Oregon Republican House Leader on M110 and other priorities for the short legislative session

Oregon lawmakers are deciding whether to make changes to the state’s landmark drug decriminalization law, Measure 110. A bipartisan committee has been meeting since October to hear testimony from law enforcement, substance use disorder experts and treatment providers. Democratic state lawmakers recently put forth a proposal that would recriminalize the possession of small amounts of drugs. Republicans have introduced their own proposal, which includes harsher penalties for possession and public drug use.

We recently heard about the Democratic proposal, and now we turn to the Republican one. Rep. Jeff Helfrich represents Hood River and leads the House Republican Caucus. He joins us to talk about the Republican plan for M110 and other priorities for the upcoming short session.

This transcript was created by a computer and edited by a volunteer.

Dave Miller: This is Think Out Loud on OPB. I’m Dave Miller. Lawmakers will return to Salem next week for the short 2024 session. They’ll take up housing and homelessness and budget questions, but Oregon’s drug laws could be the defining issue. In fact, the question no longer seems to be if lawmakers will change voter-passed Measure 110, but by how much? Yesterday, we talked to two Democratic leaders about their proposal to recriminate drugs and increase access to treatment. We’re going to hear today about the Republican proposal. Jeff Helfrich is a state representative from Hood River and the House Republican Leader. He joins us now. Welcome to the show.

Jeff Helfrich: Thank you so much. I appreciate being here.

Miller: I want to start with a short excerpt from the end of yesterday’s show. As I mentioned, we talked about the Democratic proposal. This is Senate Majority Leader Kate Lieber.

Kate Lieber [recording]: We agree we need to build up treatment everywhere. We agree we need to protect our children with prevention. We agree we need to treat drug dealers more harshly and make sure that we can prosecute them. And I think we agree we need to give police officers tools to confiscate. I think there are more points of agreement than there are disagreements in these particular proposals.

Miller: Before we get to specifics because there are some disagreements, do you think she’s right that there is a kind of bipartisan consensus emerging among lawmakers?

Helfrich: I would say that we as human beings are compassionate and we want to help people. And I think that is the goal of this legislative session and as legislators, we want to do right by the citizens of our great state. That said, there’s going to be different pathways to get there and I believe at the end, there will be a final bipartisan solution.

What does that look like? We don’t know yet because we put our proposal out and asked for feedback, asked to sit at the table. My colleagues across the aisle have had conversation [after] conversation but have never said, “Republicans, please come into this room, let’s dissect your bill and now how can we incorporate that with our bill, what we believe.”

Their bill was allowed to be looked at, from my understanding, by a lot of the people that are the non-government organizations or the nonprofits [who] had a lot of input on the bill that they’re putting forward. I have not seen the opportunity for us to say we would like this in the bill or like that…these are the things that we would like in the bill. And I think the pushback would be them saying, “Well, we did invite you. You have people in the committee’s.” But our voices weren’t heard because you’d have these breakout sessions and you had all the stakeholders that were receiving funds, quite frankly, having more voice at that table than we were.

Miller: Were you surprised when Democrats put forward a proposal that included the recrimination of the possession of illicit drugs? Were you expecting that?

Helfrich: The voters said that’s what they want.

Miller: You mean people in polls?

Helfrich: Yeah, people in polls.

Miller: The voters said decriminalize.

Helfrich: Yeah, the voter said decriminalize the vote, but what they said yes to was the compassionate treatment and care of people who are affected by drugs. That second line of that, what it said was reclassification of drugs. It didn’t say decriminalizing drugs. It said reclassification of that. That means an e-ticket, what we see now, and that means there’s no accountability with that.

Miller: A citation as opposed to a misdemeanor?

Helfrich: It’s a traffic ticket. It’s just a printed off piece of paper and they have to actually have another piece of paper to go with that e-ticket to say this is the number you have to call to get help. They have to have two pieces of paper. So you have somebody who’s been affected by drugs and here’s one piece of paper and here’s another piece of paper, and where do you think those pieces of paper are going to land after that’s been given to them? I’m pretty sure it’s going to get left on the sidewalk or wherever they’re at.

Miller: There’s now data to show that something like 99% of people don’t call that number.

Helfrich: Correct. So that said, I believe, through the polling, the citizens say we need to have criminalization and the debate is between a Class C misdemeanor and a Class A misdemeanor.

Miller: Let’s turn to this. So as we heard–because most listeners, [even] I can’t remember what that means without looking it up–a Class C misdemeanor, that’s a lower level. That’s what Democrats are pushing for in their proposal. That could carry a penalty of 30 days in jail and/or a fine of about $1,200. What you and Republicans are pushing for is a higher level crime, Class A. It would be up to a $6,200 fine and up to a year in jail or both. Why the much more serious penalty?

Helfrich: So let’s walk that back just for a moment. Let’s talk about what possession used to be. It used to be a C felony for cocaine. Heroin, got you to B felony. And so now what we’re talking about is an A misdemeanor. Take out the fine. The fine is not part of this. We want to get people help and get them to where they need to get good treatment. And so by using A misdemeanor, as you would for a DUI arrest, you get a citation, you go through the court system. It says here is your opportunity for diversion. Here’s your opportunity to get help for yourself. For the next year, you can go through treatment and then at the end of that year, we can then vacate your conviction or vacate the rest and then you continue on with your treatment.

