The fear of infectious disease is so strong within the public health department that they are unable to see past their noses. The other health concerns and safety concerns don't seem to matter a wit to them. Degradation of neighborhoods, the fact that the diseases like HIV and Hep C now have good treatments, and the collapse of civility, safety, and beauty in the city. Needle distribution is spreading the harm, not reducing it. I think the public health department will walk this back gradually, first by endorsing the ordinance and then by getting PPOP the heck out of Oregon. Eventually, the county will stop passing out needles to drug addicted people. Common sense tells most everyone that it is a horrible idea to pass out needles to people injecting drugs that can kill them and do kill them. This is what happens when you give too much power to a few who then train others to jobs and not think about what they are doing. When this goes away, hopefully soon, Portland can better focus on mandatory abstinence treatment for four to six weeks for those who have near death overdoses on city streets. It is sad to see needle distribution become a mantra in the medical community. Equally sad to see physicians like Reynolds, Meieran, and Dexter, all silent on this issue. I think the ordinance which comes up on June 11 is a pivotal moment on this issue and you can bet that all the forces pushing needle distribution will be doing everything to stop it. They don't know that the grass roots push to stop needle and drug paraphernalia distribution will eventually win out no matter the outcome.
My only comment is that although a doctor, Ms. Meieran has no obligation to address this as she is no longer in public office. There are thousands of other doctors who also have no obligation to weigh in. However, Brim-Edwards, a sitting county commissioner does have an obligation, and signing on to a 1000 foot restriction is just political performance.
Either we as a community endorse free needle AND OTHER DRUG RELATED paraphernalia hand outs or we don't. Pick a side Julia. Easy to straddle the fence and claim victory for whoever is watching at any particular time. It's called situation ethics, a condition that seems to have "infected" all our local politicians, but particularly Ms. Brim Edwards. True "harm reduction" for Portland would be not allowing her to become the new county chair.....
Based on her experience at the county, her putting forward the safe schools ordinance, based on Peyton Chapmans endorsement, and the complete lack of policy shifts from those who have promoted housing first policies and needle distribution. We dont have a financial crisis but a policy problem handed to us from previous administrations. We can fix fnnances but you cant fix poor misguided overreach and ignorance.
1. Experience at the county: she is the least experienced of any sitting commissioner.
2. Endorsed by Peyton Chapman: good to be endorsed by a close friend. Better if it is from someone whose endorsement is, shall we say, less personal
3. I agree with you that entrenched bureaucracy at the county is cult like convinced in housing first. I'm just not seeing any serious blow back from JBE.
4. Needle (etc.) distribution: yeah, "sort of", when it becomes politically expedient. Also, refer to my comment about compromising to 1000 feet. It's a position one would take who is running for political office. Allows the distribution to continue....in fact codifies it....but doesn't really change anything. yea ! All that's actually changed is Junkies now have to walk that extra 1000 feet.
You should notice, however, that I do agree with your initial comment. It's been fun, but sadly, I have to go back to work.
There is another side to this story that is missing that needs to be told. On February 5th the Committee held hearings on the needle exchange bill. 6 days later on February 11th Senator Reynolds submitted an official amendment to the bill registered with the state legislature limiting needle exchange to 1000 feet and establishing regulation and oversight to mobile needle exchange groups. She strongly agrees that these mobile groups are a problem and offered an amendment that would have created oversight. https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2026R1/Downloads/ProposedAmendment/30391
Anyone signed up for updates would have received notice of this amendment and of course it was now in Christine Drazan’s hands to adopt it. For two weeks she sat on the amendment and the bill as written would not pass out of committee. There is no record of the constituents who have worked on this responding to the amendment. Did they even know about it? Having the bill fail worked better for Drazan than working across the aisle and having it pass.
And now it appears that the NW Examiner is promoting a MAAGA candidate who has supported sending troops to Portland and Iran and who even opposes safe storage of guns. Clever maneuvering Drazan.
