Did Drug Decriminalization Make Oregon and Washington Less Safe?

Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

In February 2021, Oregon and Washington made one of the boldest drug policy shifts in modern U.S. history.

Oregon passed Measure 110, decriminalizing possession of small amounts of most illicit drugs and replacing criminal penalties with a $100 fine and a referral to treatment. Days later, Washington’s State v. Blake decision eliminated criminal liability for simple possession altogether, retroactively vacated prior drug possession convictions across the state which effectively wiping out thousands of past cases.

This was not a reactionary move. It reflected a decades-long shift in how policymakers, public health officials, and much of the public had come to understand addiction.

By 2020, the dominant narrative was that drug use is not primarily a criminal problem, it is a medical one. The traditional “War on Drugs” approach was widely criticized for failing to reduce addiction, overcrowding prisons, imposing large fiscal costs, and producing deep racial and geographic disparities. Arresting people for possession was seen as stigmatizing, counterproductive, and ineffective at changing behavior.

Drug decriminalization promised several concrete benefits:

• Reduce incarceration and court costs by removing low-level drug users from the criminal justice system
• Increase treatment engagement by redirecting users toward services instead of jail
• Lower overdose deaths through harm-reduction strategies and reduced fear of seeking help
• Free police resources to focus on serious and violent crime rather than low-level possession

In theory, fewer arrests would mean less disruption of lives, better access to care, and improved population health, all without compromising public safety.

It was a compelling case. And one that seemed, at least on paper, to offer reform without trade-offs. Unfortunately, public policy rarely works that way.

What remained largely unknown was not whether arrests would fall (that was inevitable), but how such a sweeping change would affect violent crime, property crime, and enforcement patterns across entire states.

That is the question this study set out to answer.

The Study: A Natural Experiment in Drug Decriminalization

This analysis comes from a forthcoming (pre-publication) study by Hunter Boehme, Scott Mourtgos, Sohee Jung, Ian Adams, and Justin Nix, a research team well known for applied work at the intersection of policing, crime, and public policy.

Their goal was straightforward but ambitious: estimate what actually happened to crime and arrests after Oregon and Washington removed criminal penalties for drug possession.

To do this, the authors took advantage of what is essentially a natural experiment.

They examined daily crime and arrest data from January 2019 through December 2022, allowing them to observe trends before and after the policy changes. Oregon and Washington served as the “treated” states (where the law changed) while 23 other states who were fully NIBRS-compliant served as comparison states.

The logic is simple:

First, the authors asked: What were crime and arrest trends in Oregon and Washington before decriminalization?

Then: How did those trends change after the law took effect?

And finally: Did those changes look different from what happened in similar states that did not change their drug laws?

Before the law changed, Oregon, Washington, and the comparison states followed nearly identical trends in violent crime, property crime, and arrests. Only after decriminalization did the patterns begin to separate. This strengthens confidence that the difference was associated with the policy change rather than pre-existing differences.

With that foundation in place, the authors then tracked how violent crime, property crime, drug crime, and arrests evolved after decriminalization, both statewide and within Portland and Seattle, to estimate how the policy reshaped public safety in practice.

The Unintended Consequences of State-Level Drug Decriminalization Laws: Implications for Arrest and Crime Rates

On February 1, 2021, Oregon passed “Measure 110,” which decriminalized the possession of small amounts of many illicit narcotics. On February 25, 2021, in State V. Blake (“Blake”), the Washington State Supreme Court declared the state’s simple possession of controlled…

What Changed After Drug Decriminalization?

Oregon and Washington removed criminal penalties for drug possession and the effects on crime were immediate, uneven, and concentrated.

Crime Rates Jumped

Compared to before and after and to other states, both Oregon and Washington saw big increases in violent and property crimes:

So, while drug crime nearly disappeared from official statistics, violence and property crime moved in the opposite direction.

Drug crime declined on paper, while violent and property crime moved in the opposite direction.

Arrests Tell a More Complicated Story

Law enforcement patterns shifted in different ways:

Crime increased more consistently than arrest activity. Property crime rose in both states while property arrests declined, particularly in Oregon. That divergence suggests enforcement capacity shifted or weakened in key areas.

Did These Increases Exceed National Trends?

Oregon and Washington saw violent and property crime rise beyond national trends, while arrests generally did not increase proportionally. Drug crime, as expected, declined in both states. Washington also experienced a slight increase in larceny-theft and a decrease in rape relative to comparison states.

These patterns were consistent across two different modeling approaches, even when states were rotated in and out of the comparison group, strengthening confidence that the increases were not random fluctuations.

