We know that the far-reaching collateral consequences of drug prohibition have harmed millions of people … but what about animals?

It turns out that even birds are feeling the devastation of forcing drug markets underground and into the hands of criminal enterprises.

A recent study in Nature Sustainability revealed the unintended consequences of international drug prohibition policies on biodiversity, specifically in Central American countries such as Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala.

Efforts to intercept drugs have pushed narcotic traffickers into some of the most pristine, biodiverse forests on our planet. These areas, crucial for the survival and breeding of forest birds, are being degraded at an alarming rate due to deforestation driven by trafficking activities.

How does this happen? I’m glad you asked! The deforestation is driven by actions like creating roads and airstrips for transporting drug shipments, as well as money laundering through cattle pastures, which expand into and destroy forested areas.

I had no idea that over half of the global populations of certain migratory bird species reside in these affected areas. It’s hard to wrap my mind around the fact that the habitats they depend on are being degraded by…drug prohibition. The destruction of failed policies reaches even beyond human communities.

The researchers call for more comprehensive strategies that not only address drug trafficking but also strengthen community governance and land rights, to help protect these vulnerable areas. Last year, I wrote a short blog about why warring with drug cartels won’t solve the issues we’re facing — and now, we’re seeing that nature is paying a price too.

It’s crazy to think about just how deep the effects of prohibition go. Whether you’re interested in addiction, recovery, crime reduction, incarceration, family stability, overdose — or even birds — we need you at the table. 

Multiple times this summer, I’ve been talking to people at conferences and was told some variation of, “Fentanyl is just so deadly. I mean, you can die just from getting it on your skin!” 

That’s terrifying…but also a myth.

Zach Siegel was recently the lead author of a report released by The Center for Just Journalism that examines the claims surrounding “fentanyl exposure.”

I think many of us have seen headlines about police officers or first responders experiencing symptoms of fentanyl exposure — or even overdosing — after touching the drug. But are these experiences actually the result of fentanyl? Or something else?

The report, called Fentanyl Exposure: Myths, Misconceptions, and the Media, not only debunks common misconceptions but also challenges us to consider how these beliefs shape public policy and personal safety. I found it incredibly interesting and wanted to share some key highlights with you.

The myth that touching fentanyl can be lethal originated from a 2016 video by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). This video, which has since been removed from their website, claimed that mere contact with fentanyl could be deadly. This is simply not true.

Despite being debunked by medical experts, this narrative gained traction, heavily influenced by initial police endorsements and widespread media coverage without much scrutiny.

So, what are first responders really experiencing? 

Many first responders report symptoms like dizziness and rapid heartbeat, which they attribute to opioid overdose. However, medical experts suggest these are more consistent with panic attacks — induced by the fear of fentanyl, not by fentanyl itself. This phenomenon, known as the “nocebo effect,” occurs when the expectation of harm manifests physical symptoms.

“When police officers think they are overdosing and describe symptoms such as heavy breathing, a pounding heart, dizziness, and numbness, and being able to tell someone that they are overdosing, this is a sign that they are not describing an actual overdose. They are describing a panic attack.” — Hope Smiley-McDonald, research sociologist, director of RTI International Center for Forensic Science Advancement and Application

The belief that passive contact with fentanyl is deadly remains widespread, largely influenced by sensational media stories.

The report shared that out of 326 articles about fentanyl exposure published from 2018 to 2023, only 12 percent expressed ANY doubt regarding the danger of passive fentanyl exposure. They also found that 252 articles quoted the police, and only 35 cited actual medical experts.

This lack of skepticism has allowed the myth to persist unchallenged. 

Yes, unregulated fentanyl being purchased by consumers on the illicit market IS responsible for tens of thousands of overdose deaths each year. It’s heartbreaking what’s happening because of the lack of quality control and accurate dosing from the underground market, but those deaths are a result of someone ingesting the drug in a way that enters their bloodstream — not from touching it.

