Today, Explained - America said yes to drugs

Episode Date: November 17, 2020

Oregon decriminalized all drugs. Red states and blue states are doing the same with weed. It’s the culmination of a failed drug war. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Get groceries delivered across the GTA from Real Canadian Superstore with PC Express. Shop online for super prices and super savings. Try it today and get up to $75 in PC Optimum Points. Visit Superstore.ca to get started. There's never been a paper bag for drugs. Until now. If you watch season three of The Wire, you'll remember Major Bunny Colvin getting fed up with the war on drugs in Baltimore.

So fed up that he dreams up a free zone for drugs. The Hoppers call it Hamsterdam. Like from Amsterdam. Amsterdam. Trump Towers, got me Trump Towers. Amsterdam. Either they move their people to one of three designated areas where drug enforcement was not a district priority, or they face the wrath of every able-bodied soul in my district. Major, I don't understand.

The only time we can hold a drug corner is when we assign offices to stand there. Your slides don't suggest any concerted deployment on any corners. How were you able to effectively... Jesus Christ, you nit. Don't you see what he's done? He's legalized drugs. Actually, I elected to ignore them. It didn't really work out for Bunny, but he may have just been ahead of his time.

Exhibit A, Oregon. A first in the nation in Oregon. Voters deciding there to decriminalize possession of small amounts of all drugs, including heroin, cocaine, and meth. On November 3rd, two weeks ago today, Oregon took an historic step towards destigmatizing drug use. It is one of the most exciting things I've ever worked on in my entire life. Haven Wheelock was one of the minds behind ballot measure 110. Starting in February, if you are stopped with a small amount of substances, less than a gram of heroin, less than two grams of methamphetamines,

cocaine, 12 grams of psilocybin, aka magic mushrooms, less than 40 units of acid, you will receive a $100 ticket. Huh. If you want to pay $100 and walk free, you will receive a hundred dollar ticket. If you want to pay a hundred bucks and walk free, you are welcome to. If you want to have that hundred dollar fee waived, then you have a needs assessment done. So you can call into a hotline that's available 24 seven, and then we'll be able to link you to services based on what you as an individual want. So let's say I get stopped with a gram of cocaine in my pocket, and I feel like I would like some support with this. I can call into this hotline.

They are going to assess my mental health, my psychosocial needs, and if I say, okay, I want help getting my ID so I can get housing, then we'll link folks to peers who can help get people linked to that. If people want access to addiction and recovery support services, we can also link them to that as well. Okay, so this is a pretty significant jump cut for America, where most anywhere you are, you get in a lot of trouble for having a gram or two of heroin or cocaine or, say, 40 tabs of acid.

Now it's just a $100 ticket or some counseling in Oregon. How much opposition was there to ballot measure 110? Some of the law enforcement DA's associations were in opposition, which was not surprising. The most vocal was out of Washington County, which is an adjacent county to Portland. So heroin addicts, cocaine addicts, meth addicts don't have a reputation for always being responsible when it comes time to participating in treatment. And the way our system is set up right now is not perfect. I'm not here to advocate for our current system being perfect. But one thing that it does do is when someone is in the criminal justice system and they've possessed drugs, it gives us an opportunity to force that person to

be on supervised probation and to require that person to undergo drug evaluation and treatment if necessary. And his opposition really comes from the fact that he's very strong on drug courts and getting people into drug courts. And he believes that when someone's arrested for possession, they should be funneled into a drug court system. And while this measure doesn't do anything to make drug courts go away, he thinks that if we're not arresting people for possession, that their addiction is going to continue, and then they're going to engage in other related crimes. I oppose that only because I spend literally 40 hours a week talking to people using substances who are asking for care without being punished and asking for treatment. Oregon is 50th in the nation for access to mental health and addiction services right now. Hopefully that will be changing.

