other views logo

Even our most intractable problems offer up some easy ways to make a dent in the dysfunction.

A proposal floated earlier this year by Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler to ban public consumption of fentanyl and other hard drugs falls under that category. It’s a revelation that such use is not already illegal.

State law and the passage of Measure 110 in 2020 have led to this odd juncture where cities can cite those who drink alcohol in public but lack that same authority with those using fentanyl and other drugs driving the state’s overdose epidemic. A state law adopted decades ago prohibits cities from imposing any criminal or civil penalties on someone for using alcohol or controlled substances in public, as part of a shift to treat substance use from a health standpoint as opposed to a criminal one.

Yet the law included a provision that still allowed cities to regulate where consumption of alcohol was permissible, giving local jurisdictions the leeway to declare parks and other public spaces off limits.

Lawmakers considered public use concerns when voters legalized recreational use of marijuana in 2014 and passed legislation to make public consumption of marijuana a violation. But they did not take similar action when voters passed Measure 110 in 2020, which decriminalized possession of limited quantities of street drugs.

Hello, loophole.

This is a problem that legislators can and should fix in the short legislative session next year. They should expressly grant cities the authority to enact sanctions against those using such drugs in places that are already off-limits to alcohol and cannabis use. While some will inevitably decry such an action, it’s a reasonable change to accommodate the growing health and safety concerns that affect the community as a whole.

Voters didn’t endorse widespread public fentanyl use with their vote for Measure 110 — a vote that a large number of people appear to regret, as polling shows. Even the most ardent backers of Measure 110 should recognize the public’s disillusionment with the measure’s implementation and support such modest changes in hopes they can help improve its effectiveness.

Certainly, the inability to govern where someone can consume fentanyl is not the reason for skyrocketing overdoses, the proliferation of open-air drug markets and the ubiquitous litter of needles and smoking paraphernalia in parks and neighborhoods.

But common sense dictates that cities should be able to declare public places — park playgrounds and downtown sidewalks, for instance — free from drug use. That has only become more apparent as entire buildings and city streets have become health and safety hazards with the explosion of fentanyl use.

And Measure 110, which directs police officers to simply issue tickets to people using drugs in hopes of spurring them to call a hotline, has failed dismally in connecting people with treatment. Added sanctions from the city for public use of drugs can provide stronger motivation for someone to seek help.

It’s important to note that the answer is not solely one of enforcement. Perhaps the most promising — and so far, least successful — part of Measure 110 was the pledge to devote millions in cannabis tax revenue to expand our anemic substance abuse treatment services. While lawmakers have adopted changes aimed at improving the delivery of dollars to expand the network, the state has a long way to go before it is even close to providing an adequate system.

The dire need for residential beds at addiction treatment centers, transitional housing, counseling and many other services for both adults and youths is staggering and has been well known for years. Unless Oregon can reverse the status quo of an overwhelmed behavioral health network — including the severe shortage of mental health services — no laws will usher in the stability that Oregonians want.