#Drug Policy

[alwaysbewoke]

#richard nixon #war on drugs #john ehrlichman #mass incarceration #racial discrimination #black americans #criminalization #anti-war movement #drug policy

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Brazil upholds ban on e-cigarette sales

The board of directors for the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) voted unanimously on April 19 to maintain a ban on the sale of electronic cigarettes, known as e-cigarettes, vaporizers or “vapes.”

Manufacturing, selling, importing and advertising vapes has been banned in the country since 2009, but even so, e-cigarettes are easily found in small shops and online stores across Brazil. And consumption, especially among young people, is on the rise. 

According to a survey by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE), a federal government agency that gathers population data, 16.8% of students aged 13 to 17 said they had tried vaping at least once in their lives.

Also, data from Covitel, which carries out surveys related to health matters, reveal that 4 million people have already used electronic cigarettes in Brazil, even though sales have not been authorized for 15 years.

Continue reading.

#brazil #brazilian politics #politics #anvisa #drug policy #mod nise da silveira #image description in alt

[onecornerface]

Voluntary Exclusion as part of drug regulation?

One objection to safe supply is that easy availability of drugs would be tempting to people in recovery who are endeavoring to remain abstinent from drugs. When someone is intent on abstaining long term, and they explicitly DON’T want easy access to a legal supply of drugs, then I’d like them (if possible) to have a voluntary opt-in blacklist system. Some casinos & some liqueur stores do this, in some locations.

This idea is called Voluntary Exclusion, and it is arguably a good idea for casinos and alcohol, and surely far superior to banning alcohol. If so, then it may be a good idea (& surely far superior to a ban) for other drugs as well.

Voluntary Exclusion may have problems, e.g. if it involves too little enforcement (losing its effect) or too much enforcement (causing other ethical problems). The Wikipedia article mainly discusses its use in casinos, and indicates it has run into enforcement/effectiveness problems (possibly due to bad design or bad incentives on the part of the casinos-- it's not clear how intractable these problems would be).

But it still seems like a Voluntary Exclusion system as part of a legal regulation of drugs is an idea that should be on the table. It could be one possible way to accommodate people who don't want easy access to drugs.

#drugs #drug policy #war on drugs #safe supply

[ivygorgon]

AN OPEN LETTER to THE PRESIDENT & U.S. CONGRESS; STATE GOVERNORS & LEGISLATURES

Support Marijuana Decriminalization for a more Equitable USA

4 so far! Help us get to 5 signers!

I am writing to express my strong support for the decriminalization of marijuana at both the federal and state levels. The current approach to cannabis, rooted in policies dating back to 1971, requires urgent reconsideration given evolving social norms and scientific understanding.

The revelation by President Richard Nixon's domestic policy chief, John Ehrlichman, that the war on drugs was designed to target Black communities underscores the urgent need to rectify the injustices perpetuated by decades of punitive drug policies. The disproportionate impact of these policies on communities of color has fueled systemic inequities in our criminal justice system.

Decriminalization of marijuana would shift our focus from ineffective punitive measures to evidence-based public health strategies, emphasizing harm reduction and regulated use, whether medicinal or recreational. It's crucial to differentiate between decriminalization and unregulated use, prioritizing public health and equitable access.

I urge you to champion legislation that decriminalizes marijuana and addresses the racial disparities entrenched by outdated drug policies. By investing in research and public health initiatives related to cannabis, we can develop policies that protect public health while respecting individual freedoms.

In conclusion, federal and state-level decriminalization of marijuana is imperative to rectify the failures of past policies and promote equitable, evidence-based drug reform. I urge you to seize this opportunity to advance sensible, ethical drug policy reforms that reflect our evolving understanding of cannabis regulation.

Thank you for considering my perspective on this critical matter. I look forward to your leadership in championing meaningful drug policy reform.