If you only have 30 days to have people be held accountable, they’re going to relapse and there’s no up-step in the C. If you start out at the highest level and then you bring it back, you can always go down in the charging instrument or how you’re going with this. But you have to start somewhere where you have leverage to get people the help they need. Not everybody’s going to end up in arrest. Some people will go to treatment. There’s an opportunity for them to get the treatment. I think the biggest thing that we need to understand is that people have to be motivated to get treatment. They may not know they need treatment until they’re sobering up after a week, coming off their high.

I was a police officer for the city of Portland for over 25 and a half years. I had the opportunity to wear a badge that was the ticket to the greatest show on earth. I had a front-row seat to life. I saw the best and worst in people and I was able to actually help people, get them off the street, get them the care that they needed for their drug addiction, and they became productive members. I had somebody, when I was in the matter patrol unit, Garth was his name. I arrested him numerous times for open containers of alcohol. He got so tired of getting arrested that he finally got help and it was just a citation and pouring out the beer. This is a city of Portland violation, but the judge told him to write a letter to that officer that arrested you and explain how he got help to you. He tracked me down one day. I was riding a horse and I didn’t recognize him. “Here’s the letter officer. Thank you so much for getting me help.”

Miller: What’s your vision of how this would work in an ideal world if the Class A misdemeanor system were to pass? So let’s say next year, somebody on the street in Pendleton is found with a bag of meth. What happens?

Helfrich: So we have to have the tools in place and those tools are going to be the drug courts. Get the counties the dollars they need because I believe local control in this issue specifically, they know what they need. And so we get them their local control, get them the dollars they need, get the program set up, get the help that they need. But when somebody were to get arrested or get a citation, they get booked into jail, they then, in that moment could go through a processing officer. Here’s your opportunity to get help. We’re going to get you to diversion. We’re going to hold this charge until you complete diversion. But once it’s completed, it goes away.

If they don’t complete diversion and they get arrested again, then there’s an opportunity to get them in jail to get them cleaned up for 30, 60 or 90 days and then get them out back into the system, get them the care that they need in that long -erm solution to the recovery.

Miller: So the basic idea at the heart of your bill is that drug treatment has to be mandatory, not optional. Setting aside questions about the potential increase in the criminal justice system, but just on the treatment side, if we’re talking about inpatient detox, about outpatient support, about peer support, medication-assisted treatment, how much more do you envision we would need for the treatment to actually exist that the people are going to be forced into, if they’re not going to spend time in jail?

Helfrich: So we have to have facilities. And so there’s a thing when you start talking about treatment facilities, you start talking about residential facilities. One of the things I talked with Majority Leader Fahey was, all right people don’t want facilities within their neighborhoods. But why don’t we look at the zoning laws within the light industrial or light commercial areas or next to a hospital where we can have these facilities. People can come and go and get the treatment they need and create that environment where they can have that ecosystem to get the treatment that they need and go forth because there’s not a lot of beds out here, there’s not enough space, not enough providers.

But how do we create that network in that ecosystem to get the help they need?

Miller: But do you have a sense for how much is needed? How big of an increase in treatment would your bill necessitate?

Helfrich: The first part of that is the conversation with the counties. What do you guys need? I know out in Wasco County they have a center that provides treatment and we’re trying to get more funding for that. But you look at a bike wheel, there’s the hub, the spokes in the wheel, there’s a center where you could take people to, then they get them out on the spokes of the tire to give them the help that they need. That’s a model that’s out there that could be used. And that’s just not for Wasco County; it’s for Hood River County, Sherman County, Gilliam County. And juveniles were always going to that system from Portland too. So there’s models out there to use. Let’s find the best system that’s working for us.

Miller: When I read the bill, or scanned it, it was about over 100 pages long.

Helfrich: 110, yes, I think.

Miller: But am I right that it seemed like Lottery funds are where you would hope to tap into to pay for this increase? But there’s a blank line there. It doesn’t say how much money you’d be requesting in terms of lottery funds.

Helfrich: That’s where we need to have that budgetary ask and what that looks like. But the other part is, we have those dollars already available with the marijuana tax dollars, right?

Miller: That’s what Measure 110 [did]. It sort of was a two-pronged thing. It was to take cannabis money and put that towards a whole version of treatment and decriminalize drugs. You’re not talking about new money. You’re saying use existing money that comes from cannabis.

Helfrich: Yes.

Miller: And so not get more money from the Lottery?

Helfrich: Two approaches. We need two sources of funding. We have the X amount of the marijuana dollars, the tax revenue from that. And then we have to use the dollars for bonding or through the Lottery for that, for those other parts of that. You have to have two pots of money to work with, but we have a base revenue source for these programs that come out of the marijuana tax dollars.

Miller: Another big difference, as I see it, between your proposal and the one from the Democrats is that you’re pushing for really serious consequences for people who deal drugs that result in fatal overdoses. It could be punishable by up to 20 years in prison. What’s the idea behind this provision?

