CNN admits policies legalizing hard drugs, ‘sanctuary cities’ have failed

In a recent story by Zachary B. Wolf of CNN, the focus was on the challenges and unintended consequences faced by states and cities adopting progressive policies through direct democracy initiatives. The article specifically highlighted the situation in Oregon, where, less than four years after voters decided to decriminalize small amounts of hard drugs, the state legislature moved to roll back these measures due to a surge in fentanyl overdoses.

Oregon’s step toward decriminalizing drug possession was intended to shift the focus from prosecution to treatment. However, the rapid implementation and the coinciding rise of fentanyl complicated the scenario, leading to an increase in drug overdoses and public drug use, which became a concern for communities and law enforcement alike.

Wolf draws parallels with other liberal jurisdictions facing similar dilemmas. For instance, “Similarly, Democratic mayors in cities like New York and Chicago are now rethinking well-meaning sanctuary policies after thousands of asylum-seeking migrants were bused to them, without coordination, by Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in an ongoing bit of protest.” 

This quote reflects the broader theme of the article: the gap between the intentions of progressive policies and their real-world implications, especially when they are implemented without adequate coordination and resources.

The story also touches upon the broader trend of what Wolf calls “direct democracy,” where voters directly influence policy through ballot initiatives, sometimes leading to swift changes that may not fully account for long-term impacts or the need for comprehensive infrastructure to support such changes. 

It mentions various instances across the US where voter initiatives have led to policy changes, only for subsequent voter actions or legislative measures to alter or rollback those changes because they failed so badly.

In essence, the CNN article sheds light on the absolute dumpster fire that can happen when juggling between “progressive” aspirations and pragmatic governance, urging a more cautious and coordinated approach to implement policies that significantly alter the social and legal landscape. The experiences of Oregon and other states serve as a cautionary tale about the complexities of “direct democracy” and the unforeseen challenges that can arise from leftist policies.