Special Report: Voters Approve Sweeping Changes to Drug Policies
Six additional states legalize marijuana; Oregon decriminalizes hard drugs; and the new Biden administration promises an all-out effort to combat the opioid epidemic
After a long, bitter, and divisive election year, voters delivered a clear message on one issue: overturning many of the nation’s longstanding drug policies. Although there was no coordinated effort to do so, a perfect storm of public health and fiscal crises helped convince voters it was time for a change on both the state and federal levels. Here’s a look at how Election Day victories will resonate across the country and alter direction of drug policy:
A commitment to end the opioid crisis
Substance abuse and the opioid epidemic barely registered during the presidential campaign. But with drug overdose deaths surging during the COVID-19 pandemic, Biden laid out a comprehensive $125 billion plan over the next decade to combat the epidemic. The effort, led by addiction experts, would focus on significantly expanding access to a full range of evidence-based drug treatment services. Biden might also elevate the White House drug office and return the nation’s “drug czar” to a place in the Cabinet. The size and scope of the initiative is appropriate to the scale of the crisis, which has largely been ignored under recent administrations. Even if the Democrats do not win control of the Senate, Biden will hopefully be able to secure bipartisan support for this desperately needed effort to curtail an epidemic that has killed more than 450,000 Americans over the past two decades.
Cannabis reform gains ground
Among the six states that approved marijuana legalization were generally conservative South Dakota, Montana and Arizona—reflecting a major shift in public opinion. Momentum for legalization had been building for years, but an additional push this year came from governors who argued that cannabis tax revenues would bolster state budgets hit hard by the coronavirus-related economic downturn. The claim is dubious, for states rarely meet such revenue forecasts for pot sales—and fail to account for the added indirect costs of health care and law enforcement. For example, New Jersey (one of four states to approve adult-use marijuana) has said its tax dollars will go mostly toward retraining police. States are now debating the financial aspects of legalization, rather than how to safeguard public health. There must be strong rules and regulations to govern this new market—perhaps at the federal level—as more and more states are now likely to fast-track legalization just to keep pace with their neighbors.
Oregon declares the “war on drugs” over
Oregon’s move to decriminalize hard drugs such as heroin and cocaine, and expand drug treatment as an alternative to incarceration, is a bold step forward. Substance users should not be in jail—where drug use is rampant and adequate treatment services are rare. However, this otherwise promising initiative falls short for two important reasons: entering treatment is entirely voluntary, and the state currently lacks adequate treatment capacity. In order to truly help substance users, Oregon must be able to compel them to accept treatment. And equally important, it must also provide sufficient funding to ensure quality services for all who need it. If decriminalization works in Oregon, it might become a model for the rest of the country—and offer proof that a new direction in drug policy can indeed lead to progress in fighting addiction.