A recent survey showed many Oregonians still support the implementation of Oregon’s Measure 110, even after its less than stellar rollout, and while there is plenty of room for initial doubt regarding the new law, voters should adopt a wait-and-see view of the issue.

If patience is, indeed, a virtue, then Oregonians will need to be extra tolerant over the next few years until there is definitive proof the law is all that it was touted to be.

The new law diminished penalties for possession of methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, LSD and other illegal narcotics to essentially minor violations. The key component of the law is using the money saved through fewer prosecutions and by diverting marijuana revenue to addiction recovery centers in every county in Oregon.

As with so many recent ballot measures, the idea was and is a good one but the execution of it has so far been a shambles. The Oregon Health Authority has been in the crosshairs of criticism because, as the overseer of the rollout, it delegated much of the details to a council that consisted of individuals who did not have experience introducing complex health care initiatives.

While drug arrests declined, the lag on the formation of the treatment centers mean those seeking addiction help were forced to wait.

The rollout wasn’t as effective as it could have been, and there are larger, deeper questions about the new law that will one day need to be either dismissed or acted upon. Those questions center on how law enforcement perceives the new law and how, or if, public safety is jeopardized by the edict.

The views of the state law enforcement community can’t be ignored. While there hasn’t seemed to have been much stated publicly — other than the general opposition to the measure — there are rumblings inside the wall of blue that the law is causing more problems than it solves.

Those under-the-radar perceptions and opinions may very well be right on the mark. However, until the law has had a chance to get going, voters won’t be able to fully judge whether it functions and helps, rather than hinders, the state.

If, within a few years, the law has proven to be effective and helped curb addiction then it was the right move. If not, then lawmakers will need to go back to the drawing board.