In September, Oregon lawmakers enacted legislation turning low-level drug possession into a more serious crime punishable by up to 180 days in jail. The resulting crackdown has led to thousands of arrests statewide in recent months. People targeted in cities such as Medford, and overworked public defenders tasked with representing them, say the drug enforcement has been chaotic and at times brutal.

While the new policy has appeared to reduce visible drug use in some public spaces, unhoused people, who have been most impacted by the police response, say it has exacerbated their struggles.

The Medford police department has led the state in drug criminalization – by a lot.

The city is located in a region near the California border that is one of the more conservative areas of a blue state; more than half of voters in Jackson county, which includes Medford, supported Donald Trump.

From September, when the new law was enacted, through 26 March, the Medford police force carried out 902 drug possession arrests – more than double the number of cases in Portland (a city with seven times the population). Jackson county has logged 1,170 arrests total.

Verling, an officer on the city’s “livability” team, a unit focused on low-level crimes, including unlawful camping, trespassing, public drinking and drug possession, said many police were relieved when drugs were recriminalized. The 2020 reform had led to increasing reports of drug use on the streets and growing concern about public intoxication.

Recriminalization, Verling said, allows him to engage people in hopes of pushing them to treatment. “I really don’t want to see someone go to prison … but this gives us the ability to get back into their lives,” he said on a recent patrol through Medford.

He said the job was most rewarding when seeing someone turn their life around after they’ve been jailed – and when his team arrests dealers, potentially “making people sober by making the drugs inaccessible”.

One of the livability team’s main priorities has been clearing homeless encampments, and as Verling drove his patrol car onto a pedestrian greenway, the impact was clear. During the pandemic, encampments were a common site. Now, there were few visible signs of homelessness. Several locals were jogging.

Where did people go?

“People leave town. They’re like, ‘OK well it’s a crime to camp here,’” he said, adding he believed many were in shelters.

Jackson county designed its program so officers could directly hand over arrestees to drug treatment programs instead of jail, a collaborative approach meant to get people immediate help without involving the courts. But many don’t qualify, aren’t offered this alternative during their arrest, or they decline an officer’s offer. According to the latest available data, while there have been nearly 1,200 possession arrests, as of 27 March, only 69 people have been referred to deflection.

Instead, many get arrested. And rearrested. One 43-year-old unhoused woman said police were “acting like every person on the street is a drug addict, which is not true”, and that she had been arrested four times by Medford’s livability team since October, generally for camping violations. While she was quickly released after her last arrest, her partner was not, leaving her to camp outside alone. The woman, who asked not to use her name out of fear of police retaliation, said she was sleeping in front of a social services center in hopes her partner could easily find her when he gets out. “The separation makes me feel like I can’t breathe,” she added. “Police say they’re helping the homeless, but they’re just throwing us in handcuffs and jail.”

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20250331185054/https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/31/oregon-new-drug-law-arrests

  • Nate Cox@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    2 days ago

    Green, the DA, said he felt deflection was a better path to treatment than the criminal system, which can be a slow process, and that the fact that only some people were succeeding was a good sign: “We didn’t [make it] too easy or too hard. We really found that sweet spot.”

    Oh fuck you. 70 or so people deflecting out of 1200 arrests is not success you pompous prick, it’s failure.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It’s a better rate than the 130+/16,000 that deflected under 110.

      At this rate, by the time we’ve arrested 16,000 people to match those ticketed under 110, 933 people will have diverted. 7x more than diverted under 110.

      Still not enough, but far better than decriminalization. A $100 ignorable ticket isn’t an incentive.

      • Nate Cox@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        Did you miss the entire part of the article talking about how this effectively locks up the court system, deprives US citizens of their constitutional right to representation, and does effectively nothing to actually get people off drugs?

        Tell me more about how you like punishing the poor for being poor, though.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          The court system in Oregon was fucked already, ignoring crimes isn’t going to fix that problem.

          • Nate Cox@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            I can’t help but notice that you really like to cherry pick only the parts of comments you think you have a simple answer to.

            How about responding to the meat of the argument rather than trying to just move the goalpost?

              • Nate Cox@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                2 days ago

                The solution is social welfare programs and a focus on mental health, job placement, and relocation assistance. Give the vast majority of people health care, stable employment, and a safe place to live, and they will thrive.

                The solution is not cramming people into prison labor and ripping their constitutional rights from them.

                I really don’t understand how this isn’t obvious to everyone.

                • jordanlund@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  That’s not the solution, because given a choice, addicts will not choose it.

                  The real solution is involuntary commitment for mental health and drug treatment, but nobody wants to go there.

      • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 days ago

        A $100 ignorable ticket isn’t an incentive.

        A wiser person might concede that if an unhoused addict had $100 in spare change they might also be able to afford treatment, housing and food.

          • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 days ago

            How many addicts or former addicts do you know 'cause that’s a pretty big brush you’re using to paint ALL addicts with.

            I used to be an addict (booze) and came close a couple of times to a full-blown cocaine addiction (the 80’s and early 90’s were crazy).

            If you can’t feel any empathy or compassion for those battling an addiction you are missing out on an important part of being human and caring for your neighbor … whoever they may be.

            • jordanlund@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              2 days ago

              Well, I know how much treatment and housing costs and it’s way more than a $100.

              I also know if you give an addict a choice between food and feeding the addiction they will choose the addiction every day and twice on Sunday. (That’s why it’s “an addiction”.)

              • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                2 days ago

                Yet you seem to be assuming that ALL addicts are non-functional in society. The 80’s Wall St should have taught you that’s not true.

                  • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Exactly. Many addicts are socially functioning … working jobs, having and caring for families, yet still addicts.

                    Your brush strokes fail to take them into account.