The exaggerated fear of being in the presence of fentanyl can lead to delayed or inappropriate responses to actual overdoses, misallocation of resources and unnecessary stress among first responders.

If you want to learn more, I encourage you to read the full report. It’s written in plain language and can help all of us debunk the myth when we hear it, stopping the downstream harm that’s happening from a perceived risk that doesn’t exist.

In other news, our team was just at FreedomFest in Las Vegas having many conversations with people who haven’t considered the ideas we support.

My favorite was a man who spent a long time explaining to me why I was wrong, and then asked for a copy of Curious because he really wanted to learn more. Openmindedness is a beautiful thing! 

If you’d like to see some photos of the conference, check out the slideshow on our Facebook page!

Sixty years ago, the Surgeon General’s Report on Smoking and Health marked a huge moment in public health, significantly impacting smoking rates in the United States. It was a groundbreaking report. Adult smoking rates then were 40 percent of the population — it’s about 12 percent today. 

What’s lesser known is that a year prior, Consumer’s Union (CU) had published a report titled Smoking and the Public Interest, which laid the groundwork for the Surgeon General’s findings.

In 1972, at the dawn of the War on Drugs, CU decided a similar report was needed for drugs and published Licit and Illicit Drugs — using the same lead author and researcher from their smoking report.

Unfortunately, it never influenced the federal government the way their smoking report did. That might be because the government wasn’t ready (and still isn’t) for the conclusions they shared. 

Here are the main recommendations in the report:

• Stop emphasizing measures to keep drugs away from people.
• Stop publicizing the horrors of the “drug menace.” 
• Stop increasing the damage done by drugs.
• Stop misclassifying drugs.
• Stop viewing the drug problem as primarily a national problem, to be solved on a national scale.
• Stop pursuing the goal of stamping out illicit drug use.

In short, they knew back then that a punitive approach to drugs was not going to be effective, and would cause more harm in the long run. 

Today, we have even more evidence that shows this to be true.

As we continue our mission to reshape the conversation and policy around drugs and addiction, it’s helpful to understand the historical context that has gotten us to where we are today.

Many thanks to my friend Robert Legge for bringing this part of drug prohibition history to my attention. He writes a weekly drug policy roundup newsletter, and if you’d like to receive it, you can email him at rob9leg@gmail.com.

Robert writes his newsletter as a volunteer because he has a passion for ending the harm happening to so many people from faulty drug policies. Everyone has influence. Where might yours be?

Sharing a social media post of ours, sharing Curious, sharing a conversation with a friend about better ways to approach addiction — all of it helps to reshape our culture, and ultimately, our policies.

I want to recognize and celebrate a significant milestone in the movement toward a better approach to drug policy. Maryland Governor Wes Moore recently signed an executive order pardoning 175,000 cannabis convictions! Click here to read more about it.

This historic action represents the largest pardon for misdemeanor cannabis possession charges by any state in the country.

While this is a big step forward, it’s crucial to note that these convictions have been pardoned but not expunged — which can be a costly and time-consuming process. Until they are expunged, the convictions still appear on individuals’ records, which can continue to create barriers to employment, housing, etc.

Expungement would remove these barriers completely, which would be another huge step forward. A step other states have already started taking, which is amazing!

Michigan’s Clean Slate law, implemented last year, is a good example. Certain low-level offenses were automatically expunged, impacting nearly 10 percent of the state’s population. That’s stunning!

All steps forward should be celebrated, so we love what Maryland did, even as we look toward the next step and the next one. Change happens one step at a time, and we love celebrating these wins!

A couple of weeks ago I got a request from a reader for my thoughts on Oregon and their recent changes to drug policy. This is a longer newsletter, but it’s an important topic and one of the biggest issues right now regarding how we approach drugs and addiction.

In November of 2020, Oregon voters passed Measure 110, which ended criminal penalties for low-level drug possession. Since then, Oregon has come under immense scrutiny for this policy shift.

