Unintended consequences from laws passed inside a moment of high emotion remain one of the great hazards for voters across the state, and more care and thought needs to be brought to bear by legislators — and citizens — when the latest “feel good” idea floats across the collective consciousness.

The best case in point is Oregon’s Measure 110, which recategorized some illegal narcotic offenses and was passed by voters in 2020.

The measure lowered penalties for possession of controlled substances such as heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine and reclassified such violations from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class E violation that carried a $100 fine or a completed health assessment.

The idea behind the measure, of course, was a good one. Advocates hoped to lower overall costs to the justice system and move away from punitive measures that often did not address recovery and rehabilitation. A key part of the new law was the recovery piece, where revenues from state marijuana sales — along with lower costs because of a decline in drug arrests — would fund treatment and recovery.

That’s a good idea.

The problem was the state botched the rollout of certain elements of the law. In a sense, the cart was put before the horse where the reduced penalties for drug possession were enacted before the treatment and recovery part was ready.

For police, that scenario was a challenge as the key tool of enforcement was stripped and, with no viable treatment and recovery infrastructure available, part of the new law was ineffective.

Whether Measure 110 will work out as its supporters intended remains to be seen. It is simply too early to call the measure — which is very much an experiment — a failure.

Yet the saga around the measure should give lawmakers and citizens pause. Because Measure 110 was a citizen-proposed initiative approved by voters, there is little that can be done to discard it. The Legislature can act and vote to repeal it, but that seems like a long shot now.

The key lesson, though, is a simple one. Initiatives and bills that appear on paper to be great ideas should be studied carefully before supporters kick off a major effort to make them law.

Often there is no adult leadership in such endeavors that steps forward to stop the train and ask: What will the potential impacts of this proposed law be in the future?

Instead of emotion, citizens and legislators need to use cold, hard reasoning before embarking on yet another “good idea.”