This is the time of the year when we like to recall the words of Gideon John Tucker, an American lawyer, newspaper editor and politician of the 19th century who is most famous for writing this sentence:

“No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session.”

Tucker’s words come to mind again as lawmakers prepare to gather next week for their short session. The short session, which is held in even-numbered years, is constitutionally limited to just 35 days.

When the idea was floated to hold these short sessions, as you might recall, the idea was that Oregon state government had become too large, too complicated, for lawmakers to meet only every other year. The argument made sense then — and it still does now.

But Oregonians were justifiably worried by the prospect of a full-scale legislative session every year, so these short sessions emerged as a compromise: They would last just 35 days to allow lawmakers to tie up loose ends left behind from the longer, 160-day session and to deal with any urgent unexpected business that had developed in the meantime.

The short session, we were told, was not intended for major policy issues; that work needed to be reserved for the longer sessions, which in theory have more time for measured debate — and more opportunities for public input.

The first short session, in 2012, followed that model, more or less. And, to be fair, most of the short sessions since then have wrapped up their work in less than the 35 days allotted.

However, the short session also has fallen prey to what wonks might call “policy creep,” with big-deal proposals occasionally dominating the proceedings.

But there’s wisdom behind the original model: Thirty-five days is simply not enough time to give full consideration to any kind of major policy shift. And the pace of the short session is ridiculously fast — it’s often much too difficult for members of the public to keep track of important legislation, let alone offer their opinion on bills, unless they have the wherewithal to hire a lobbyist.

The good news thus far is that this year’s session appears to be focused on two key areas:

• Fixing (or, possibly, repealing) Measure 110, the drug decriminalization and addiction treatment initiative voters passed in 2020. Frankly, the debate about drug decriminalization borders on being too complicated, too nuanced, for a short session, but the state’s addiction crisis has forced the hands of lawmakers: The only remaining question for the short session appears to be to what extent possession of certain drugs again will become a criminal offense. As for nuance, it doesn’t stand much of a chance in a short session.

• Gov. Tina Kotek’s proposal for an additional $500 million to boost housing production. It’s hard to imagine much controversy erupting over this, but you never know. We would urge Eastern Oregon legislators to do whatever they can to ensure that rural communities get a piece of that pie; it’s not just Portland and the Willamette Valley that need additional housing. We’ll likely come back to this point in future editorials.

Beyond those two key areas, who knows what lawmakers have in mind for the short session — but, individually, they can only create a certain amount of mischief, limited as they are to just two bills.

Lawmakers would do well to keep Tucker’s words in mind as they gather in Salem. And let us add our advice: Stay focused. Minimize the distractions (or delay them to 2025). Leave town ahead of schedule.