And then a little more surprising was some of the recovery support community was also in opposition to this measure. Some of the large for-profit treatment providers were also in opposition. It was interesting because some of our loudest opposition wasn't actually in disagreement with what we were trying to do. They just weren't necessarily agreeing with how we were trying to do it. So this measure uses marijuana tax revenue to fund services, and they believe that we needed an alcohol tax instead of using existing marijuana tax revenue. There was a lot of conversations about decriminalization happening too fast, that we need to create more services first before we decriminalize, putting the cart before the

horse kind of arguments. I disagreed with that just because the harms of criminalizing folks are so severe already. And we have, you know, high rates of addiction and low rates of treatment. And it's not uncommon for me to spend weeks or months trying to help someone get the care that they need, only to have them be turned away. So I don't think we need to punish people to get them help. But I guess we'll see what happens. Are you concerned that the sort of decriminalization of previously criminal substances across the board could lead to even more addiction because people won't be as afraid to buy substances like these? No. I mean, I think it's a valid concern and I think it is something that we need to be evaluating and monitoring and adjusting for.

But what we know is, like, fear tactics don't keep people from using drugs. We've been trying what we've been doing for 50 years, and it hasn't been working. So I'm really hopeful that with this measure, we will be able to provide people the care that they need and the services that they need to stop using drugs. I wish I believed that this measure was going to take all the shame and stigma away from addiction that exists currently but I am not naive enough to think that that's going to happen right like having a

dependence to substance is still going to be shameful for folks it's the number one thing I see actually with my clients when I'm working with folks is like they're just steeped in shame. And, you know, if we can move away from stigmatizing people, it's going to make it easier for them to access health. Haven Wheelock is a drug policy reformer and an addiction counselor based in Portland, Oregon. This Oregon law is part of a much larger trend in the United States. After the break, did drugs win the war? Thank you. and spend management software designed to help you save time and put money back in your pocket. Ramp says they give finance teams unprecedented control and insight into company spend. With Ramp, you're able to issue cards to every employee with limits and restrictions

and automate expense reporting so you can stop wasting time at the end of every month. And now you can get $250 when you join Ramp. You can go to ramp.com slash explained, ramp.com slash explained, R-A-M-P dot com slash explained, cards issued by Sutton Bank. Member FDIC. Terms and conditions apply.

BetMGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with a sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with BetMGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style, there's something every NBA fan will love about BetMGM.

Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM, a sports home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM, a sportsbook worth a slam dunk, and authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions.

Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario.

Herman Lopez, you cover drugs for Vox. I mean, it seems to make sense that this measure in Oregon that decriminalizes all drugs is getting a ton of attention, it seems to make sense that this measure in Oregon that decriminalizes all drugs is getting a ton of attention because it's quite the headline. But what's going on in the rest of the country? So Oregon is the first state to actually decriminalize all drugs. Other countries have done it, but it's the first time in the modern U.S. that it's really been done. What other states have been doing is what would now be considered more milder measures, like marijuana legalization.

15 states have done that. Some states have defelonized drugs, which still keeps them as misdemeanors, but they're still generally criminal. So this is really a big step in that direction. But I think one thing we've seen across the country over the past few years, particularly the past decade, is really a move to relax anti-drug criminal efforts. And you saw that first marijuana legalization starting really in 2012, but now you're seeing it where in Oregon with decriminalizing drugs, and in other places they're decriminalizing like psychedelics. And we've talked to you about this on the show before, we've talked to other experts about this

on the show before, but one thing that seems to be different now is that this isn't just like a blue state thing anymore. This isn't just California and Washington State and Washington, D.C., right? Yeah, this is something you actually started seeing in surveys a few years ago where a majority of Republicans actually supported marijuana legalization and also supported in general efforts to move away from like a very punitive drug war. No matter what you call it, no matter what hip street life it's referred or referred to by, it all comes from the same stash. It's all marijuana. And now with Montana and South Dakota, we've seen them fully legalize recreational marijuana, which is a big step compared to a few years ago. And in Mississippi, the same year we saw them legalize medical marijuana. So clearly this isn't a blue-red thing anymore. I mean, South Dakota and Montana voted for Trump in the same election where they're voting to legalize

