There is no “safe” way to use fentanyl. The policy failures of the “harm reduction” and “housing first” crowd surround us in Portland and cities like LA, Seattle and SF (although Laurie is meaningfully improving the situation in that city). It’s really common sense. Why would anyone believe giving addicts the tools to take drugs would yield a positive outcome? Similarly, why would anyone believe providing a home, without treatment, to someone who is mentally ill or drug addicted would yield a positive outcome. The only people who believe this stuff are those fresh out of university with social science degrees and no real world experience (ie. Portland’s city council).
Because our local government officials are yet to realize that the era when harm reduction was still effective is long gone. The “harm reduction” approach first emerged in the 1980s as a strategy to combat the spread of HIV. As a result, much of the related research was grounded in the assumption that all drugs, similar to the party drugs of 80s, could have “harmful uses” and “relatively safer, responsible uses”. This approach proved effective, and the assumption continued to be considered valid even after crack cocaine became widespread, which created the illusion that the assumption holds true at all times.
After around 2016, however, the widespread availability of fentanyl, along with increasingly pure cocaine and methamphetamine, fundamentally changed the prerequisite (also one of the reasons why harm reduction still kinda works in Europe—fentanyl isn’t that widely available). There is simply no “safe” way to consume these drugs. Pinhead-sized amount of fentanyl can be lethal even for individuals with opioid tolerance. No matter what precautions they take to reduce harm, the harm remains severe and potentially fatal.
As you know, Europeans don’t allow the squalor that is accepted on the streets of cities like Portland. They coercively move the mentally ill and drug addicted in to treatment facilities where practices like “harm reduction” are tightly controlled. That control includes a relative intolerance for public use of drugs like fentanyl. It’s shocking and disappointing to be governed by politicians who accept this disorder as somehow normal and/or labeled as a byproduct of “capitalism” vs. addressing the obvious root causes of mental illness and drug addiction. Has your research been peer reviewed and validated? If so, it should get more circulation. Thank you.
You can’t reason with people like Lisa Reynolds or frankly most of the people currently elected into office here. They don’t use data, logic, or care for the average taxpayer, neighborhoods, economic health, or even the safety of children when they make decisions - they are fueled by pure destructive ideology that is primarily controlled by special interest groups who ultimately stand to gain from the continued destruction of the city/state, while the rest of us lose. I’ve given up trying to send them facts or explain the damage being done because they simply don’t care about these things - if we want change, we must work to get them voted out.
County Commissioners Meghan Moyer, Shannon Singleton, and Julia Brim‑Edwards, along with Senator Reynolds, continue to anchor their policy approach in long‑standing harm‑reduction and housing‑first frameworks. Even in cases where a person is acutely mentally ill or acutely addicted and requires treatment, stabilization, and supportive services before housing, they have shown little willingness to reconsider or rebalance these priorities.
Despite emerging data and the growing risk of reduced federal support—as national policy shifts toward recovery‑first and treatment‑first models—they have not meaningfully adjusted their positions. Their adherence to older paradigms remains largely unchanged, even as the reality on the street and the policy landscape point to new and different directions. Their unwillingness to factor in new data, to heed the latest research, to listen to the concerns of their constituents, and to pivot when warranted -- none of those are signs of good leaders. We need to vote them all out and replace them with conscientious leaders that heed the latest data, wrest every dollar possible out of federal funding, and implement accountability for outcomes.
The best approach at this point is to encourage, and if necessary, force abstinence for at least 30 days, perhaps 45 days, on people with near death overdoses. Let's acknowledge some people with addictions, absolutely, cannot control themselves, and the best way for them is abstinence for a reasonable period to give them a chance to begin anew and hopefully make better decisions and engage in ongoing treatment for their illness. We are grossly under responding to the lethality that these drugs pose in those addicted, and also the impact their illness has on their personal and social responsibility in democratic society. Societal needs for public safety, civility, and beauty should take precedence for a period to constrain those who are negatively impacting our communities.
Needle distribution is spreading the harm, not harm reduction. The research on it is a type of social investigation that doesn't rise to the level of science. Who can control the many variables that impact disease transmission and acquisition. Certainly not the authors of the hundreds of papers on the subject. I think the research is a house of cards, and in the future will see it for what it is. Unrealistic efforts that led to great harm for many. It is driven by the fear of disease but has unleashed a nightmare for communities having to deal with needles and the spread of the addiction culture in their neighborhoods.