📱 Text SIGN PWUITK to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW IVYPETITIONS to 50409

💘 Q'u lach' shughu deshni da. 🏹 "What I say is true" in Dena'ina Qenaga

#IVYPETITIONS #PWUITK #resistbot #petition #anti racism #racial justice #Marijuana Decriminalization #Cannabis Reform #Drug Policy #Social Justice #Equity #Legalize It #Public Health #Criminal Justice Reform #Racial Justice #Civil Rights #Drug Law Reform #Decriminalize Marijuana #Justice Reform #Drug Policy Reform #End Mass Incarceration #Policy Change #Advocacy #Community Health #Health Equity #Legalization #Racial Equality #Social Change #Drug Reform #Human Rights

[melanieaycockdesigns]

SERVING VS. HELPING 3/3

Portugal: A Case Study in Human-Centered Approaches to Drug Policy

Another example of a systemic use of human-centered design is Portugal's approach toward drugs and addiction. While substance abuse is typically viewed through the lens of criminal activity, Portugal chose to design its drug policy through a more holistic and empathetic lens. In 2001, they implemented drug policy that is rooted in the understanding that substance use disorder is a health issue—not a criminal offense. Policies include: decriminalizing personal drug possession while maintaining penalties for drug trafficking, referring individuals with problematic drug use to Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction instead of incarceration, funding harm reduction techniques, and investing in data collection and reporting. While we can't—and shouldn't—copy and paste these policies in the United States, this article suggests some ways the federal government can use this approach to satisfy the desiderata of Americans struggling with substance abuse.

#design leadership #design thinking #wicked design problem #human centered design #Portugal #drug policy #substance abuse #empathy #compassion #human dignity

[jamesgierach]

YES! It’s time to end the War on Drugs.

Read why.

Book Release November 14th.

#drug legalization #gierach #drug policy #violence #harm reduction #overdose

[reckoningofjoy]

(This article is gifted; anyone should be able to read it without hitting the paywall.)

#amnesties #commutations and pardons #drug policy #racial justice

[jrlrc]

Pero AMLO no es conservador…

El presidente que dice que todos sus críticos somos conservadores, reaccionarios, derechistas, acaba de sentenciar sobre el caso de Kevin Durant:

“Ya les permiten a los basquetbolistas profesionales fumar marihuana… Magínense… un deportista que debe ser ejemplo para los jóvenes le autorizan que pueda fumar marihuana como si nada”.

No se le ocurre ni por un segundo pensar si el hecho de esa autorización, después de tantos años, significa que la marihuana no es lo que se creía hace décadas. No, el poderoso señor de México no tiene interés en pensar, ni siquiera en informarse más allá de lo superficial; le interesa opinar de todo desde su ignorancia, pontificar desde su poder, aparentar desde su personalidad política, intentar dar lecciones sobre lo que no entiende.

Esas palabras reaccionarias… Otra vez pretende enseñarle sobre Moralidad al mundo y los mexicanos y, contradiciendo otras partes de su discurso, hace el ridículo exhibiendo su pequeña moral de rancia raíz religiosa, anticientífica, antiliberal, socialmente de derecha. Oponerse a la legalización de la marihuana con base en creencias convencionales del siglo XX no puede ser progresista, porque no produce progreso, no puede ser liberal, porque niega la capacidad para y el ejercicio mismo de la libertad individual. No puede ser de izquierda en el siglo XXI.

Enésima autodemostración de su conservadurismo, de su ignorancia, de su atraso, de su “mochismo”, de su calderonismo (lo mismo creía el presidente Calderón sobre la marihuana: “el mal”!). AMLO no tiene la menor idea de los progresos en el mundo, ni quiere esos progresos para México. Quiere, lo está diciendo, conservar la prohibición de las drogas. Cree que eso es lo que se debe hacer. Cree que se debe CONSERVAR, insistir en un error, no cambiar, seguir haciendo lo que hacían presidentes como su odiado pero similar Calderón. Lo está diciendo! Y cree, en la completa pérdida mental, que lo que dice es lo progresista… Buen momento para recordar también, específicamente, que el principal responsable (culpable) de que no se haya concluido sino frenado la legalización general de la marihuana en México es el farsante que no deja de insultarnos desde la cima del Estado, el presidente López Obrador.

#marihuana #amlo #mexico #drug policy #war on drugs

[eternalistic]

BREAKING: President Biden PARDONS EVERYONE Convicted of Simple Marijuana Possession President Biden announced today historic new reforms to federal marijuana policy. The President announced that he is issuing full and unconditional pardons of all prior federal offensives for simple marijuana possession by U.S. citizens and lawful residents, urging all Governors to follow his lead, and is instructing the Secretary of HHS and the Attorney General to begin the administrative process of reviewing how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.

#youtube #Marijuana #pardons #president #biden #reform #drug policy #war on drugs #politics

[uboat53]

Quick question, what do you think the connection between illegal immigration and fentanyl overdoses is?

