vox--2020-11-11--America’s war on drugs has failed. Oregon is showing a way out.

America ’ s decades-long war on drugs has failed , simultaneously causing huge harms — fueling drug-related violence around the world and funneling millions of people into jails and prisons — and not preventing drug epidemics , including the worst overdose crisis in US history with the opioid epidemic .
But now Oregon has declared a truce of sorts , and it ’ s showing the rest of the US what an end to the drug war might look like .
On November 3 , Oregon voters elected to decriminalize all drugs , including heroin and cocaine , so possessing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carries the threat of jail or prison time .
The state ’ s voters also approved another ballot measure to legalize psilocybin , the main psychoactive compound found in magic mushrooms , in supervised therapeutic settings .
Oregon voters had previously legalized marijuana for recreational and medical purposes , but it ’ s the first state in modern American history to legalize psilocybin and decriminalize some drug possession .
This amounts to a fundamental rejection of America ’ s modern war on drugs .
The central pillar of the country ’ s drug @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possession of illegal substances carries the threat of jail or prison time .
Oregon is chipping away at that regime , if not dismantling it entirely : Drug possession no longer carries the threat of incarceration , and some drugs are even allowed for therapeutic or purely recreational purposes .
The value of Oregon ’ s moves , both symbolically and practically , is hard to overstate .
I ’ ve been reporting on the war on drugs for years , and have long imagined the end of the US drug war as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decriminalizing other drugs , and allowing psychedelics for therapeutic purposes .
Ten years ago , marijuana legalization was widely described as unpopular and controversial , with more Americans opposing it than not .
But Oregon has now approved all three legs .
On Election Day , Drug Policy Alliance executive director Kassandra Frederique described the Oregon measures passing as “ a huge victory taking on a cornerstone of the drug war.
” Oregon , like other states that have relaxed their drug laws , didn ’ t do so because political leaders woke @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reforms .
The three major steps Oregon has taken , instead , were all done through ballot initiatives .
The same is true for 13 of the 15 states that have legalized marijuana so far ; only two states have legalized cannabis through their legislatures .
Oregon ’ s example shows that even if politicians remain reluctant and cautious on the issue , the public can take action on its own terms .
Less than half of states don ’ t have an open-ended ballot initiative process .
But ballot initiatives can ultimately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders in New York , which doesn ’ t have an open-ended process , and surrounding areas started to talk up legalization after Massachusetts and Maine legalized , and they ’ ve already become more vocal after New Jersey voted to legalize this year .
There are still limits to what any state can do .
For one , all the drugs decriminalized or legalized in Oregon , including marijuana , remain illegal at the federal level .
While the federal government has taken a hands-off approach to state-level drug policy reforms since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , federal prohibition creates hurdles to state policies , such as limits on government benefits and banking marijuana profits .
And as Oregon will soon learn , ending the drug war doesn ’ t mean the end of mass incarceration and all its racially disparate consequences .
Most US inmates are locked up for violent and other more serious offenses , not minor drug crimes .
This also doesn ’ t repair the damage already done to many communities by the war on drugs , from aggressive policing to the toll of arrests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals and their families .
But Oregon , as well as the dozen-plus other states to legalize , has shown that much of the public is fed up with the war on drugs — and there is a way out .
Oregon ’ s approach is a big step to ending the drug war Oregon ’ s ballot initiatives are an acknowledgment that criminalization hasn ’ t worked to prevent drug use and even large drug epidemics , such as the ongoing opioid crisis .
That ’ s despite criminal prohibition spawning its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , vast racial disparities in those arrests and any resulting incarceration , and an international web of crime and violence as the black market has funneled money into drug cartels and other illicit organizations .
All the while , some research suggests that harsher penalties don ’ t even reduce drug use more than a less aggressive form of prohibition would .
Criminalization might even stop some from seeking help for drug addiction , Elaine Hyshka , a drug policy expert at the University of Alberta ’ s School of Public Health , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal charges for drug possession , or criminalizing people who use drugs , is a really significant deterrent for people talking about their substance use problems.
” Oregon ’ s voters and activists , supported by national advocacy groups like the Drug Policy Alliance , have taken a three-pronged approach to ending the state ’ s war on drugs : 1 ) Marijuana legalization : Since 2015 , the state has let adults 21 and older possess and grow marijuana .
Retail outlets across the state sell cannabis .
The state government regulates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and sales .
It ’ s all a big shift from the days when pot could result in a fine or incarceration .
2 ) Drug decriminalization : With the 2020 election , Oregon also voted to remove the threat of jail or prison time for simple possession of every drug , including cocaine and heroin .