I don’t think Reynolds communicated with her constituents on this issue which is why they didn’t know about it. She is halfhearted in her efforts on this because she doesn’t really believe in the cause she is championing. It is superficial, not heart felt. If she was convinced, she would have pushed the bill to restrict the zone to 5000 feet. Like a vast majority of physicians, she has strolled along with the passing out of needles and drug paraphernalia and buys into this misguided effort to cozy up to people with addictions. Unfortunately, many of those distributed needles are the last ones that an addict ever uses because they are dead.
You need to read the article more carefully. It does note promote Drazan but points out she was the more pragmatic politician. Reynolds was less than forthcoming in meeting with neighborhood groups and was easily caught in her own non-denial denial. The unintended consequence of Reynolds not taking a stronger role with the neighborhoods gave Drazan a great talking point and may also garner her votes in November.
Reynolds could care less about this topic and her actions prove it. She's lucky to have you as her "sole" supporter on this topic. And now Reynolds will really have to become accustomed to working with Drazien as she will most likely be the new governor.
Reynolds of all people, should have been communicating this information to her own constituents!! She's the one who dropped the ball, Ms Thompson. And she was disingenuous about it when called on the carpet.
Incidentally, as a lifelong Oregon Democratic voter, I would love to see a Governor elected who would veto many of the irresponsible bills that our Legislative Super Majority keeps churning out ad nauseam. This November, that very well could happen.
The State's goal for those addicted to meth, fentanyl should be full recovery, involving detox, post detox supportive sober housing, consistent peer support and help with stabilized housing and social agency. We have never committed to this goal as a State, County or City. Instead, we have committed to Housing First, Harm Reduction, Anti-Jail or Civil Commitment, growing a job program for those with behavioral health problems and anarchistic ideologies. No wonder we have an intractable homeless problem that just keeps growing itself along with the behavioral health problem itself. Our goal is everything BUT solving the problem that most of us want solved, including addiction and unstable housing. We will not make drug addiction or homelessness disappear, but if we focus seriously on Recovery for addicts, stable treatment for the mentally ill and we don't treat it as an inevitable problem that will continue to grow, we will get people housed, improve the lives of those will these illnesses, make Portland move livable for all of us and perhaps change its reputation enough to attract business, jobs and net taxpayers back to the City and County.
If these people were interested in Recovery for the people suffering from addiction to these drugs, they would implement needle exchange, with registration, peer support, incentives for detox and stable housing and referrals to longer term residential support facilities like Bybee Lakes or Team Portland so they can gain or regain agency in society. Clearly, this is not their mission. This is yet another example of what Lance Orton, another former addict like me, has call Compassionate Neglect. It is why Portland is suffering so badly economically today. Our politicians have become enablers rather than the source of the cure we all need.
Thank you for contextualizing the larger framing of this issue. Needle exchange programs affiliated with facilities that provide medical care also connect patients with treatment programs which sadly are too few. They also provide naloxone and test strips for fentanyl. These measures have contributed to the decrease in overdose deaths in Multnomah County over the past few years. This is not enough. The goals you describe in your first paragraph and the failure of all levels of government to address them is central to the issue. Thank you.
The programs like you mention are well intended. I don't believe that coaxing people into treatment by giving them needles has been successful though, so sorry to have to disagree. To my mind, Texas and other states had it right when they refused to enable people to do things that might very well lead to their death. We are also undertreating near death overdose on the street. For their good, people who almost die from narcotic overdoses should be in secure facilities for six weeks where they can't get any drugs. I believe that most people would want that if they had a son or daughter who almost died doing drugs on the street or elsewhere. It is a good example of how medicine and also law has put mental health on the sidelines. We see the results on our streets up and down the West Coast unfortunately.
Excellent reporting on this topic, which is near and dear to my heart! I have been meeting with supporters of mobile harm reduction sites to try and understand why they would not support the 1000 ft measure proposed by Julia Brim-Edwards and MultCo. The conversations have been very eye opening! I do believe their is common ground, but it is going to take one on one relationships, and a lot of difficult discussions. As a former intravenous drug user with over 7 years of sobriety, I am not a huge fan of the harm reduction model in general because of the unintended, ancillary effects on the community, and the low success rate of getting people into long-term recovery. But I do see a place for it when combined with access to treatment and a genuine desire to see people get into recovery!