If you answered anything other than "nothing"… well that's what I want to address here because the reason most people can't give that accurate answer is because of a sustained barrage of misinformation mostly from conservatives and conservative media.

Now, I don't want to get too into the politics of this issue but I do want to address the misinformation and provide accurate information because I think it's influencing a good many people and not in a positive way. Here's a SHORT RANT (TM).

THE TWO ISSUES

So first off, we need to address each issue independently to understand them.

Illegal immigration generally involves two factors: people who enter the country legally and then overstay their visa and people who enter the country illegally. Generally when we speak about it, we speak about the latter.

The vast majority of illegal immigrants come from Mexico, although the proportion of those coming from Central America has increased in the last decade. These two countries are also the source of the vast majority of people who enter the country illegally, most illegal immigrants from other countries have entered the country legally and overstayed. (1)

Over the past decade and a half, and particularly since the pandemic, the number of illegal immigrants in the United States has declined significantly and the vast majority of them have been in the United States for a decade or more. (1)

Fentanyl is an issue related to the broader issue of illegal drug use in the United States. Fentanyl itself is a synthetic opioid that is extremely powerful. It is often used legally as a painkiller, usually injected via an IV. However, it is easy and cheap to manufacture and is now often found either sold on its own or mixed in with other drugs (either known or unknown to the user). Because of its high strength it causes both addiction and overdose fairly easily. (2)

The United States has been experiencing a crisis in the illegal use of opioids for a decade or more which was officially declared a public health emergency in 2017. Millions of Americans became addicted to opioids which were prescribed as painkillers starting in the 1990s and, when they could no longer obtain legal drugs, turned to the illegal market for supply. (3)

Opioids are particularly dangerous and the widespread use of them has caused an increase in drug overdose deaths of nearly 650% since 1999 (4) and fentanyl is one of the leading factors in overdoses.

THE FALSE CONNECTION

So the only real connection between the two is that Mexico is a significant source of both illegal immigrants and fentanyl. However, this connection, that they come from the same country, has been used by conservatives and conservative media to suggest that illegal immigrants who cross the southern border without visas are responsible for bringing fentanyl from Mexico into the United States.

Conservative politicians, even those associated with the more establishment side such as Kelly Loeffler (5), Ron DeSantis' Florida Republican Party (6), and more MAGA politicians like Blake Masters (7), conservative sheriffs (8), and conservative think tanks (9) have parroted this connection and conservative governors have even created government agencies and projects (10) based on this misrepresentation.

It's been a fairly effective misrepresentation, 60% of Republicans believe it. (11)

THE TRUTH

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the fentanyl in the United States is smuggled not by illegal immigrants or asylum seekers, but by US citizens recruited by drug cartels. (12) Because of this, the vast majority of fentanyl doesn't come through the sparsely populated border regions, but through legal ports of entry. (13)

In fact, of 42 incidents between Dec. 2021 and May 2022 where the nationality of the smuggler was mentioned, 79% involved US citizens, of nearly 4,500 people charged with trafficking fentanyl from fiscal year 2015 through fiscal year 2021, just over 650 were noncitizens, and of all drug seizures between 2016 and 2020, 91% involved US citizens and only 4% involved "potentially removable people". (14)

CONCLUSION

Whatever your politics and whatever your personal beliefs are, I am of the opinion that they should be based on accurate information and, increasingly, our beliefs about both drug policy and immigration are based on demonstrably false information.

I hope you find this useful or, if you don't, at least interesting.

SOURCES

(1) https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/13/key-facts-about-the-changing-u-s-unauthorized-immigrant-population/ (2) https://www.dea.gov/factsheets/fentanyl (3) https://www.hhs.gov/opioids/about-the-epidemic/index.html (4) https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/drugoverdoses/data-details/ (5) https://twitter.com/KLoeffler/status/1578131733609820160?s=20&t=7xgtdZgh2swKVDNaKxdeDA (6) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJNOd73iBTU (7) https://twitter.com/MastersPress/status/1585384337545236481 (8) https://www.foxnews.com/media/texas-sheriff-fentanyl-weapon-mass-destruction-never-thought-see-anything-worse-meth?intcmp=tw_fnc (9) https://twitter.com/Heritage/status/1571940831455768576?s=20&t=7xgtdZgh2swKVDNaKxdeDA (10) https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/operation-lone-star-combats-growing-national-fentanyl-crisis (11) https://www.npr.org/2022/08/18/1118271910/many-americans-falsely-think-migrants-are-bringing-most-of-the-fentanyl-entering (12) https://www.cato.org/blog/fentanyl-smuggled-us-citizens-us-citizens-not-asylum-seekers (13) https://www.cato.org/commentary/no-bidens-immigration-policies-are-not-blame-fentanyl-crisis# (14) https://reason.com/2022/10/17/dont-blame-migrants-and-open-borders-for-fentanyl-entering-the-country/

