rents are really expensive and service industry jobs aren't usually sending you home with checks that make you feel comfortable paying Portland rent prices from your savings with no income. Homelessness rose, Socio-Political tensions rose, and with that came violence. And in the middle of all that, drugs were decriminalized. And there was bound to be a long, difficult fallout after all that. But decriminalization of drugs definitely wasn't (and isn't) the sole reason for Portland (or the rest of Oregon's) ills. It played a role, but there were other, equally significant factors that got us where we are today.
I might add more to this later. But for an immediate reaction, I think the above accurately expresses my disappointment, and the reasons for my disappointment
*[Note that sober doesn't necessarily imply a life of abstinence from all substances. People who've successfully kicked opioid addictions might very well be able to enjoy, say, wine or marijuana in moderation. Some people are hard-wired to only be addicted to a certain substance, some people are just naturally prone to addiction regardless of the substance.]