marijuana for recreational use. So that's a pretty big shift. And we should note that this is still illegal at the federal level, but there are more states that have decriminalized or legalized drugs like marijuana than anyone might have thought possible, I don't know, a few years ago, right? This would have been unimaginable a decade ago for a lot of drug policy activists. The idea that a state would not only legalize marijuana, not only decriminalize all drugs, but also Oregon at the same time is legalizing medical psilocybin, the compound found in magic mushrooms, like for supervised therapeutic use. Back then, if you looked at public opinion surveys, marijuana legalization,

still a majority of people did not approve of it. So it's been a pretty big shift in a very short time. There was a time way back in this country where we weren't as vigilant about recreational drugs, right? So actually in the 19th century, you could see cocaine sold in pharmacies, for example. So that wasn't a totally odd thing. It really started with the 1900s and going into the 50s, the 60s, and then especially the 70s and 80s, where you started seeing the federal government get more and more involved in trying to control drugs. Most narcotics are smuggled into the country on ships or across borders. Customs men are constantly on the lookout, but it can't all be intercepted.

There were a lot of reasons for that. There was racism, like opium was tied to Chinese immigrants. Opium dens set back in sinister alleys flourished throughout the Far East. Even though millions of Chinese were thrust into moral and physical degradation, the use of opium was actually romanticized in literature. Marijuana was tied to Mexican immigrants.

Drug busts to tell you about over the weekend at the border. Agents at the Falfurrias checkpoint say they boarded a bus to check passengers. And while that was going on, a canine found two suitcases where agents say they found cocaine and marijuana valued at around $347,000. Cocaine was tied to black Americans. Crack cocaine happens to be used by poor people who are predominantly black people because it is cheap. And we've really seen that again and again in the drug war

where these racialized elements creep up and lead to harsher enforcement. Powder cocaine happens to be used by white people who happen to be richer. We've really seen that slowly ramp up over the years and it culminated, I think, in the 70s and 80s with the modern war on drugs. America's public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. Generally, it's considered to have started in the 70s with Nixon, when he made a big speech effectively declaring a war on drugs. Nixon actually did emphasize the treatment side quite a bit. But that started to change over time as he took this more law enforcement, punitive view.

And then with Reagan in particular, we saw the crack cocaine epidemic. Once that started, once violent crime was really tied to that crack epidemic, Reagan just really ramped up this tough on crime approach. As all of you know, crime today is an American epidemic. And throughout all this time, I mean, I'm talking about the federal government, but it's notable, too, that basically every single state followed this lead with tougher and tougher laws related to drugs while particularly the crack cocaine epidemic was getting started. And the tough new state statutes directed at repeat offenders

make it clear that the American people are reasserting certain enduring truths. The belief that right and wrong do matter. That individuals are responsible for their actions. That evil is frequently a conscious choice. But like, why was Nixon so vigilant about it? I get Reagan and crack cocaine, but what was it that propelled Nixon?

Nixon had a very personal distaste for drugs. There's a lot of comments, if you go back through his tapes, about just how he personally despises drugs. Like he sees them as bad and morally destructive

and generally damaging to America. It is essential for the American people to be alerted to this danger, to recognize that it is a danger that will not pass. There's also, if you go back through his tapes, Nixon was a very racist person. Some of his advisors have since said that he saw it in particularly as a problem in minority communities and he wanted to do something to crack down on those communities forbes reports on a remark by a former nixon aid hinting that the war on drugs had a hidden purpose that president nixon saw the drug crackdown as a way to arrest blacks and anti-war protesters erlichman also claimed that the white

house knew they were lying about drugs it's kind of a complicated story because in the end he did put more money towards treatment, unlike Reagan did later on. For this, it's important to understand the context for which we first started ramping up, like the modern war on drugs in general. Back in the 70s and 80s, particularly under Nixon and then especially under Reagan, there was a massive increase in crime in general, violent crime, robberies, murders. And that really got tied up in the crack cocaine epidemic. People were very, very scared of crack, in some cases rightfully, because it was leading to violence in their communities. So there was justifiable fear for what was going on.

