> Portugal’s policy rests on three pillars: one, that there’s no such thing as a soft or hard drug, only healthy and unhealthy relationships with drugs; two, that an individual’s unhealthy relationship with drugs often conceals frayed relationships with loved ones, with the world around them, and with themselves; and three, that the eradication of all drugs is an impossible goal.

> “The national policy is to treat each individual differently,” Goulão told me. “The secret is for us to be present.”

If you want to learn more the article I linked is very good. It goes into great detail and I think covers how long it took to work.

But the reality is it's not just enough to decriminalize, you also have to provide appropriate care. Oregon didn't do what Portugal did - they only did part of it.

Portugal didn't decriminalize, they merely stopped giving criminal records to people who chose and completed rehab. They certainly use the police to apprehend any public drug user.

No, they decriminalized. They didn't legalize. It's the subtitle of the article I linked, and if you google for five seconds, you'll see that's what everyone else calls it too. You're welcome to call it whatever you want I guess.

And yet the architect of the Portuguese anti-drug response explains how the courts and police are used to enforce this "decriminalized" system.

Vancouver has taken away the police's ability to confiscate a drug that has just killed someone, or to arrest the dealer. This is directly opposite of what Portugal does, dishonestly borrowing the words without their original meaning or critically the other 90% of the Portuguese response like actual rehab in a drug-free society.

That's great, you should take it up with them. Like I said you can call it whatever you want, but to quibble with the common name and the one used it all references to it - you're probably fighting the wrong fight, or at least with the wrong target.

It's the common lie, not the common name. I'll take it up with whoever uses it by showing them how it's not true. Once you realize Portugal uses the law to enforce their "decriminalization" you can't in good faith keep supporting or even repeating the lie yourself.

Our cities, SF, Vancouver, Portland, Seattle, LA, Victoria, etc know they're distorting the meaning by claiming it's what Portugal does. They've been told that they're wrong in this by journalists with experience in Portugal and by the very architect of the Portuguese system and they refuse to choose other language or admit that they are in actuality enacting the exact opposite to Portugal.

> Between lower quality of life and some of the highest tax burdens in the US

Oregon isn't even in the top half of states by overall tax burden.

46.7% of the state's population is in the Portland metro area as of the last census. Multnomah County has the second highest tax burden in the country for top earners. If a new capital gains tax proposal is passed this year, it will have the highest. There are many reasons why the state lost population starting in 2022, but taxes are definitely one of them.

Oregon has the 31st highest tax burden of all states, across its whole population. Even if the tax burden is high for high earners, that’s not driving a significant population exodus because high earners aren’t a significant population to start with.

People who have the highest disposable income also have the most opportunity for mobility. It’s entirely possible that a disproportionate percentage of those moving away are people who care more about high property and income taxes vs. lack of a state sales tax.

Note that I said the decline is multi-factorial though. A significant part of it isn’t even outward migration, but excess deaths due to COVID combined with a low birth rate and a lack of inward migration. (Here again though, who do you think has the most opportunity to move to a new state and what kind of tax policy deters them?)

I would be considered a "high earner" according to Portland tax law. I recently moved. Portland originally was in my top 5 choice of cities to move to, but the tax liability deterred me from moving.

That is funny how people would like their governments/officials do something to tackle issues while at the same time trying to evade at all cost giving any money needed to actually do something.

I think you are making a generalized statement, but it is in response to a personal tidbit so the generalization feels personal. I'll just say, I don't think including taxation as a consideration when relocating is irresponsible or evasive.

One could argue that paying a lot of tax could be considered as wealth as you typically get something in return. It can be in different forms: better infrastructure, or a safety net / insurance from the government when something bad happen.

I feel a kind of duality when I look at the US from outside. People seems to be trying at all costs to avoid taxes but if someone get seriously hurt or have a serious disease one of the immediate response is to start a gofundme and ask to pass the word for charity and a lot of people are happy to donate. On one hand it is kind of touching to see that people are willing to donate for someone they sometimes barely know, on the other hand shouldn't everybody seek a society where everybody is happy to donate but nobody has to ask for charity from his community because gov takes care of that through that tax money.

I don't know if I am alone, maybe people will make fun of me for that but I am kind of proud of paying a lot of taxes. I know governments don't always take the best decisions, some money is sometimes plainly stolen or badly used and I may not agree with all decisions but I feel it is part of being a citizen and it makes me also more responsible and eager to vote and try to make a difference when I can.