Reynolds has done considerable harm to her reputation. I have heard many say 'anyone but [her]’. Me? I'll reserve judgement. Not to late for her (and others) to get it right. I want to see candidates who understand the difference between pragmatic politics (Priority 1: get the users, enablers and dealers off our streets IMMEDIATELY. Clean up our streets); holistic/party-agnostic politics (Priority 2: treatment for users, prison for dealers, in place and WORKING WELL within 1-3 years (gonna take some gnashing of teeth) and will necessarily be Ideology free); and systemic politics (Priority 3: address the root causes of how they got in their situation in the first place. Bi-partisan, a mix of ideologies, LONG TERM).
Yeah, I know. Easy to write, tough to do. But it makes sense. Would require collaboration 'across the aisle' and I'm pessimistic that our current political climate will allow it.
I stand by my original comment on this issue: the only way meaningful limits will be placed on the distribution of drug paraphernalia by groups like PPOP is through a statewide ballot measure. State, county, and city officials cannot be relied upon to manage this process with firm limits unless they are directed to do so through the ballot measure process.
A straightforward solution would be to require that the distribution of these types of supplies be managed exclusively by county health departments and their full-time employees. This would provide greater public oversight, accountability, and consistency in how these programs are administered.
If public health officials truly believe harm reduction programs are beneficial, they should have no objection to letting voters weigh in through a ballot measure.
A true needle exchange with an effort to get people into treatment would be my vote. I would think a full on ban is less likely to get past elected officials or voters.
Making friends with people who are addicted and giving them needles to use so as to form a relationship with them and thereby influence them to accept treatment rarely works. It is a fantasy we invented to feel we are doing something good. It makes us feel better. It leads to more drug use for them.
I think it’s fair to say Oregon remains relatively lenient on simple drug possession compared with Texas. If Portland truly wants to reduce drug use, it may have to be more willing to arrest people. If we’re going to compare Oregon’s harm-reduction policies with those of Texas or Idaho, we should also compare how law enforcement responds to public drug use and other public nuisances.
I’m willing to bet that if I walk from my building to Safeway, I’ll pass at least four groups of people openly using drugs in the Park Blocks or along SW Columbia. It’s also likely that many of the people using drugs on Portland’s streets came from places where law enforcement takes a much less permissive approach and where police chiefs don’t hold tearful press conferences.
Compassion has its place, but compassion without accountability does not appear to be producing good results..
Thanks for the continued excellent reporting on this issue, Allan! We still need to put pressure on county reps to get the proposed ordinance passed, and now, thanks to such widespread attention putting Reynolds in the hot seat, she'll need to work with our neighborhood advocates to actually pass the state legislation limiting needle handouts next year.
I think most people believe that passing out needles to drug addicted people is wrong because it is enabling them to do something that degrades them personally but also can lead to their death. The movement to stop needle distribution around schools will only happen with widespread community condemnation of the status quo. The medical and legal systems in place, the public health department, seem convinced in this horrible policy. Hard to believe, but people are not so naive in other states.
I am late to this stream and would like to talk about the elephant in the room: the drug users.
Observation identifies them.
If they are homeless, their dilemna is worse.
We know that all homeless are not drug users and I want to address their subset.
1) Why are they still on the street?
2) Why can't they be arrested or detained and taken, against their will if necessary, to a treatment facility?
Perhaps a discussion will help identify what can and needs to be done to help these unfortunates and clean up our neighborhoods at the same time. Personally, I am offended by providing the tools for sustained usage. People need to be responsible. A safe society means all of us creating an environment where minimal policing is necessary.
No, there are no drug users or abusers in my family (it's not luck) and I have no tolerance for law breakers.