Instead , those caught with small amounts of the drugs will be able to choose between a $ 100 fine or a “ completed health assessment ” through an addiction recovery center .
Harder drugs like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sold or distributed ; possession of higher quantities remain illegal , as do sales and distribution .
The initiative also redirected savings , from less incarceration and law enforcement , as well as preexisting marijuana sales tax revenue to addiction treatment .
3 ) Therapeutic psychedelics : Through a separate ballot measure , Oregon allowed the supervised , therapeutic use of psilocybin .
This won ’ t mean that a person can just go to a magic mushroom dispensary and get the drug .
Instead , trained facilitators at a “ psilocybin service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supervise the psychedelic trip .
There ’ s some research backing this approach , showing that just one or two doses of psilocybin can have lasting effects on conditions like depression , anxiety , PTSD , and addiction .
All three of these prongs approach the overall issue of the drug war differently , but they each chip away its foundation : the idea that the use of any of these drugs should be criminally illegal .
Instead , they acknowledge that drugs can have value for recreational , therapeutic , or medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case-by-case basis according to drugs ’ risks and uses .
Oregon is also putting more money into addiction treatment .
Based on state analyses , the recently passed decriminalization measure puts more than $ 100 million a year toward treatment , which would at least quadruple the $ 25 million the state spent a year before .
The question is how this money will be used : There ’ s significant public funding for addiction treatment out there , but much of it goes to ineffective or downright fraudulent programs , as I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rehab Racket project .
Still , if used well , the money could go to a big gap .
Just 1 in 10 people with a drug addiction get treatment , according to federal data , largely due to lack of access .
“ We have gaping holes in coverage , ” Renee Johnson , a drug policy expert at Johns Hopkins University , told me .
“ We just don ’ t value behavioral health care or mental health care.
” Increased access to addiction treatment remains a key component of any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drugs .
The hope is that more emphasis on public health , through treatment and harm reduction ( which tries to reduce risk rather than eliminate it altogether ) , will address the problems caused by drug use that criminalization failed to address .
If legalization and decriminalization lead to more drug use overall , more and better treatment along with harm reduction could also help combat those trends without the negative consequences created by criminalization .
That ’ s all in some ways an attempt to emulate the Portugal model that many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In 2001 , the small European country decriminalized all drugs , and invested heavily in evidence-based treatment and harm reduction .
So far , it seems to have worked well , with lifetime drug use slightly increasing but problematic use , addiction , and their negative consequences declining overall .
The question now is if this works in the US .
In modern America , decriminalization is a truly untried experiment ; no state has done it , besides Oregon .
We don ’ t know if all the money going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and effectively .
Cultural attitudes matter too ; it ’ s notable that Portugal , despite its drug policy , maintained a disapproving attitude in general toward drug use — what Stanford drug policy expert Keith Humphreys described , citing the late Mark Kleiman , as “ grudging tolerance.
” But if it works , the model could spread to other states , as is now happening with marijuana legalization .
Already , activists in Washington state are pushing to get drug decriminalization through their legislature next year .
Some worry Oregon still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the historic nature of Oregon ’ s moves , some experts and advocates continue to caution that more action is needed to roll back the state ’ s — and the US ’ s — war on drugs .
“ There ’ s still so much more to the drug war than the criminal legal system , ” Frederique , of the Drug Policy Alliance , said .
For one , the federal government still prohibits all drugs .
That includes marijuana , even for medical purposes .
That the Obama administration decided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legalizing , and President Donald Trump ’ s administration followed a similar model , is a matter of executive discretion , not a reflection of changes in federal law .
That means a future administration , or less cooperative federal law enforcement agents , could still crack down on drugs in Oregon and elsewhere .
Along with federal prohibition , there ’ s a range of policy outcomes that don ’ t necessarily lead to an arrest or incarceration .
Banking is much harder , if not impossible , for marijuana businesses due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ struggle to get publicly subsidized housing or education if they have a record related to drugs .
Notably , some of the outcomes are cultural .
Employers still often test people for drugs , and opt not to hire them if they have a history of drug use — despite the greater understanding across the country that addiction is a medical issue .
Those kinds of consequences are part of a war on drugs , some argue , even if they ’ re not necessarily tied to any particular statute .
Some experts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perpetuated by books like Michelle Alexander ’ s The New Jim Crow , that the war on drugs is a main driver of mass incarceration .
In reality , only 1 in 5 people are in jail or prison right now for drug offenses , and the majority of those in state prisons , where most of America ’ s incarcerated population is held , are in for violent offenses .