And lawmakers responded with this super punitive response. Over the decades, we've seen crime has dropped dramatically in the U.S. for all sorts of reasons, like more and better forms of policing. Also, strangely enough, the invention of video games and also things like Netflix, because now kids stay inside instead of going out into the streets and causing trouble, and also lead abatement cool lead abatement yeah so there's a bunch of research showing that kids when they're exposed to lead they develop more aggression they have less impulse control and over time i'm those things can't contribute to more crime i mean more aggression and less impulse control are like two obvious contributors to crime in people in

general. So when the country started removing lead from gasoline, from the environment, and so forth, that really might have had an impact on crime. But the general point is crime has dropped in the past few decades. And because of that, I think it's made the American public a lot easier with the idea of treating these drugs differently. And to their point, we've seen the largest drug overdose crisis in U.S. history in the opioid epidemic, even as the war on drugs was in full motion. So it's really this idea that the war on drugs hasn't worked, that we can take this public health approach because crime has dropped. And that, I think, has led to just a massive shift in public attitudes. That said, even though it's popular with the public, neither President-elect

Biden nor the outgoing guy have wanted to legalize this stuff on the federal level. How come? I think one concern is that they're worried the public is kind of soft on these issues. So if crime suddenly rises again, and if it's in any way tied to drugs, and suddenly there could be a big public backlash against drugs in general, and then they'll want tough on crime action again against drugs. Do we have any idea what the Biden administration might do on these issues now that it's so clear that the American public is progressing? We started seeing this towards the end of Obama's second term, where they actually started shifting more funding that goes to the war on drugs

from the law enforcement side to the public health side. I have always believed that to the extent that the society legitimately wants to guard against any kind of substance abuse, that you treat it as a public health problem. So it was actually for the first time since Nixon during the Obama years that we saw more spending on the treatment and prevention side than the law enforcement side in terms of the war on drugs. And I think that the Biden administration will probably do the same thing. They'll start emphasizing that public health side, which the Trump administration has really de-emphasized in favor of law enforcement. And beyond that, there are all sorts of things

they could do in terms of executive action, in terms of trying to make treatment more accessible, whether that's making sure insurers are paying for treatment or just making sure that evidence-based practices are being followed. And there's also some steps they could take in terms of just continuing relaxed enforcement, short of an action of Congress. The Biden administration can also just say like, look, we're not going to emphasize this level of enforcement. They do have that discretion in terms of prosecutors and their overall administration approaches this issue. But is like the war on drugs at least over? Have they called it drugs one? I wouldn't say the war on drugs is over because clearly some states and the federal government are still very much enforcing their very punitive drug laws. Like, we still have people in prison for decades because of drugs.

So that's still here to stay. Public attitudes have shifted to such a point where it seems clear that the public wants this to be, at the very least, relaxed. But based on how the U.S. works, based on how federalism works, the most realistic scenario going forward is we see different states like Oregon trying things like decriminalization. Other states will probably keep on going with a punitive, tough-on-crime approach. And maybe eventually the country will come together into some sort of agreement of how drugs should be approached, but it'll probably be a few years before that. And what happens in the meantime as the nation's attitudes towards

these substances are changing so quickly and so many states you wouldn't even expect are legalizing marijuana and John Boehner's getting in on the legal cannabis game? Like most Americans over the last 10 years, people's opinion on this issue have evolved. And I felt myself, like any other American, my position evolving over the years 10 years, people's opinion on this issue have evolved. And I felt myself, like any other American, my position evolving over the years. And I thought to myself, you know, this might be something that I could lend my voice to that makes sense. What happens to all the people who have been incarcerated for possession, for distribution of these substances that we now consider to be acceptable.

Yeah, that really depends on the state-by-state level. Some states, like Oregon, after Oregon passed marijuana legalization, its legislature actually allowed expungement to kick in after. And some states, their ballot initiatives inherently carried expungement. So that means people could go back and ask for either lower sentences based on the new laws, or they were freed from criminal records, prison, whatever, from that moment forward. More liberal, more progressive states will probably take a stance where they're making it easier to clear those records, whereas more conservative states, if they even do legalize marijuana, might be more resistant to that. Okay.

Herman, thank you. Thanks for having me. Herman Lopez, you can find his reporting on drugs in America at Vox.com. I'm Sean Ramos for him. This is Today Explained.