Helfrich: We have to deter the drug dealers from coming here. We have now said that this great experiment, this petri dish of Measure 110, has now allowed people to come here and sell drugs and use drugs basically without any type of accountability.

Miller: Well, but selling drugs is absolutely as illegal as it has ever been in the state.

Helfrich: Right, but they have not had the resources to put towards getting the dealers out there. There’s another part of this component when it comes to police. Their staffing is down to where the resources are at because there’s an exponential need for them and there’s a dwindling workforce for the police officers. With the drugs of fentanyl, they are so potent and can be so deadly, it’s not like somebody took cocaine, snorted it, smoked it. The possibilities of them dying is there but not to the same effect as there is with fentanyl. So if you are delivering a substance that could kill somebody else, you need to hold them accountable because that would then help deter people coming in and selling those drugs. There’s got to be a heavier price for that. Are we going to get to the dealers that are coming across whatever border to sell these? We have to worry about Oregon. How do we stop the flow of drugs into Oregon?

Miller: One of the things that your bill would do is give more power to the state’s Alcohol and Drug Policy Commission and take it away from what’s called the Oversight and Accountability Council under the Oregon Health Authority that was created by voters in Measure 110. This is the kind of bureaucratic change that can easily escape public attention. Why is this included in your bill? Why is this important?

Helfrich: What has the current system, the Accountability Council, done? Where is the success of that? Where’s the money that rolled out from that? Last session, we had to have a bill to actually make them have an actual director for that. These funds, these programs have not been rolled out in a manner in which has been productive. There’s been no accountability with that. And so then you move it over to a known entity that has actually done work and done this area then they can get those dollars out. I feel more comfortable with that, doing that.

Miller: But what does give you faith about the Alcohol and Drug Policy Commission? What are the successes that they have had, that make you say that this governor-appointed commission would do better at managing and handling hundreds of millions of dollars of grants?

Helfrich: I will say, what has the last system done? And they’ve managed these grants before. They have a track record where the other system doesn’t have the track record. They have not completed [nor] done what the people’s will was. And so we have to find a way to get the dollars where they need to go.

Miller: What else do you think the legislature should focus on this session?

Helfrich: Housing. We have to have housing. I live in a district where the medium house is $700,000 for a starter house. That’s incredible. I mean, a beautiful area in Hood River, but I couldn’t afford to live there right now. And Bend is the same way. Portland is the same. The median price of a house isn’t quite the same, but we have to be able to produce more houses. We have to reduce the barriers that are causing builders not to build houses and driving those cost drivers up. So that’s probably the biggest part of that. Being the vice chair of Housing and Homelessness last session, it really opened my eyes about how many barriers are created through our land use system.

We have a system [where] goal one is public input, which is an incredible thing for us to have. Goal 10 is production. There’s eight more things in between there that get between production and people’s input. And so we have to be able to streamline a lot of processes and we need to get production going so we start putting houses out at a faster pace to meet the governor’s goals of 36,000 units per year. We’re at 19 right now. We have to catch up because we want to attract the workforce to come in here. So when the semiconductors - I was on that committee - bring in those types of jobs here, well, the workforce is going to be paid a certain dollar amount to actually afford a house somewhere. And so we have to have those cost drivers down.

There’s going to be a land use component to that. I know that causes a lot of angst with certain groups and organizations and rightly so, but our system was designed in the seventies. Do we need to re-look at this and is that we need to tinker? I’m not talking about an overhaul, but do we need to tweak some things to actually look at production yesterday?

Miller: Yesterday, the Oregon State Supreme Court ruled that 10 conservative lawmakers - nine Republicans and an independent - cannot run for election either this coming November 2024 or in 2026. How do you think that is going to affect the session that is about to start?

Helfrich: I have not had a chance to talk to Leader Knopp, the Senate Republican Leader.

Miller: Your counterpart in the Senate.

Helfrich: My counterpart in the Senate. My sense is that they’re going to come to work, we’re going to do our job, the job of the people. I don’t see any hot button real issues coming up. We’re not talking about guns and abortion this session like it was last session. I believe if we stop talking about guns and abortion and figure out that area in which we can agree on and get things done, that’s a more productive legislative session than anything else.

Miller: So to go back to the issue that we spent most of this conversation talking about, changes to Measure 110, you don’t expect that Republican senators would walk out if the Democratic version of the Measure 110 changes were the bill in front of them? You think they would rather be there even if that wasn’t their favorite bill as opposed to not being there and having the status quo of decriminalization continue?

Helfrich: I can’t speak for the Senate…

Miller: If you are telling them what you would want, what would you tell them?

Helfrich: I would say we have an opportunity to create effective change. There’s both bills out there. There’s low hanging fruit, but there are substantial ways we can actually make change. Let’s sit down and make that change so we can do right by the citizens of our great state.

Miller: Jeff Helfrich, thanks very much.

Helfrich: Thank you.

Miller: Jeff Helfrich is a Republican state lawmaker from Hood River and the House Minority Leader.

Contact “Think Out Loud®”

If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983. The call-in phone number during the noon hour is 888-665-5865.