 What would happen if we just legalized all drugs? That was the topic of our recent conversation with Ethan Nadelman, founder and former head of the Drug Policy Alliance and host of this psychoactive podcast. As you think about it, we were the evil empire of the global war on drugs for the last 100 years. And yet nonetheless, the same country which had the most oppressive drug policy of any democratic society and criminal justice policy in the history of democratic societies in which has been the global champion and proselytizer of the war on drugs, we nonetheless became the world leader when it came to legally regulating cannabis. That's how Nadelman gave me hope that after more than half a century of this disastrous war on drugs, America can turn things around and lead the world in a different direction. There's a lot of momentum in our favor with cannabis legalization of some sort in the majority of states, the burgeoning psychedelic legalization movement and increasingly wide acceptance of harm reduction strategies like needle exchanges, safe consumption sites and all out drug decriminalization. Basically boils down to we don't wanna put anybody behind bars for simple possession of small amounts of drugs for their own use if they're not hurting anybody else. That's the essence of decriminalization. But the process hasn't always been smooth after Oregon decriminalized all drugs in 2021 overdoses went up. Very few users saw treatment and those who did often had trouble getting it according to reporting from the Oregonian. Critics like Mike Marshall of the Treatment Advocacy Coalition Oregon Recovers say the measure should have established a robust network for people addicted to drugs before decriminalizing. I'm worried about the person living on the street in a tent right outside this window who's smoking meth all day long and they're destroying their system. But Natalman says imperfect rollouts are never an excuse to maintain an unacceptable status quo. Fewer people go into jail, crime not going up as a result of the initiative and more people getting help. Is it gonna be perfect? No. Is it a major transformation that sets a model for other states in the country in the same way that the European countries provided a model for what Oregon did? Yes. So what are the big lessons from the way drug decriminalization has actually been implemented in the real world? When Portugal faced an overdose crisis, it decriminalized all drugs in 2000 which led to dramatic falls in overdoses, imprisonment and HIV infections. But Portugal's decriminalization isn't the same as legalization. Drug dealers still get arrested keeping a black market alive and users can get citations to appear in front of a panel comprised of a lawyer, social worker and a psychologist who can recommend an even compelled treatment or other interventions. In Oregon, police can hand out tickets for public drug use which can be dismissed with a consultation call to a drug abuse hotline. But there's also no penalty for simply ignoring the ticket. The lack of accountability built into the measure that would be my concern is that we see a bunch of money in the system that isn't having an effect. Did Oregon air in taking a lighter touch approach than Portugal? Natalman says Portugal's system is widely misunderstood. They're not about sending people to treatment. I mean, with her basic drawings figure out, how do we need, how can we help this person? Does this person need to go to an employment counselor? Does this person, you know, they would say a lot of people who are committed drug users, if you say go to treatment, they don't want to go to treatment. But if the person on the commission goes, hey, listen, I see those marks on your arms. It looks like they're getting some abscess and some infections there. Why don't you go and see a doctor to have that, your abscess is checked out. And then a drug user will go to a doctor rather than a treatment person. And then the commission person calls the doctors and says, by the way, here's what's going on. When you look at the guy, you know, it's a more subtle approach. It's focused not on achieving abstinence and more on helping people get their lives together, be less of a burden and troublesome to the community and get their stuff together. Creating a greater burden on communities is exactly what opponents of drug liberalization fear. Most Americans don't want to see tent encampments like those that have overtaken LA, San Francisco and Portland. And those of us who want to end drug prohibition once and for all have to make the case for why that won't happen. Natalman says that opponents of harm reduction strategies like San Francisco author Michael Schellenberger, who opposes safe consumption sites, are missing the fact that such approaches can help move the disorder on the streets to safer, more controlled indoor settings. But only if mayors and DAs also enforce basic quality of life laws. Natalman points to the Frankfurt model, which was developed 30 years ago when the German city was having a major problem with open-air drug dealing and using in public parks. So the mayor set up a Monday morning group with the head of police, prosecution, health services, social services, housing services and a few of the other top people. And at that meeting, it was like, okay, what's the focus here? And the police would say, well, we're thinking of having a little crackdown on this neighborhood there. And then the current mayor would say, well, so what are we gonna do with the people that you're picking up? And then it would be, well, can housing take them? Can this take them? It was a coordinated policy of the sort that, for example, Mayor London Breed in San Francisco has totally abdicated, has totally failed. The key to dealing with open-air drug markets is not getting rid of drug use because you can't do that or you can only try to reduce it through other programs. The key is pushing that stuff indoors in ways that don't harm the rest of the community. More than 106,000 Americans died from an opioid-related overdose in 2021, according to the CDC. The vast majority of those were from synthetic opioids like fentanyl, represented by the gray line in this graph. We know that prohibition created black market fentanyl, which is killing Americans and fueling violent cartels. Harm reduction approaches like needle exchanges and safe consumption sites are proven to save lives under these conditions, but maybe now is the time for more drastic measures. Portugal took the radical step of total decriminalization in 2000 to deal with its problem. Maybe America needs to take things even further and not only decriminalize, but allow sales and defeat the deadly black market once and for all. What if we treated all drugs the way we treat alcohol? What if the world's number one drug warrior became the world's leading legalizer? If you're going to legalize cocaine, are you going to legalize it only in a kind of cocaine, coca-tea version, which has cocaine in it? Are you going to legalize the sale of 10% pure potency powder for snorting? Are you going to allow it to be sold in injectable or smokable forms? But the stimulant drugs are the ones that cocaine and methamphetamine are the really, really tricky, challenging ones. Drug policy is a tricky thing. In a sense, gaining mass support for legalizing cannabis, a relatively low-risk drug, was the easy part and it took decades of effort. But we don't have decades. The consequences of the drug war, incarceration, injustice, a deadly black market that funds bad actors are more pressing than ever. If I took away anything from this recent conversation, it was that political pragmatism largely is what got the drug legalization movement this far. And it is likely that same pragmatism upon which its future also depends. One thing I'm trying to talk to younger activists about is one of the things that I think made us successful with drug policy reform was our communication. Our realization that we don't win unless we persuade the ordinary American middle-of-the-road parent that what we're saying about marijuana or other drugs is more persuasive than what the other side is. That means speaking a language. It means not using progressive speak. It means not using not just academic language but lefty-type language. You know, it means not putting your identity first. You put the message first, right? These are all sorts of things that seem to have been lost or dismissed among a younger generation of activists. Thanks for checking out that recap of the conversation Nicolespia and I had with Ethan Natelman about the path to decriminalizing and maybe even legalizing all drugs. You can watch a clip from that conversation here or the full two-hour discussion over here.