Oregon’s drug decriminalization gets poor marks on audit
By Andrew Selsky in Salem
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — Oregon’s first-in-the-nation drug decriminalization has had a rocky start, but Secretary of State Shemia Fagan said Thursday in releasing an audit of the program that it’s too early to call it a failure.
Decriminalization of personal-use amounts of drugs, approved by voters in 2020 under Ballot Measure 110, was supposed to channel hundreds of millions of dollars of marijuana tax revenues into drug treatment and harm reduction programs. But that hasn’t yet translated into an improved care network for a state with the second-highest rate of substance use disorder in the nation and ranked 50th for access to treatment.
“When Oregonians passed Measure 110, we expected that our loved ones battling addiction would have access to treatment and a chance for a better life,” Fagan told reporters in a Zoom press conference. “We expected there will be fewer of our neighbors struggling on the streets.”
Instead, the funding has been slow getting out of the gate and instances of drug abuse and overdose deaths have increased.
Other states that might consider following Oregon’s path — which a few countries including Portugal have taken — will likely assess how well, or badly, it has gone.
Asked in the news conference what grade he would assign the program thus far, auditor Ian Green said “maybe a C.” Audits Director Kip Memmott gave it a D and Fagan said she’d assign an “incomplete.”
The director of the Oregon Health Authority, which helps establish the measure’s drug treatment aspects, blamed the funding delays on “ambitious implementation timelines and stretched OHA staffing resources due to the pandemic,” along with a shift in decision-making roles that required building new relationships.
“I recognize that Measure 110’s success depends on Oregon’s ability to solve many larger challenges in the behavioral health system, such as the need to expand treatment capacity and better support counselors and other workers,” said OHA Director James Schroeder, who was appointed this month by recently elected Gov. Tina Kotek.
Schroeder said Kotek has made improving Oregon’s behavioral health system and Measure 110 implementation a top priority.
Among the audit’s recommendations: The health authority should publish a plan by September on integrating Measure 110 into the state’s overall behavioral health system; improve data collection so the ballot measure’s effectiveness can be tracked by policymakers and the public; and set clear expectations, roles and responsibilities.
Another setback of the measure is the lack of people with substance abuse disorders who are seeking help after being ticketed for drug possession and given a hotline number.
In the first year after the new approach took effect in February 2021, only 1% of people who received citations for possessing controlled substances sought help via the new hotline.
Keith Humphreys, an addiction researcher and professor of psychiatry at Stanford University, said the audit “is commendably candid in acknowledging the bureaucratic failures that produce insufficient and uncoordinated services, and the reforms proposed to fix that situation are sensible.”
“In contrast, the report does not deal adequately with that fact that the statewide effort to use tickets/fines for drug possession to incentivize people to enter treatment was a complete failure,” Humphreys, a former senior adviser in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in an email.
Oregon officials are wrong to assume that increasing access to treatment alone will lead to most addicted individuals seeking drug treatment, he said.
“Without some external pressure, most people will not attempt to reduce their drug use via treatment or other means,” Humphreys said.
Fagan, whose brother and late mother had drug dependency issues, said the old system of criminalizing drug possession, combined with a lack of available treatment, simply did not work.
“I was one of the strong majority of Oregon voters who voted for Measure 110 because the status quo had failed my family and people who I love,” Fagan said. She described how she and another brother some four years ago tried to find somewhere to take their sibling after he was ready to get treatment.
“My other brother and I called all over, and we couldn’t find an inpatient facility to take him, despite the fact that he had really hit rock bottom,” Fagan said, adding that her brother is now successfully undergoing treatment.
“Make no mistake, this is a matter of life and death,” Fagan said. “Measure 110 must work because real people’s lives hang in the balance.”
Trump indicted: What to know about the documents case and what’s next
The federal charges represent the biggest legal jeopardy so far for Trump, coming less than three months after he was charged in New York with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
Here’s a look at the charges, the special counsel’s investigation and how Trump’s case differs from those of other politicians known to be in possession of classified documents:
WHAT ARE THE CHARGES, AND HOW IS TRUMP REACTING?
Trump has been charged with seven counts related to the mishandling of classified documents, according to two people familiar with the indictment but not authorized to speak publicly about it.
Trump’s lawyer James Trusty said Thursday on CNN that the indictment includes charges of willful retention of national defense information, obstruction of justice, false statements and conspiracy.
Trump, on his Truth Social app, called it “a DARK DAY for the United States of America.” In a video post, he said, “I’m innocent and we will prove that very, very soundly and hopefully very quickly.” Within 20 minutes of breaking the news, his 2024 presidential campaign sent out a fundraising missive telling his followers he’d been indicted and asking for financial support.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The Justice Department did not immediately publicly confirm the indictment, and any charges were not publicly filed.