So did Oregon voters do the right thing in 2020, and should other states follow? Or did they make a terrible mistake that we should all learn from?

I’ve read cases from both sides that offer lots of statistics in their favor. There’s a stat for any point you want to make, no matter what side you fall on. But I don’t think you need stats to make a decision on whether decriminalizing drug possession is the best way to go. Here’s why…

Should someone be arrested just because they’re in possession of a certain substance? Some people say that an arrest is what people need to help them change. It’s a shock to the system that will put them on a healthier path, or so the thinking goes.

Let’s think about what an arrest for drug possession is most likely to do for two categories of people: People who aren’t addicted to the drug they’re in possession of and people who are addicted to it.

People who aren’t addicted to a drug don’t need an intervention, and certainly not a nuclear option like criminal justice involvement. It’s easy to see this when we think about legal drugs like alcohol. People who have a couple of beers on the weekend or a glass of wine with dinner are using a drug — but they’re not addicted to it.

For someone who is not addicted, an arrest poses far more danger than alcohol because an arrest can expose them to abuse in jail, loss of employment, their kids being put in foster care, loss of housing, etc. Each one of those outcomes can have years-long impacts on health and well-being, which affects the whole family and community.

Arresting someone for drug possession who is not addicted is perhaps the best way to destroy their life, not improve it.

People who are addicted to a drug may be helped by some sort of intervention, but an intervention that increases trauma in their lives is the worst possible thing we could do for them. We know now that trauma is one of the biggest risk factors that makes a person susceptible to developing an addiction, yet arrest and incarceration are incredibly traumatic.

For instance, the period of time when a person is most likely to be sexually assaulted while incarcerated is in the first 72 hours. We’re forcing people who are likely already in need of healing from trauma into a traumatic environment, and then scratching our heads when it doesn’t solve their addiction.

Incarceration is the perfect environment to tip a non-addicted person into addiction or deepen the struggle of a person already suffering. It’s a spectacular backfire.

For some people, personal freedom is why they think arresting people for drug possession is wrong. The government should not be policing what we choose to ingest. That’s a valid reason, but I want to highlight that whether or not you’re ideologically motivated, arresting someone for possessing a drug is a terrible way to improve outcomes and a great way to destabilize lives. I think most of us would agree that’s the opposite of the goal.

Oregon did the right thing by removing arrest as a response to drug possession. Two factors people point out as evidence that Measure 110 should be reversed are rising overdose death rates and the homelessness crisis.

First, the overdose crisis is a contamination crisis — and decriminalizing possession doesn’t fix that at all. It can’t. Only opening avenues for consumers to access quality-controlled drugs can address the contamination epidemic. Decriminalizing possession can keep people out of jail, but it can’t keep them from getting contaminated drugs and dying.

Second, people living on the streets is a heartbreaking problem. It’s incredibly hard on the health and well-being of the person who is unhoused, and it’s incredibly hard on the surrounding community.

One important thing to remember is that homelessness is also a problem in cities across the country where they have not decriminalized possession of drugs. It’s not unique to Oregon. But it is a huge problem.

A key distinction to make is that decriminalizing drug possession does not mean decriminalizing all behavior of people who use drugs.

With any policy or approach, there’s a danger of the pendulum swinging too far. After years of locking people up for minor drug infractions, we risk swinging all the way to the other extreme and not arresting anyone who uses drugs, even if they’re committing other crimes. Neither extreme is good or in the interest of public safety. A healthy society is not a lawless one.

For instance, if a person engages in theft, they should be arrested — even if the root cause is their addiction. This is where drug courts might be most helpful. They can provide accountability and justice after a legitimate crime while also addressing the core problem.

Drug courts may also be a good option for other behaviors that break the law or city ordinances where addiction is the real problem. I’m aware that drug courts aren’t perfect, but they can be a helpful tool when the criminal justice system needs to be involved.

As with almost everything in life, extremes are unhelpful, and real solutions lie on a nuanced path somewhere between.

