gefiltebitch:

actually, I worked on the campaign to get 110 on the ballot, and I have no problem with people reacting that way (aside from the fact that “____ are legal now” is inaccurate, it just banned felony and misdemeanor penalties for small possession amounts). all people who use drugs deserve to reap those benefits.

like it or not, 110 was not just passed for “palatable” drug users: people in lifelong abstinence programs, people who regret and have only negative feelings about their substance use, people whose use of stigmatized substances is safely in the past and therefore within your comfort level… no, sorry. 110 helps those people, yes, but it is also for people recreationally using illegal drugs. it’s for people dependent on illegal drugs for a plethora of reasons. it’s for people self-medicating. it’s for people who don’t regret their drug use, and have had positive experiences with it. it’s for people (and this is most of us) who have a mixture of experiences with drugs. it’s for people seeking more than just one type of healthcare or recovery to move away from dependency. it’s for people who cannot, or just don’t want to, move away from dependency. it’s for people using drugs you hate, and wish did not exist. it’s for people who you firmly believe are in a situation which is unhealthy, as well as people just fucking around and partying. 

I’m not just speaking for myself. I worked on that campaign with people from every one of the above categories. the measure itself was written originally by the Drug Policy Alliance, an organization that does its work through harm reduction philosophy and therefore does not wish for its projects to be selectively applied to people who’ve sanitized themselves enough to be deemed deserving of some autonomy. 

as I stated in a prior post, the measure is not radical or exhaustive, there are still civil penalties and fees involved. there are still other forms of drug policing it does not address. it doesn’t end the war on drugs. it’s an undeniably good thing that felonies and misdemeanors have been removed in these instances, but it’s nowhere near the end goal. 

and yes, some of the people endorsing or working on the campaign did very much lean into the justification of “we’re directing people to Legitimate Medical Institutions so don’t panic” to get widespread support from a diverse constituency. that’s what electoral politics is and it’s annoying and fake and nothing new. but underneath the strategy and the pandering from the donors and higher-ups, the backbone and nitty gritty of the work that was done, the people who originally wrote the bill and a majority of the people I know who worked on it at the local level, are harm reductionists with hard line anti-carceral beliefs. many of us hold politics and values that go far beyond the measure itself, and the consensus among people I worked with was that people’s autonomy is non-negotiable, including drug use, and including controversial or socially unacceptable drug use. 

the point of anti-carceral politics is not to say “well, these apparatuses should be kept in check within reason, and I will go right back to defending them as soon as something or someone makes me uncomfortable”, it is to say “these apparatuses are violent and violate people’s basic autonomy, we would like to reject them and look elsewhere for how to build communities” and no 110 does not accomplish that in any sort of totality but it does reduce harm by significantly restricting carceral drug policy in the area. 

so yeah sorry, the core group of people instrumental to making the bill happen DO openly support drug use, and by that I mean we believe drug use is 1) common among humans and no law or society is going to change that 2) that risks and harmful outcomes associated with drugs are increased, not decreased, by carceral politics, so therefore 3) we definitely DO want to see all drugs decriminalized, even moreso than 110 does.