Please comment, I think there are better ways to handle our current situation. Thank you
The fear of infectious disease is so strong within the public health department that they are unable to see past their noses. The other health concerns and safety concerns don't seem to matter a wit to them. Degradation of neighborhoods, the fact that the diseases like HIV and Hep C now have good treatments, and the collapse of civility, safety, and beauty in the city. Needle distribution is spreading the harm, not reducing it. I think the public health department will walk this back gradually, first by endorsing the ordinance and then by getting PPOP the heck out of Oregon. Eventually, the county will stop passing out needles to drug addicted people. Common sense tells most everyone that it is a horrible idea to pass out needles to people injecting drugs that can kill them and do kill them. This is what happens when you give too much power to a few who then train others to jobs and not think about what they are doing. When this goes away, hopefully soon, Portland can better focus on mandatory abstinence treatment for four to six weeks for those who have near death overdoses on city streets. It is sad to see needle distribution become a mantra in the medical community. Equally sad to see physicians like Reynolds, Meieran, and Dexter, all silent on this issue. I think the ordinance which comes up on June 11 is a pivotal moment on this issue and you can bet that all the forces pushing needle distribution will be doing everything to stop it. They don't know that the grass roots push to stop needle and drug paraphernalia distribution will eventually win out no matter the outcome.
My only comment is that although a doctor, Ms. Meieran has no obligation to address this as she is no longer in public office. There are thousands of other doctors who also have no obligation to weigh in. However, Brim-Edwards, a sitting county commissioner does have an obligation, and signing on to a 1000 foot restriction is just political performance.
Either we as a community endorse free needle AND OTHER DRUG RELATED paraphernalia hand outs or we don't. Pick a side Julia. Easy to straddle the fence and claim victory for whoever is watching at any particular time. It's called situation ethics, a condition that seems to have "infected" all our local politicians, but particularly Ms. Brim Edwards. True "harm reduction" for Portland would be not allowing her to become the new county chair.....
Brim Edwards is worthy of Multnomah County voters, and she is the best pick among any of the potential candidates.
Based on....????
Based on her experience at the county, her putting forward the safe schools ordinance, based on Peyton Chapmans endorsement, and the complete lack of policy shifts from those who have promoted housing first policies and needle distribution. We dont have a financial crisis but a policy problem handed to us from previous administrations. We can fix fnnances but you cant fix poor misguided overreach and ignorance.
1. Experience at the county: she is the least experienced of any sitting commissioner.
2. Endorsed by Peyton Chapman: good to be endorsed by a close friend. Better if it is from someone whose endorsement is, shall we say, less personal
3. I agree with you that entrenched bureaucracy at the county is cult like convinced in housing first. I'm just not seeing any serious blow back from JBE.
4. Needle (etc.) distribution: yeah, "sort of", when it becomes politically expedient. Also, refer to my comment about compromising to 1000 feet. It's a position one would take who is running for political office. Allows the distribution to continue....in fact codifies it....but doesn't really change anything. yea ! All that's actually changed is Junkies now have to walk that extra 1000 feet.
You should notice, however, that I do agree with your initial comment. It's been fun, but sadly, I have to go back to work.
Julia Brimm-Edwards has been an elected County Commissioner longer than Shannon Singleton or Meghan Moyer.
There is another side to this story that is missing that needs to be told. On February 5th the Committee held hearings on the needle exchange bill. 6 days later on February 11th Senator Reynolds submitted an official amendment to the bill registered with the state legislature limiting needle exchange to 1000 feet and establishing regulation and oversight to mobile needle exchange groups. She strongly agrees that these mobile groups are a problem and offered an amendment that would have created oversight. https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2026R1/Downloads/ProposedAmendment/30391
Anyone signed up for updates would have received notice of this amendment and of course it was now in Christine Drazan’s hands to adopt it. For two weeks she sat on the amendment and the bill as written would not pass out of committee. There is no record of the constituents who have worked on this responding to the amendment. Did they even know about it? Having the bill fail worked better for Drazan than working across the aisle and having it pass.
And now it appears that the NW Examiner is promoting a MAAGA candidate who has supported sending troops to Portland and Iran and who even opposes safe storage of guns. Clever maneuvering Drazan.