So how does this solve homelessness? It doesn’t. Arresting people might help the community feel good that “something is being done,” and it removes the person from view for a short time, but it’s not a solution. The community doesn’t want to just feel good, they want problems solved.

If anything, an arrest just compounds the harm in a person’s life, making it even harder to rebuild when they’re ready to take that step. We can’t arrest our way out of addiction, and we can’t arrest our way out of homelessness.

I don’t know the answer to ending homelessness, but there are programs like Community First! Village in Texas that are successfully helping people who’ve been chronically unhoused find community, purpose, belonging and permanent homes. They’ve got a lot more answers than I do, but just because the real solutions are hard and complicated doesn’t mean we should fall back on failed ones.

I was standing next to the water fountain at the Mississippi Agricultural Museum when the person I was chatting with mentioned an article they just read. In the article, babies who were born dependent on opioids because of their mother’s opioid use were being treated in an entirely new way. Instead of being separated from their mothers and put in a bright, loud NICU before being whisked into foster care, they were kept with their moms in private, low-stimulation hospital rooms. Moms were taught how to swaddle and soothe their babies and encouraged to practice skin-to-skin contact and breastfeeding. Giving the baby opioids to help them through withdrawal was a last resort. Mom was the primary medicine. The results were striking. Babies were getting through opioid withdrawals faster, using less opioids post-birth, and leaving the hospital days earlier.

This conversation was in 2015, but I remember it so clearly because my heart started pumping faster, my blood pressure shot through the roof, and I was overcome with anger. Intense emotional experiences tend to imprint themselves in our memory. My response in the conversation was swift and strong. That article couldn’t possibly be true, I retorted. Right then my family was fostering a baby who’d been removed from his mom’s custody because she was using drugs while she was pregnant. Even though I had no data to support my anger, the results in the article called into question whether our involvement was truly in the best interest of that precious baby’s life and health. That was too hard to consider when our family was deeply invested. I wasn’t getting up at all hours of the night to feed a newborn for nothing! I guess it’s human nature that when we hear an idea that conflicts with something we’re invested in, our knee-jerk reaction is to shut it down.

But I continued to hear about this bonding approach to opioid-dependent newborns, and last week the National Institutes of Health released a report on a study of 1305 infants across 26 US hospitals. The “Eat, Sleep, Console” (ESC) method, very similar to what I heard about in 2015, was studied alongside the Finnegan Neonatal Abstinence Scoring Tool (FNAST) that has been used for 50 years. The results echo what I heard 8 years ago. Newborns in this study who received the ESC approach to their opioid dependance were ready to be discharged from the hospital 6 days earlier than babies whose care was determined using FNAST. The ESC babies were also 63% less likely to receive opioids as part of their post-birth care. For a lot of these babies, what they needed most was mom.

On the one hand, we have a promising new approach to opioid-dependent newborns. On the other, some jurisdictions across the country arrest women who use drugs while pregnant. I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to people who advocate a punitive approach and assume they truly believe scaring mothers will help babies. But is prosecution or prenatal care the best way to protect the life and health of unborn children whose mothers are struggling with addiction? Responses that feel good and responses that do good aren’t the same thing.

If a woman is afraid that a doctor’s visit will land her in prison, that momma won’t go anywhere near a doctor for as long as possible. Even worse, it seems that the impact these prosecutions are most likely to have on unborn children is incentivizing women struggling with addiction to have an abortion. If they give birth, they could end up in prison. If they have an abortion, they won’t. What a tragedy.

It’s hard to rethink something we’re deeply invested in. It took time for me to get over my initial anger at what felt like a threat to my role and instead embrace curiosity for the best path to healing for vulnerable babies. Change is hard, but if we want addicted moms to make healthier choices early in their pregnancies, we have to broaden the path to help not handcuffs. And if we want to give babies born dependent on opioids the best chance to recover quickly and suffer less, mom might be the best medicine out there.