Take a page out of the “No fwa gwa” activists’ playbook and organize a nonviolent action to confront PPOP with a wall of cacophonous noise and protest signs at an upcoming paraphernalia handout. Wear masks and carry umbrella shields to protect your identity. Have observers along to video document any untoward reaction by the harm-reduction monkeys and provide proof against made-up claims of misconduct leveled by PPOP. Let them know they’re not wanted. Consult a qualified lawyer as to the particulars first to avoid unpleasant surprises later.
Hate to let you in on a little secret, but Ms. Reynolds is a cog in the party machine and will do whatever her masters tell her. Gotta have those union/NGO logos on her mailers (aka, poliporn). She will be easily reelected by the usual minority of people who bother to fill out the ballot (maybe more than one of them), and will disappear for a few years in Salem and will crank out the sausage for the bosses. This is the way a gerrymandered system works.
If you are a typical reader of the various local Substacks that howl in the wilderness, be assured that no one will listen to you, since they are busy fashioning their lives around avoiding seeing or thinking about the degradation busy colonizing our streets. Turn off your brains. Pull the covers over your head. Sleep tight.
From my observations on the street and reading professional studies, my conclusion: we have elected the wrong public officials.
It's time to take back our city and our tarnished reputation. Kindness is not a solution. Let those who feel empathy spend time with clinicians and take their liberal emotional policies to their homes.
Great piece. I have never met a recovering addict who supports drug supply distribution.
Even the National Coalition on Harm Reduction states that we “should not minimize or ignore the real harm that comes from substance use.” Recovery should still be encouraged; but that’s not what’s happening here. And you are absolutely correct: enabling drug addiction is not harm reduction.
HepC has a 90%: cure rate and people with HIV live just as long as everyone else. Even if these diseases go untreated, fentanyl users won’t live long enough to deal with the negative health consequences.
The County and State Reps are treating residents like 2nd class citizens who must sacrifice their own safety and neighborhood livability while prioritizing active drug users. And they wonder why people are leaving.
There is no “safe” way to use fentanyl. The policy failures of the “harm reduction” and “housing first” crowd surround us in Portland and cities like LA, Seattle and SF (although Laurie is meaningfully improving the situation in that city). It’s really common sense. Why would anyone believe giving addicts the tools to take drugs would yield a positive outcome? Similarly, why would anyone believe providing a home, without treatment, to someone who is mentally ill or drug addicted would yield a positive outcome. The only people who believe this stuff are those fresh out of university with social science degrees and no real world experience (ie. Portland’s city council).
Because our local government officials are yet to realize that the era when harm reduction was still effective is long gone. The “harm reduction” approach first emerged in the 1980s as a strategy to combat the spread of HIV. As a result, much of the related research was grounded in the assumption that all drugs, similar to the party drugs of 80s, could have “harmful uses” and “relatively safer, responsible uses”. This approach proved effective, and the assumption continued to be considered valid even after crack cocaine became widespread, which created the illusion that the assumption holds true at all times.
After around 2016, however, the widespread availability of fentanyl, along with increasingly pure cocaine and methamphetamine, fundamentally changed the prerequisite (also one of the reasons why harm reduction still kinda works in Europe—fentanyl isn’t that widely available). There is simply no “safe” way to consume these drugs. Pinhead-sized amount of fentanyl can be lethal even for individuals with opioid tolerance. No matter what precautions they take to reduce harm, the harm remains severe and potentially fatal.
As you know, Europeans don’t allow the squalor that is accepted on the streets of cities like Portland. They coercively move the mentally ill and drug addicted in to treatment facilities where practices like “harm reduction” are tightly controlled. That control includes a relative intolerance for public use of drugs like fentanyl. It’s shocking and disappointing to be governed by politicians who accept this disorder as somehow normal and/or labeled as a byproduct of “capitalism” vs. addressing the obvious root causes of mental illness and drug addiction. Has your research been peer reviewed and validated? If so, it should get more circulation. Thank you.
You can’t reason with people like Lisa Reynolds or frankly most of the people currently elected into office here. They don’t use data, logic, or care for the average taxpayer, neighborhoods, economic health, or even the safety of children when they make decisions - they are fueled by pure destructive ideology that is primarily controlled by special interest groups who ultimately stand to gain from the continued destruction of the city/state, while the rest of us lose. I’ve given up trying to send them facts or explain the damage being done because they simply don’t care about these things - if we want change, we must work to get them voted out.