#politics #us politics #immigration #illegal immigration #illegal immigrants #fentanyl #opioid epidemic #drug overdose #drug policy #drug war #short rant (tm)

[alwaysbewoke]

#richard nixon #war on drugs #john ehrlichman #mass incarceration #racial discrimination #black americans #criminalization #anti-war movement #drug policy

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Brazil: Reject Bill That Entrenches Failed Drug Policy

Use Public Health Approaches Instead of Criminalizing Personal Use

Brazil’s Congress should reject a proposed constitutional amendment that would entrench the criminalization of drug possession for personal use.

The Senate is expected to vote in the coming days on an amendment to article 5 of Brazil’s Constitution, which guarantees the right to privacy, that would restrict that right by criminalizing the possession of illegal drugs regardless of quantity. If approved, the proposed amendment would be put to a second vote at the full Senate and then go to the Chamber of Deputies.

“Decades of drug policy failure in Brazil should make clear that criminal law is simply ineffective to address the harmful use of drugs and leads to serious human rights abuses,” said Andrea Carvalho, Brazil researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Instead of cementing a failed policy in the constitution, lawmakers should follow the example of many other countries by decriminalizing the possession of drugs for personal use and developing effective health strategies to prevent and respond to problematic substance use.”

Continue reading.

#brazil #brazilian politics #politics #drugs #drug policy #mod nise da silveira #image description in alt

[onecornerface]

The "epistemic effects" argument for drug decriminalization

One of the many under-theorized & under-investigated arguments for drug decriminalization (of possession + use, at least most obviously) is what I might call an "Epistemic Effects" argument. Prohibition causes or exacerbates many bad epistemic effects, pertaining to drugs, drug users, and drug problems. Decriminalization would eliminate or reduce some of these bad epistemic effects, and/or have good epistemic effects.

I have a bunch of ideas for what may plausibly be among drug prohibition's bad epistemic effects. Here are some:

People are broadly secretive about their illegal drug use or drug problems (more so than their legal drug use or legal drug problems, even though the latter often are badly stigmatized & silenced as well). This is for various direct reasons pertaining to criminalization itself (e.g. fear of arrest), as well as indirectly a subset of aspects of social stigma and institutional discrimination (e.g. threat of loss of job or housing) that are caused or exacerbated by criminalization.

And to the extent that people *do* discuss their illegal drug use, this discussion is largely cloistered within subcommunities, and doesn't filter out to the broader public as much as it could.

Moreover, people who are *more* at-risk of arrest or discrimination (such as poor and nonwhite people) are likely less inclined to talk openly about their illegal drug use-- and/or less likely to see their perspectives about drugs filter into the mainstream-- compared to people who are *less* at-risk of arrest or severe discrimination. As a result, it is likely that we have less knowledge or understanding (and more false beliefs and misunderstandings) about (say) poor and/or nonwhite people's illegal drug use than about wealthy and/or white people's illegal drug use.

Illegal drug use is under-studied. It is often hard to acquire drugs to provide to research participants, and it is often hard to ensure honesty from all research participants about their illegal drug use (e.g. social-desirability bias). A disproportionate amount of drug research takes place in a context of prohibitionist institutions and individuals-- introducing various likely distortions to the scientific research's goals, choice of research questions, methods, interpretive framework, funding incentives, etc.

(It is often alleged by critics that the research by academics who are pro-decrim (or pro-safe-supply, pro-harm-reduction, etc.) is problematically biased toward their own beliefs and agendas. I agree this is often true [albeit in a different and more complicated way than is alleged]-- which I agree is bad and needs to be taken into account. But the implicit comparative assumption seems to be that most other drug research is unbiased. I disagree. I think large swaths of drug research are patently highly biased toward prohibitionism, in various overt and/or subtle, direct and/or indirect, ways.)

More broadly, drug prohibition tends to create and exacerbate an apparatus of drug-related (and often anti-drug-user) stereotypes, propaganda, oversimplifications, exaggerations, heuristics, and omissions, in a self-reinforcing feedback loop with anti-drug-user policies and practices.