Arrests Tell a Different Story

Oregon saw increases in violent arrests, particularly for robbery and aggravated assault, alongside a sharp drop in drug arrests. In Washington, arrest rates largely mirrored national trends, except for the collapse in drug arrests.

Major Cities Bore the Brunt

Statewide trends were not uniform. The increases were concentrated in Portland and, to a lesser extent, Seattle:

• Portland: Large spikes in murder and rape, along with increases in robbery, aggravated assault, and property crimes. Drug crime declined.
• Seattle: Mixed patterns, with robbery up but decreases in burglary and murder.

Removing Portland from the analysis largely eliminates Oregon’s statewide increase, highlighting how one city absorbed a disproportionate share of the harm. Seattle did not drive Washington’s statewide trend.

Key Takeaway: Crime rose beyond national patterns, but arrest activity did not keep pace, and the impact was heavily concentrated in major urban centers rather than evenly spread across the states.

Why Might Crime Increase After Drug Decriminalization?

The study identifies several plausible mechanisms. It cannot directly test these mechanisms, but they are consistent with prior research and officer reporting.

Drug decriminalization removed a long-standing enforcement tool. Simple possession arrests often served as early intervention points with repeat offenders such as surfacing warrants, recovering stolen property, discovering illegal weapons, or temporarily removing offenders from the street. Without these contacts, officers lost routine opportunities to disrupt potential property or violent crime. For instance, a patrol officer encountering a known repeat offender before decriminalization might make an arrest and conduct a search; afterward, the individual remains on the street with only a citation, reducing short-term incapacitation and deterrence. Qualitative research supports this perception. A 2023 study by Smiley-McDonald and colleagues found that officers in Oregon described post-decriminalization enforcement as “all carrots and no stick,” reporting reduced leverage, diminished deterrence, and what some characterized as de-policing dynamics.

At the same time, public drug use became more visible, and officers’ capacity to respond declined. The resulting disorder changes the environment: it signals weaker enforcement, reduces perceived risk for potential offenders, and weakens informal social control. A downtown neighborhood where people openly use drugs may see more crime opportunities, not because morality changed, but because situational control and police visibility diminished.

Finally, these reforms coincided with staffing shortages and resource constraints. Agencies faced rising violent crime, post-2020 de-policing pressures, and historic staffing crises. Arrest patterns did not rise in parallel with crime rates. That divergence may reflect both the removal of drug enforcement authority and shifting agency priorities. In Portland, for example, staffing shortages and rising violent crime led agencies to prioritize violent investigations while property enforcement became lower priority. Limited personnel and investigative capacity meant that officers could respond to some incidents but not all, creating gaps that offenders could exploit.

In short, removing a core enforcement tool, shifts in public disorder, and constrained law enforcement resources combined to make the environment more conducive to both property and violent crime.

Final Thoughts: Reform Requires Operational Planning

This study is not an argument against treatment, nor is it a call to revive punitive drug policy. It examines what happened after two states rapidly removed criminal penalties for drug possession.

The results suggest that large-scale decriminalization carries operational consequences. Violent and property crime increased relative to comparable states and cities. Arrest patterns did not consistently track the rise in crime.

At the same time, fatal overdose deaths did not decline following these reforms. Notably, the same Oregon electorate that approved Measure 110 in 2020 voted to overturn it in 2024. Media reporting at the time cited rising disorder, crime concerns, and business impacts as central reasons for reversal. Washington likewise enacted a legislative “Blake fix,” restoring misdemeanor possession authority while maintaining diversion and treatment pathways.

Those policy adjustments are notable. They reflect an acknowledgment that removing enforcement authority without sufficient treatment infrastructure, staffing stability, or urban support systems may produce unintended strain.

When enforcement mechanisms are removed, something must replace their preventive function. If treatment capacity, staffing, and investigative resources are not in place at scale, the system absorbs the shock elsewhere, often in large metropolitan areas.

The evidence from Oregon and Washington suggests that the transition from punishment to public health requires more than statutory change. It requires infrastructure.

Enjoyed this post?

Get more research translated into plain language delivered straight to your inbox.

Subscribe below and let me know which topics you want to hear more about. It only takes a minute.

If you found this helpful, share it with your team or on your socials. It helps more people make sense of research that matters.

Carlee Ruiz

Carlee Ruiz is the founder of PoliceResearchHub, a platform that turns academic research into practical insights for law enforcement. She brings seven years of experience as a crime analyst and justice researcher, with a focus on evidence based policing, gun violence prevention, and public safety strategy. Carlee currently works as a researcher at National Policing Institute, where she supports evaluations of law enforcement programs and criminal justice initiatives across the country. Through PoliceResearchHub, she aims to make research easier to understand and more useful for the people doing the work on the ground.