Trump said he’d been summoned to appear in court Tuesday afternoon in Miami. It wasn’t immediately clear if Trump planned to make the appearance and what the procedure would look like.
When he was charged by the Manhattan district attorney in the New York case, Trump surrendered to authorities, where he was booked behind closed doors and appeared in the courtroom, sitting with his lawyers at the defense table.
HOW DID THIS CASE COME ABOUT?
Officials with the National Archives and Records Administration reached out to representatives for Trump in spring 2021 when they realized that important material from his time in office was missing from their collection.
According to the Presidential Records Act, White House documents are considered property of the U.S. government and must be preserved.
A Trump representative told the National Archives in December 2021 that presidential records had been found at Mar-a-Lago. In January 2022, the National Archives retrieved 15 boxes of documents from Trump’s Florida home, later telling Justice Department officials that they contained “a lot” of classified material.
That May, the FBI and Justice Department issued a subpoena for remaining classified documents in Trump’s possession. Investigators who went to visit the property weeks later to collect the records were given roughly three dozen documents and a sworn statement from Trump’s lawyers attesting that the requested information had been returned.
But that assertion turned out to be false. With a search warrant, federal officials returned to Mar-a-Lago in August 2022 and seized more than 33 boxes and containers totaling 11,000 documents from a storage room and an office, including 100 classified documents.
In all, roughly 300 documents with classification markings — including some at the top-secret level — have been recovered from Trump since he left office in January 2021.
HOW DID A SPECIAL COUNSEL GET INVOLVED?
Last year, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland picked Jack Smith, a veteran war crimes prosecutor with a background in public corruption probes, to lead investigations into the presence of classified documents at Trump’s Florida estate, as well as key aspects of a separate probe involving the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection and efforts to undo the 2020 election.
Smith’s appointment was a recognition by Garland of the politics involved in an investigation into a former president and current White House candidate. Garland himself was selected by Democratic President Joe Biden, whom Trump is seeking to challenge for the White House in 2024.
Special counsels are appointed in cases in which the Justice Department perceives itself as having a conflict or where it’s deemed to be in the public interest to have someone outside the government come in and take responsibility for a matter.
According to the Code of Federal Regulations, a special counsel must have “a reputation for integrity and impartial decisionmaking,” as well as “an informed understanding of the criminal law and Department of Justice policies.”
DIDN’T BIDEN AND FORMER VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE HAVE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS, TOO?
Yes, but the circumstances of their cases are vastly different from the situation involving Trump.
After classified documents were found at Biden’s think tank and Pence’s Indiana home, their lawyers notified authorities and quickly arranged for them to be handed over. They also authorized other searches by federal authorities to search for additional documents.
There is no indication either was aware of the existence of the records before they were found, and no evidence has so far emerged that Biden or Pence sought to conceal the discoveries. That’s important because the Justice Department historically looks for willfulness in deciding whether to bring criminal charges.
A special counsel was appointed earlier this year to probe how classified materials ended up at Biden’s Delaware home and former office. But even if the Justice Department were to find Biden’s case prosecutable on the evidence, its Office of Legal Counsel has concluded that a president is immune from prosecution during his time in office.
As for Pence, the Justice Department informed his legal team earlier this month that it would not be pursuing criminal charges against him over his handling of the documents.
DOES A FEDERAL INDICTMENT PREVENT TRUMP FROM RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT?
No. Neither the indictment itself nor a conviction would prevent Trump from running for or winning the presidency in 2024.
And as the New York case showed, criminal charges have historically been a boon to his fundraising. The campaign announced that it had raised over $4 million in the 24 hours after that indictment became public, far smashing its previous record after the FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club.
HOW ARE TRUMP’S REPUBLICAN RIVALS REACTING TO THE NEWS?
Many of Trump’s challengers for the GOP nomination jumped to his defense Thursday night after news of the indictment broke.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Trump’s top rival for the 2024 nomination, accused the Justice Department of political bias in charging the former president.
“The weaponization of federal law enforcement represents a mortal threat to a free society,” DeSantis tweeted. “We have for years witnessed an uneven application of the law depending upon political affiliation.”
He questioned why the Justice Department had been “so zealous” in bringing charges against Trump and “so passive” about going after former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton or Biden’s son Hunter.
Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina said he felt the justice system’s “scales are weighted” based on politics. “In America, every single person is presumed innocent, not guilty,” Scott said on Fox News, decrying “the weaponization of the Department of Justice against the former president.”
Biotech entrepreneur and “anti-woke” activist Vivek Ramaswamy said the federal case was part of “an affront to every citizen.” Reiterating his comments that he would pardon Trump, Ramaswamy called it “hypocritical for the DOJ to selectively prosecute Trump but not” Biden over his own classified documents case.
Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, who called for Trump to drop out of the race after the New York charges were filed, said the federal indictment marked “a sad day for our country” and “reaffirms the need for Donald Trump to respect the office and end his campaign.”
Former Vice President Mike Pence said earlier Thursday that if Trump were to be indicted, he would hope the Justice Department had strong evidence — a shift in tone from the night before, when he said he hoped Trump wouldn’t be charged even if evidence is clear he committed a crime.
Europe’s Digital Services Act Puts Free Speech at the Mercy of Eurocrats
From the Brownstone Institute
The European Union’s Internal Market Commissioner, Thierry Breton, was apparently miffed that Elon Musk withdrew Twitter from the EU’s “voluntary code of practice against disinformation.” He was sufficiently put out by Twitter’s withdrawal from the “voluntary code” that he felt the need to publicly reprimand Twitter for not gratefully submitting to the European Union’s expert guidance: “You can run but you can’t hide…Beyond voluntary commitments, fighting disinformation will be legal obligation under Digital Services Act as of August 25th.”
The declared aim of the new Digital Service Act is “to contribute to the proper functioning of the internal market for intermediary services by setting out harmonised rules for a safe, predictable and trusted online environment that facilitates innovation and in which fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, including the principle of consumer protection, are effectively protected.”
*Click here to give some extra support to my work by upgrading to a paid subscription*
Who can argue against a “safe, predictable and trusted online environment?” Who would argue against “consumer protection?” And who would argue against Mr Breton’s commitment to the fight against “disinformation?” I certainly would, because when a person or institution in a position of great power endorses values like “predictability,” rails against “disinformation,” and promises to keep us all “safe” on the internet, you can be sure that it will be “safety,” “predictability,” and “disinformation,” as viewed from their self-serving ideological and political perspective.
I am just as worried as Mr Breton about “disinformation,” but my chief concern is with disinformation coming from official sources, which can do an extraordinary amount of harm due to the extraordinary reach and prestige of official organisations. It is these same organisations that Mr Breton would like to put in charge of policing “disinformation:” organisations like national governments, that have been among the most frequent perpetrators of false and misleading information, on matters of no small moment, from the efficacy and safety of Covid vaccines, masks and lockdowns to the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the true standing of climate “science,” and the potential harms to the economy and food supply chain of aggressive climate interventions such as the expropriation of farmland.
The Digital Services Act is an endless maze of complicated regulations worthy of a team of lawyers. Seeing as I don’t have a budget to hire a team of lawyers, I decided to skim through the Act for myself. It does not make for pleasant bedtime reading, not only because it is a morass of complicated legalese, but also, because what hides behind this legalese is an attempt by EU politicians to get social media platforms under their thumb, through
- the obligation on the part of social media companies to periodically submit content moderation and “risk mitigation” reports to EU bureacrats
- EU supervision of social media platforms’ policing of “harmful” information, which could potentially include health misinformation as well as “illegal hate speech”
- the creation of new emergency powers in the European Commission to “require” social media platforms to take actions to “prevent, eliminate or limit” any use of their services that might “contribute” to a “threat” to public security or public health
…and all backed up by crippling fines of up to 6 percent of a company’s worldwide turnover for non-compliance. Yes, you heard that right: up to six percent of a company’s worldwide turnover.
At bottom, the Digital Services Act is an attempt to ramp up the level of control that EU bureacrats have over the flow of information on social media platforms. You would have to have a very short historical memory to think that broad powers of censorship will generally be used to advance the cause of truth and justice. Whether Mr Thierry Breton and his colleagues will be successful in forcing social media companies to do their bidding, this much is clear: the Digital Services Act creates a European legal environment that is increasingly hostile to free speech.
Republished from the author’s Substack
Collapse of major dam in southern Ukraine triggers emergency as Moscow and Kyiv blame each other
Trudeau Foundation board chair says donation from Chinese company has been returned
Indigenous leaders meet G7 diplomats to make case for Canadian LNG
Three men, including police officer, face charges after overdose death in cell
International2 days ago
Trudeau Foundation board chair says donation from Chinese company has been returned
Business2 days ago
Liberal budget bill passes in House of Commons after Conservative filibuster attempt
Alberta11 hours ago
‘Flared back up’: Alberta town of 8,400 evacuated for second time due to fire
Media2 days ago
Government policy tells CRTC to exclude social media users from online streaming bill
Brownstone Institute6 hours ago
Twenty Grim Realities Unearthed by Lockdowns
Education1 day ago
Ottawa girl set to become the youngest university graduate in Canadian history
National2 days ago
‘Unmitigated gall’: Senator rejects minister’s call to pass Liberal guns bill quickly
Top Story CP2 days ago
CP NewsAlert: Wildfire triggers evacuation order for Tumbler Ridge, B.C.