County Commissioners Meghan Moyer, Shannon Singleton, and Julia Brim‑Edwards, along with Senator Reynolds, continue to anchor their policy approach in long‑standing harm‑reduction and housing‑first frameworks. Even in cases where a person is acutely mentally ill or acutely addicted and requires treatment, stabilization, and supportive services before housing, they have shown little willingness to reconsider or rebalance these priorities.
Despite emerging data and the growing risk of reduced federal support—as national policy shifts toward recovery‑first and treatment‑first models—they have not meaningfully adjusted their positions. Their adherence to older paradigms remains largely unchanged, even as the reality on the street and the policy landscape point to new and different directions. Their unwillingness to factor in new data, to heed the latest research, to listen to the concerns of their constituents, and to pivot when warranted -- none of those are signs of good leaders. We need to vote them all out and replace them with conscientious leaders that heed the latest data, wrest every dollar possible out of federal funding, and implement accountability for outcomes.
The best approach at this point is to encourage, and if necessary, force abstinence for at least 30 days, perhaps 45 days, on people with near death overdoses. Let's acknowledge some people with addictions, absolutely, cannot control themselves, and the best way for them is abstinence for a reasonable period to give them a chance to begin anew and hopefully make better decisions and engage in ongoing treatment for their illness. We are grossly under responding to the lethality that these drugs pose in those addicted, and also the impact their illness has on their personal and social responsibility in democratic society. Societal needs for public safety, civility, and beauty should take precedence for a period to constrain those who are negatively impacting our communities.
Needle distribution is spreading the harm, not harm reduction. The research on it is a type of social investigation that doesn't rise to the level of science. Who can control the many variables that impact disease transmission and acquisition. Certainly not the authors of the hundreds of papers on the subject. I think the research is a house of cards, and in the future will see it for what it is. Unrealistic efforts that led to great harm for many. It is driven by the fear of disease but has unleashed a nightmare for communities having to deal with needles and the spread of the addiction culture in their neighborhoods.
Let's forget about a nice "abstinence" vacation so that the junkies can get their mojo back and simply have a policy: No More Narcan.
Thanks for your comment Ebenezer Scrooge.
Take a page out of the “No fwa gwa” activists’ playbook and organize a nonviolent action to confront PPOP with a wall of cacophonous noise and protest signs at an upcoming paraphernalia handout. Wear masks and carry umbrella shields to protect your identity. Have observers along to video document any untoward reaction by the harm-reduction monkeys and provide proof against made-up claims of misconduct leveled by PPOP. Let them know they’re not wanted. Consult a qualified lawyer as to the particulars first to avoid unpleasant surprises later.
Hate to let you in on a little secret, but Ms. Reynolds is a cog in the party machine and will do whatever her masters tell her. Gotta have those union/NGO logos on her mailers (aka, poliporn). She will be easily reelected by the usual minority of people who bother to fill out the ballot (maybe more than one of them), and will disappear for a few years in Salem and will crank out the sausage for the bosses. This is the way a gerrymandered system works.
If you are a typical reader of the various local Substacks that howl in the wilderness, be assured that no one will listen to you, since they are busy fashioning their lives around avoiding seeing or thinking about the degradation busy colonizing our streets. Turn off your brains. Pull the covers over your head. Sleep tight.
From my observations on the street and reading professional studies, my conclusion: we have elected the wrong public officials.
It's time to take back our city and our tarnished reputation. Kindness is not a solution. Let those who feel empathy spend time with clinicians and take their liberal emotional policies to their homes.
Great piece. I have never met a recovering addict who supports drug supply distribution.
Even the National Coalition on Harm Reduction states that we “should not minimize or ignore the real harm that comes from substance use.” Recovery should still be encouraged; but that’s not what’s happening here. And you are absolutely correct: enabling drug addiction is not harm reduction.
HepC has a 90%: cure rate and people with HIV live just as long as everyone else. Even if these diseases go untreated, fentanyl users won’t live long enough to deal with the negative health consequences.
The County and State Reps are treating residents like 2nd class citizens who must sacrifice their own safety and neighborhood livability while prioritizing active drug users. And they wonder why people are leaving.
Enabling drug addiction is NOT, REPEAT, NOT harm reduction.
Excellent piece. Thanks to our neighborhood community advocates for keeping the pressure on Reynolds and our county elected representatives!