Are some anti-drug-user stereotypes sort of true? Sure, maybe. Some of them seem plausibly sort of true. But which ones are indeed true or true-ish, and to what degree, and how confident may we be? What may we do on such basis? Notably, we have lots of higher-order evidence that they are part of a broader apparatus of stereotypes which is basically pernicious in origin and social-political function-- i.e. it has been designed, by intelligent design and/or by cultural evolution (etc.), to produce and promote anti-drug-user and/or pro-status-quo and/or prohibitionist ideology, etc. So we can predict that likely a lot of popular anti-drug-user stereotypes would be exaggerated or distorted, which should lead us to reduce our credence in the stereotypes in many cases.

(If you go in for moral encroachment (cf. Rami Basu) or suchlike, then take that into account too. But arguably moral encroachment is dubious or hard to apply (cf. Georgi Gardiner). (I need to read more philosophy of stereotypes.)

Relatedly, I also claim (and argue at some length in my notes, not yet posted) that some common rationales or aspects of drug prohibition, such as institutional paternalism, tend to exacerbate epistemic hazards (e.g. encourage oversimplifed views about the agency and experiences of those who are subjected to coercion)-- possibly, in part, to reduce the cognitive dissonance necessary to coerce lots of people on such prima facie dubious grounds and in such prima facie abusive ways.

Drug prohibition is also in a mutually reinforcing feedback loop with interlocking systems of oppression, such as classism, racism, sexism, and ableism, among others. Each of these, individually and together, introduce or exacerbate further epistemic hazards (cf. feminist social epistemology, Mills "Epistemologies of Ignorance," Stanley on ideology and propaganda, Kerwin Kaye on the effects of racist-classist tropes on drug court & rehab practice, etc.).

In short, prohibition (or many aspects thereof) creates many epistemic hazards-- factors that make people in general less likely to acquire or cultivate epistemic goods, such as knowledge and understanding, about drugs and drug-related topics. This produces widespread ignorance and error not only about (say) drugs and their pharmacology, but *also* about people who use drugs-- how they use drugs, *why* they use drugs, what it's *like* to use drugs, how the drugs relate (positively, neutrally, negatively) to the rest of their lives and projects and communities, etc.

This all contributes to continual bad policy epistemology, as well as epistemic injustice against drug users (and distinctive epistemic injustice against some subsets of drug users, such as those who are poor, black, disabled, etc.).

Decriminalizing drug use (or possession, which is a proxy for use) may help reduce some of these epistemic hazards, improving the state of public knowledge and discourse about drugs and drug users, and thus drug policy. At least, this is highly plausible, and merits further inquiry, philosophically and empirically.

Are my empirical claims here true? Some are sloppier armchair inferences than others. But plausibly, some of them are true or close to true. Arguably, there ought to be more research to investigate this. In countries, states, and provinces that have implemented de jure decriminalization (or de facto decrim, or decrim-adjacent policies), does the epistemic situation improve? If so, how much, and in what ways?

Normatively, if the empirical claim is largely true, is this argument sufficient by itself? Probably not. It may prove too much, unless further work is done.

Consider the following. (Note: mostly serious main point, but slightly more armchair-bullshitting on my part via the too-lackadaisical bizarre hypothetical): Quite possibly, if we were to legalize murder, then we would learn a lot more about why people commit murder, help people to speak more openly about their murdering, and improve the scientific study of murder and related issues in sociology and criminology. There is a lot of very strong anti-murder bias in our society, and this may well contribute to our having distorted beliefs about murder and the people who commit murder. Perhaps we are prone to misrepresent or oversimplify the reasons people commit murder. ...However, all this, even if true, is obviously not a sufficient reason to legalize murder. The reasons against legalizing murder are vastly stronger.

So, the Epistemic Effects argument for drug decriminalization must piggyback on the force of at least some other background arguments for decriminalizing drug use (arguments which would apply to drug use but not, say, murder). But in any case, the Epistemic Effects argument, I suspect, points to a plausible and important strand of benefits of decriminalization or related policy changes, which may help reduce epistemic injustice, improve policy epistemology going forward, etc.