I don’t think Reynolds communicated with her constituents on this issue which is why they didn’t know about it. She is halfhearted in her efforts on this because she doesn’t really believe in the cause she is championing. It is superficial, not heart felt. If she was convinced, she would have pushed the bill to restrict the zone to 5000 feet. Like a vast majority of physicians, she has strolled along with the passing out of needles and drug paraphernalia and buys into this misguided effort to cozy up to people with addictions. Unfortunately, many of those distributed needles are the last ones that an addict ever uses because they are dead.
You need to read the article more carefully. It does note promote Drazan but points out she was the more pragmatic politician. Reynolds was less than forthcoming in meeting with neighborhood groups and was easily caught in her own non-denial denial. The unintended consequence of Reynolds not taking a stronger role with the neighborhoods gave Drazan a great talking point and may also garner her votes in November.
Reynolds could care less about this topic and her actions prove it. She's lucky to have you as her "sole" supporter on this topic. And now Reynolds will really have to become accustomed to working with Drazien as she will most likely be the new governor.
Reynolds of all people, should have been communicating this information to her own constituents!! She's the one who dropped the ball, Ms Thompson. And she was disingenuous about it when called on the carpet.
Incidentally, as a lifelong Oregon Democratic voter, I would love to see a Governor elected who would veto many of the irresponsible bills that our Legislative Super Majority keeps churning out ad nauseam. This November, that very well could happen.
Fantastic article! This subject needs to be watched like a hawk.
The State's goal for those addicted to meth, fentanyl should be full recovery, involving detox, post detox supportive sober housing, consistent peer support and help with stabilized housing and social agency. We have never committed to this goal as a State, County or City. Instead, we have committed to Housing First, Harm Reduction, Anti-Jail or Civil Commitment, growing a job program for those with behavioral health problems and anarchistic ideologies. No wonder we have an intractable homeless problem that just keeps growing itself along with the behavioral health problem itself. Our goal is everything BUT solving the problem that most of us want solved, including addiction and unstable housing. We will not make drug addiction or homelessness disappear, but if we focus seriously on Recovery for addicts, stable treatment for the mentally ill and we don't treat it as an inevitable problem that will continue to grow, we will get people housed, improve the lives of those will these illnesses, make Portland move livable for all of us and perhaps change its reputation enough to attract business, jobs and net taxpayers back to the City and County.
If these people were interested in Recovery for the people suffering from addiction to these drugs, they would implement needle exchange, with registration, peer support, incentives for detox and stable housing and referrals to longer term residential support facilities like Bybee Lakes or Team Portland so they can gain or regain agency in society. Clearly, this is not their mission. This is yet another example of what Lance Orton, another former addict like me, has call Compassionate Neglect. It is why Portland is suffering so badly economically today. Our politicians have become enablers rather than the source of the cure we all need.
Thank you for contextualizing the larger framing of this issue. Needle exchange programs affiliated with facilities that provide medical care also connect patients with treatment programs which sadly are too few. They also provide naloxone and test strips for fentanyl. These measures have contributed to the decrease in overdose deaths in Multnomah County over the past few years. This is not enough. The goals you describe in your first paragraph and the failure of all levels of government to address them is central to the issue. Thank you.
The programs like you mention are well intended. I don't believe that coaxing people into treatment by giving them needles has been successful though, so sorry to have to disagree. To my mind, Texas and other states had it right when they refused to enable people to do things that might very well lead to their death. We are also undertreating near death overdose on the street. For their good, people who almost die from narcotic overdoses should be in secure facilities for six weeks where they can't get any drugs. I believe that most people would want that if they had a son or daughter who almost died doing drugs on the street or elsewhere. It is a good example of how medicine and also law has put mental health on the sidelines. We see the results on our streets up and down the West Coast unfortunately.
Excellent reporting on this topic, which is near and dear to my heart! I have been meeting with supporters of mobile harm reduction sites to try and understand why they would not support the 1000 ft measure proposed by Julia Brim-Edwards and MultCo. The conversations have been very eye opening! I do believe their is common ground, but it is going to take one on one relationships, and a lot of difficult discussions. As a former intravenous drug user with over 7 years of sobriety, I am not a huge fan of the harm reduction model in general because of the unintended, ancillary effects on the community, and the low success rate of getting people into long-term recovery. But I do see a place for it when combined with access to treatment and a genuine desire to see people get into recovery!
