Relating to substance use disorders.
HB 2360 expands Oregon’s civil commitment and outpatient treatment framework to expressly include certain people with substance use disorders. Under the bill, a person with a substance use disorder may be subject to involuntary civil commitment if they meet the same criteria already used for commitment of a person with a mental disorder. The bill also revises the assisted outpatient treatment statute so that a court may order treatment for an adult with a mental or substance use disorder who will not voluntarily seek care, cannot make an informed decision about treatment, and is at risk of deterioration without intervention.
The bill further directs courts to consider a range of safety and stability factors when deciding whether to order assisted outpatient treatment, including access to food, medicine, treatment, community resources, prior self-harm or violence, past treatment history, decompensation patterns, victimization risk, and access to means of harm. It also allows a court, in appropriate cases, to impose a firearm prohibition during the treatment period. In addition, the bill makes related technical changes to Oregon’s mental health statutes, including definitions and payment provisions for emergency care, custody, treatment, and state hospital services.
HB 2360 would amend ORS 426.005, 426.133, 426.241, and 426.495 to bring substance use disorders into Oregon’s civil commitment and assisted outpatient treatment laws. The practical effect is to broaden the group of people who can be subject to court-ordered treatment and, in some cases, involuntary commitment, while also aligning related statutory definitions and cost-recovery rules for emergency and inpatient behavioral health services. It would affect courts, county community mental health programs, hospitals, state hospitals, the Oregon Health Authority, and individuals with substance use disorders or co-occurring mental health conditions.
Based on the bill text alone and the absence of committee transcripts or recorded votes, the available context suggests a policy approach focused on expanding treatment authority rather than a clearly documented partisan or public debate. The measure is framed as a public safety and treatment access bill, with detailed criteria intended to guide judicial decisions and limit use to people meeting existing commitment standards. No recorded votes or hearing testimony are provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition in the supplied materials.
The main point of contention likely concerns the expansion of involuntary treatment to substance use disorders, which raises questions about civil liberties, due process, and whether courts and treatment systems should have broader authority to compel care. Another likely issue is the inclusion of firearm restrictions tied to assisted outpatient treatment orders, which could draw scrutiny from gun-rights advocates. On the other side, supporters would likely emphasize preventing deterioration, reducing harm, and giving courts tools to intervene earlier for people at serious risk. The bill also references county funding limits, which could be a concern for local governments and service providers if resources are insufficient.