#drugs #drug policy #decriminalization #epistemology

[defensenow]

#youtube #news #drug policy reform #drug policy evaluation #international cooperation #drug policy advocacy #drug policy analysis #drug abuse prevention #drug policy research #global plan #drug policy #drug enforcement administration #synthetic drugs #United Nations #drug addiction #fight #revealed #secret #drug trafficking #law enforcement #drug control #drug war

[filipeanut]

Philippine drug policy and law reform summit.

A coalition of health and law advocates are inviting people to a discussion around social and developmental approaches to drug policy reform in the Philippines.

Date: April 16, Tuesday Time: 9:30 AM, Philippine time

Join in-person, or via Facebook and Zoom. See below links for details.

To register: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdgNCALMyF4sbdDJWkpyAAmH0CknqGzUEGcEoXva1qdW8gRpQ/viewform?usp=send_form

From the University of the Philippines College of Law FB: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=818624330303261&set=a.621669866665376

#Health #drug policy

[jamesgierach]

WHY OREGON’S DRUG-DECRIMINALIZATION EXPERIMENT FAILED

by James E. Gierach

Drug decriminalization failed in Oregon, prompting Gov. Tina Kotek to sign HB 4002 re-criminalizing drugs. Oregon’s drug policy reform failure disappointed many hopeful people.

In my opinion, the reform failed because drug decriminalization failed to address many obvious drug-prohibition crises that prompted the experiment. Conceptually, legislators tried to use decriminalization Measure 110 to shift drug possession, use and sale from the criminal side of the ledger to the health-based side of the ledger. It was hoped that incentivizing treatment and greasing the skids leading to rehabilitation with drug-decriminalization legislation would reduce overdose deaths and drug use. It did neither.

Neither the criminalization nor decriminalization of drugs can dissuade people from experimenting with drugs, using drugs, or quitting drug use. People have always used intoxicating and mind-altering substances, and they always will. It’s part of human nature, unchangeable by legislative act or governor’s signature.

What legislative and executive branch government can do, but has not done, is regulate the manufacture, production, inspection, distribution and sale of mind-altering substances. Drug-labeling, licensing of drug-premises and drug-potency limits can immediately prevent accidental overdose and death. Immediately, with government regaining control over the annual, $500 billion illegal drug trade, fentanyl deaths and overdose cases would plummet. Immediately, drugs stamped with “government inspected” labels would enlist the help of those persons best positioned to prevent drug overdose—drug users. Immediately, in a legalized drug but public, drug-consumption-regulated environment, that obnoxious behavior would significantly reduce.

Oregon’s drug decriminalization law failed to do any of those things.

Before decriminalization, Oregon offered drug users no place to buy legal, regulated, labeled, government-inspected drugs. After decriminalization, the same. The same black-market sources that supplied drugs before the decriminalization experiment continued to supply them after Measure 110 reform.

Repetitive news of drug overdose, public intoxication, petty theft, shootings, gangs, guns, new drugs and precursors, fentanyl, and vagrant immigrants fleeing other drug-prohibition countries and its consequential conditions of violence and corruption—all these realities catch the eye of Americans and Oregonians. These very visible crises—the product and inevitable side effects of drug prohibition intolerance and policies—cannot be solved by enactment of weak-kneed, half-measured drug decriminalization in Oregon, or anywhere else.

On the good side, yes, drug decriminalization can prevent further expansive of the prison-industrial complex in American and Oregon. However, drug users and drug sellers comprise a very unsympathetic segment of our society, and incarceration and its effect on families and communities passes largely unnoticed by most Americans and Oregonians.

In contrast, the counterintuitive, unpopular answer to all these crises is the legalization of all commonly used drugs. Change the economics of the $500 billion a year, global drug economy. Change it in Oregon. Change it in America. Change it globally. Reform drug policy as America once reformed alcohol policy to stop violence, corruption and unnecessarily dangerous prohibited alcohol sold by the likes of Al Capone and his gang.

Addiction and substance abuse will not disappear with drug legalization, but both are more manageable out of the closet. More importantly, full-strength drug legalization can dramatically resolve Oregonian, American and international collateral drug prohibition crises.

James E. Gierach is a former Cook County assistant state’s attorney, former director and speaker for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an international nonprofit organization, and author of “The Silver Bullet Solution: Is it time to end the War on Drugs?” (Gaudium, 2023.)

[This commentary sent to the Oregonian on April 6, 2024. No publication, no response.]

#drug legalization #drugprohibition #drug policy #overdose #oregon #LEAP #drug decriminalization #harm reduction #fentanyl #UNODC #cnd