Conventional wisdom in and far beyond Oregon is that the state’s Measure 110, an initiative passed by voters in 2020 decriminalizing small amounts of most drugs, was a flat-out failure and has become a dead letter.
Though passed by a near landslide, polling showed public opinion in Oregon flipped on it afterwards. Its best-known element, the broad (not total) decriminalization of many illegal drugs, largely was changed (not completely) by the Oregon Legislature.
The initiative has been frequently dismissed as a crash-and-burn. A March 2024 Atlantic magazine article about it was headlined “Why Oregon’s Drug Decriminalization failed.”
Just before the new year, after the Dec. 17 release of a Secretary of State audit “Measure 110 Lacks Stability, Coordination, and Clear Results,” that message resumed. Headlines such as “Oregon audit finds drug decriminalization ballot measure has failed” were widespread.
The audit itself staked out different ground, tracing a Measure 110 path that has been both complex and subtle, and not well understood.
Not that the measure has so far done much to solve Oregon’s drug abuse problems, which were and are among the most severe in the nation. In fairness, it wasn’t billed as a complete solve-all.
The audit seems to suggest (this isn’t explicit) the problem may have been less core intentions than execution, a familiar problem in Oregon. What the audit zeroed in on was, as reflected in its title, an absence of “stability, coordination and clear results” in follow-through.
While most commentary about the measure concerned decriminalization, the more significant component probably was the intent to build a comprehensive health system to treat drug abuse. This was not self-executing, but little consistent work to make it succeed has emerged since 2020.
Here is how the Atlantic described the original pro-measure thinking: “Once drugs were decriminalized and destigmatized, the thinking went, those who wanted to continue using would be more willing to access harm-reduction services that helped them use in safer ways. Meanwhile, the many people who wanted to quit using drugs but had been too ashamed or fearful to seek treatment would do so.”
More seriously, it would never work so automatically; some guardrail restrictions (such as open-air drug bazaars) were needed from the beginning, along with strong incentives and penalties to push people toward treatment and recovery. Little of that was done.
That was doomed to failure without a strong enforcement or at least a strong incentive system to press drug-dependent people into changing their patterns; too many of them would be unlikely to do it on their own. It also would need a recovery system build to scale and easily accessible.
The audit said the original idea remains “unfulfilled” primarily due to “persistent structural and operational weaknesses across Oregon’s behavioral health system. A coordinated approach would help ensure access to care, and the chance for recovery, does not depend on where a person lives. For a problem that is decades in the making, it will likely take decades of intentional effort to correct. Instead, the pattern of annual revisions has undermined confidence in the program’s direction and hindered the development of long-term strategies.”
The policy direction was altered repeatedly by the legislature. And that’s only the beginning: “The grant process has been inconsistent since the start of M110. A lack of consistent prioritization by OHA leadership, operational turnover, and multiple legislative changes have further complicated efforts to operate the program.”
Even a planned telephone hotline system “was redundant and lacked strategic integration, as it duplicated existing efforts and cost the state significant resources.”
There have been steps taken in salvaging 110’s intent. The legislature did, for example, approve funding for county deflection programs (which is related but different from diversion programs), but the spread and impact of them has been limited.
Much of the money to pay for these programs was intended to come from cannabis taxes and fees, which have been in decline in the last few years.
Nor is there any comprehensive or useful database to clearly evaluate what has or hasn’t worked.
Still, the audit doesn’t operate under the presumption that Measure 110 is a dead letter. Instead, it ends with a series of recommendations to make the general idea work.
Much of that involves simply requiring proper data collection and regular and current performance reports. A simple comprehensive roadmap should be developed jointly by state agencies. (It’s remarkable that was never done in the first place.).
Secretary of State Tobias Read said when the audit was released, “With a consistent, long-term strategy, stronger coordination, and better data, Oregon can help more people get the care they need, and we’ll all have safer, healthier communities. These recommendations don’t require new resources, just a commitment to providing basic oversight, common-sense governance, and accountability.”
The problem hasn’t gone away. The framework of Measure 110 is still there too, and properly executed, could still provide some basis for addressing it in an effective way.
This article first appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.
