To be fair, Oregon never reached the point of legal sales channels for drugs. Drug users still had to purchase drugs from a dealer. Their supply chains were the same as in other states.
Actual legalisation would establish a legal purchase channel. That would come with quality controls, et cetera.
Deaths from prescriptions were relatively rare - but it created a huge number of addicts with escalating tolerances.
Then as progressive efforts were made to reduce distribution, pill-mills and secondary markets appeared (i.e. crime). Then with further restrictions, addicts moved off oxy entirely, onto heroin, and then fentanyl flooded in - and bodies piled up.
Just "legalizing" might reduce the harm, but would increase number of addicts. Prescriptions for existing addicts is good for them - but dealers aren't just going to give up, they'll focus on creating new users.
I don't think I've ever seen a perfect solution - but things like distributing naloxone or creating supervised places to self-administer seem like no-brainers in the meantime. Resistance seems to come from a somewhat ugly place where people see users dying as the problem being solved.
The problem with local approaches to dealing with the homeless crisis is that the better you do, the worse your problem becomes. Portland doesn’t just grow homeless on trees, they have one of the busiest greyhound stations in the country, and everyone else is just so much at dealing with the problem.
Criminalising drug users does nothing about the social problems, and makes them worse