Drug Decriminalization: Surrendering to Addiction or Destigmatizing Recovery?

A recent piece in the New York Times (Lean Left bias) highlighting the impact of Oregon’s decision to decriminalize hard drugs in 2020 sparked commentary on the policy's effectiveness in combating drug addiction.

“Catastrophe”: Bret Stephens (Lean Right bias) argued drug decriminalization in Oregon has been a “catastrophe.” Citing data showing rising overdoses and crime in the state, Stephens refuted decriminalization supporters, stating, “addicts are not merely sick people trying to get well, like cancer sufferers in need of chemotherapy. They are people who often will do just about anything to get high, however irrational, self-destructive or, in some cases, criminal their behavior becomes.”

Inadequate Funding: A writer in Jacobin (Left bias) pushed back on Stephens’ arguments, determining the data cited lacks national context, writing, “Oregon’s decriminalization happened to come amid a horrific rise in overdose deaths across the nation, driven by the spread of fentanyl and the COVID-19 pandemic.” The writer argued that “woefully inadequate” funding for the recovery programs established alongside decriminalization policies is the true reason for the current issues. 

The Portugal Model: Supporters of decriminalization often cite Portugal, which decriminalized personal use of all drugs in 2001, as an example of decriminalization working. However, Newsweek (Center bias) quoted Mike Marshall, executive director of the advocacy group Oregon Recovers, contrasting Portugal’s approach to Oregon’s, stating that Portugal “spent two years distributing funds and building an alternative pathway that included consequences and repercussions... then they started decriminalizing drugs after they had built out that system.”