NYT columnist rejects the 'good liberal' stance on drugs, blames 'permissive liberal culture' on west coast

New York Times opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof admitted Saturday that west coast liberals’ "permissive" stance on drugs has been the wrong approach. 

The columnist authored a piece admitting that the more hands off, less punitive approach to dealing with drugs has backfired, nearly leading to the death of one of his old friends.

"Yet it’s also true that Drew’s most recent tumble into addiction came in part because of a permissive liberal culture toward drugs on the West Coast. This was meant to be compassionate, but it almost killed him (and has killed many of my other friends)," the columnist reflected. 

SHERIFF SAYS DRUGS ARE FUELING CRIME CRISIS IN CALIFORNIA

Prominent west coast cities, like San Francisco and Portland, have been ravaged by a drug crisis in recent years. Coincidentally, local laws regarding drug possession have been relaxed. Oregon, for example, decriminalized possession of user amounts of drugs in 2021, leaving Portland leaders struggling to crack down on public drug use.

Critics have accused California’s Proposition 47 – signed into law in 2014 – of deteriorating San Francisco, as it reclassified six minor felony offenses as misdemeanors in the state of California – including shoplifting less than $950 and drug possession.

In his column, Kristof admitted to waking up from his own belief that these more compassionate policies were good for the community after seeing what befell his friend, a homeless fentanyl addict.

"As a good liberal, I used to oppose arresting people for using drugs. They need health care, not handcuffs, I thought. But then to my surprise and dismay, I found myself praying that my old pal Drew Goff would be arrested," the columnist reflected.  

Kristof noted how Portland’s drug laws were so lax compared to laws regarding alcohol or cigarette consumption, stating, "In Portland, a person could be arrested for drinking a beer on the sidewalk but until recently not for smoking fentanyl. Smoking cigarettes in public places was often limited or banned on the West Coast while fentanyl use was tolerated."

The column will appear in Sunday's print edition of The New York Times. 

OVERSEAS METH SENT TO US ELECTION BUILDING SHUTS DOWN OFFICE FOR HOURS

Kristof broke down the crisis at large, writing, "The United States has lost more than one million people to overdoses since 2000 — more than the number of Americans lost in all wars in the past 150 years put together, including both World Wars."

However, the author did not revert to advocating for the tough on crime policies pushed by Republicans, reserving plenty of criticism for that. He added, "Drew’s journey constitutes a rebuke to liberals and conservatives alike. Drew is the third generation in his family to wrestle with addiction, and his life reflects the failure of the right’s half-century war on drugs, fought with only the criminal justice toolbox." 

He declared that "neither Democrats nor Republicans have tackled the problem with the seriousness or nuance it deserves."

Still, he kept his focus on the fact that West Coast areas decriminalizing and destigmatizing drug use has fueled the crisis. 

"Oregon decriminalized possession of small amounts of hard drugs in a 2020 referendum, and Drew says that the lack of penalties played a role in his decision to return to drugs. ‘The benefits outweighed the consequences for me,’ he said."

The author pointed out that while promoting less punitive drug policies, people on the West Coast became too reluctant to "judge people’s choices," a dynamic that led to the drug crisis spiraling. 

'CAPTAIN AMERICA: BRAVE NEW WORLD' STAR SAYS THE CHARACTER SHOULD NOT REPRESENT AMERICA

He cited the executive director of a Portland-based addiction prevention center, who articulated the proper approach people should have to addicts: "’It’s not OK to stigmatize drug users,’ he told me. "It is imperative to stigmatize drug use.’"

Kristof added the director’s point that harm reduction saves lives, but the best way to save lives is to establish "norms against drug use."

The author then offered his own solutions to the crisis that blend compassion for addicts with more traditional measures like incarceration.

"The implication is that we should be less dogmatic and navigate a middle path. The right reaches instinctively for criminal sanctions, and the left for supportive harm reduction, but an effective toolbox requires both sticks and carrots."

Mentioning his friend once again, who he said got his life back thanks to treatment programs while in jail, Kristof wrote, "Drew made poor choices, but there’s plenty of blame to go around. Conservatives resisted the social safety net that might have helped him in childhood, and liberals coddled him with a nonjudgmental tolerance that mired him in addiction. Whatever our politics, we all need a rethink."'