Keep sharing these stories Allan!
Reynolds has done considerable harm to her reputation. I have heard many say 'anyone but [her]’. Me? I'll reserve judgement. Not to late for her (and others) to get it right. I want to see candidates who understand the difference between pragmatic politics (Priority 1: get the users, enablers and dealers off our streets IMMEDIATELY. Clean up our streets); holistic/party-agnostic politics (Priority 2: treatment for users, prison for dealers, in place and WORKING WELL within 1-3 years (gonna take some gnashing of teeth) and will necessarily be Ideology free); and systemic politics (Priority 3: address the root causes of how they got in their situation in the first place. Bi-partisan, a mix of ideologies, LONG TERM).
Yeah, I know. Easy to write, tough to do. But it makes sense. Would require collaboration 'across the aisle' and I'm pessimistic that our current political climate will allow it.
I stand by my original comment on this issue: the only way meaningful limits will be placed on the distribution of drug paraphernalia by groups like PPOP is through a statewide ballot measure. State, county, and city officials cannot be relied upon to manage this process with firm limits unless they are directed to do so through the ballot measure process.
A straightforward solution would be to require that the distribution of these types of supplies be managed exclusively by county health departments and their full-time employees. This would provide greater public oversight, accountability, and consistency in how these programs are administered.
If public health officials truly believe harm reduction programs are beneficial, they should have no objection to letting voters weigh in through a ballot measure.
Go for a complete ban while you are at it.
A true needle exchange with an effort to get people into treatment would be my vote. I would think a full on ban is less likely to get past elected officials or voters.
Making friends with people who are addicted and giving them needles to use so as to form a relationship with them and thereby influence them to accept treatment rarely works. It is a fantasy we invented to feel we are doing something good. It makes us feel better. It leads to more drug use for them.
Illegal to distribute needles and drug paraphenalia in Texas and they have ½ our overdose deaths.
I think it’s fair to say Oregon remains relatively lenient on simple drug possession compared with Texas. If Portland truly wants to reduce drug use, it may have to be more willing to arrest people. If we’re going to compare Oregon’s harm-reduction policies with those of Texas or Idaho, we should also compare how law enforcement responds to public drug use and other public nuisances.
I’m willing to bet that if I walk from my building to Safeway, I’ll pass at least four groups of people openly using drugs in the Park Blocks or along SW Columbia. It’s also likely that many of the people using drugs on Portland’s streets came from places where law enforcement takes a much less permissive approach and where police chiefs don’t hold tearful press conferences.
Compassion has its place, but compassion without accountability does not appear to be producing good results..
Thanks for the continued excellent reporting on this issue, Allan! We still need to put pressure on county reps to get the proposed ordinance passed, and now, thanks to such widespread attention putting Reynolds in the hot seat, she'll need to work with our neighborhood advocates to actually pass the state legislation limiting needle handouts next year.
I think most people believe that passing out needles to drug addicted people is wrong because it is enabling them to do something that degrades them personally but also can lead to their death. The movement to stop needle distribution around schools will only happen with widespread community condemnation of the status quo. The medical and legal systems in place, the public health department, seem convinced in this horrible policy. Hard to believe, but people are not so naive in other states.
I am late to this stream and would like to talk about the elephant in the room: the drug users.
Observation identifies them.
If they are homeless, their dilemna is worse.
We know that all homeless are not drug users and I want to address their subset.
1) Why are they still on the street?
2) Why can't they be arrested or detained and taken, against their will if necessary, to a treatment facility?
Perhaps a discussion will help identify what can and needs to be done to help these unfortunates and clean up our neighborhoods at the same time. Personally, I am offended by providing the tools for sustained usage. People need to be responsible. A safe society means all of us creating an environment where minimal policing is necessary.
No, there are no drug users or abusers in my family (it's not luck) and I have no tolerance for law breakers.
Please comment, I think there are better ways to handle our current situation. Thank you