What sets America ’ s massive prison population apart isn ’ t so much its drug war but punitive practices elsewhere , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for even minor crimes .
“ It ’ s not just drug offenses that are causing mass incarceration , ” Johnson said .
“ It ’ s a piece of the pie , but it ’ s not the pie.
” America , meanwhile , could take more steps to combat drug misuse and addiction .
Better access to evidence-based treatment and harm reduction programs could be a component of that .
Drug policy historian Kathleen Frydl has also argued for using other levers of policy , like tariffs , to limit the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s an effort to restrain supplies of illegal drugs , which some evidence does support to make these substances less accessible and used .
All of that is to say : Ending the criminal prohibition of drugs at the state level doesn ’ t fully solve for all the problems surrounding the war on drugs , including within Oregon .
At some point , America will have to do more than ballot initiatives It ’ s notable that Oregon has carried the three major drug policy reforms through ballot measures .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the common story for bigger drug policy reforms across the country : While federal and state lawmakers have eased penalties for drug crimes here and here , they ’ ve by and large resisted anything bigger than merely making criminal prohibition more tolerable — even as there ’ s been clear public support for bigger reforms .
Consider marijuana legalization .
It polls extremely well , with some surveys showing that even a majority of Republicans , who are typically more skeptical of bigger reforms , back legalization .
That ’ s how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ South Dakota this year , where state voters simultaneously picked Trump for president and elected to legalize marijuana — while both Trump and Biden opposed legalization at the federal level .
Humphreys recalled his frustrating experience with a related issue in California .
In 2013 , then-Gov .
Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would have reduced drug possession crimes from felonies to “ wobblers , ” which can be charged as felonies or misdemeanors .
Humphreys was furious that the Democratic governor rejected a modest reform approved by the legislature .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ done through a ballot initiative , Proposition 47 .
The measure even went further than the bill Brown vetoed , cutting drug possession crime down to flat-out misdemeanors instead of wobblers — effectively defelonizing simple drug possession .
Proposition 47 went on to win by a massive 19-point margin .
“ The process failed me , ” Humphreys told me .
“ So here I am endorsing a ballot initiative with Jay-Z.
” There ’ s an obvious lesson here in that politicians should represent their constituents , who are clearly fed up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of rejecting milder measures only to see more aggressive ones pass through ballot initiatives .
But there ’ s another concern , too : Ballot measures really shouldn ’ t be the main means of making policy on any issue , especially one as complicated as drugs .
Let ’ s say that there are better ways to legalize marijuana than the current commercial model states are embracing , as some experts and activists have argued .
Maybe it ’ s better to put the state government in charge of marijuana distribution and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alcohol .
That is simply less likely to end up on the ballot .
No one wants to run a campaign that effectively argues the government should sell marijuana .
It ’ s also much harder to raise money for this campaign , since the for-profit cannabis business won ’ t throw its weight behind it .
It ’ s also possible that the measure may not be able to get on some state ballots at all , since the regulations would be much more complicated than some state laws may allow .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the country has been pushed toward the same commercial model for marijuana with no serious alternatives offered .
Ballot measures also can ’ t be as comprehensive as bills produced by a legislature and governor .
While activists and experts note that Oregon ’ s measures don ’ t do enough to address concerns about the war on drugs and mass incarceration , the truth is it would be really difficult , if not impossible , to deal with all these issues through the ballot process — requiring possibly dozens of initiatives over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at least in theory , enact many of the necessary reforms in a single piece of legislation .
But that requires lawmakers overcoming the caution they exhibit toward drug policy .
Until then , Oregon activists and voters have demonstrated , with popular support , a possible framework for the US beginning to end its war on drugs .

America’s decades-long war on drugs has failed, simultaneously causing huge harms — fueling drug-related violence around the world and funneling millions of people into jails and prisons — and not preventing drug epidemics, including the worst overdose crisis in US history with the opioid epidemic. But now Oregon has declared a truce of sorts, and it’s showing the rest of the US what an end to the drug war might look like.
On November 3, Oregon voters elected to decriminalize all drugs, including heroin and cocaine, so possessing small amounts of these substances no longer carries the threat of jail or prison time. The state’s voters also approved another ballot measure to legalize psilocybin, the main psychoactive compound found in magic mushrooms, in supervised therapeutic settings. Oregon voters had previously legalized marijuana for recreational and medical purposes, but it’s the first state in modern American history to legalize psilocybin and decriminalize some drug possession.
This amounts to a fundamental rejection of America’s modern war on drugs. The central pillar of the country’s drug war is criminal prohibition — even simple possession of illegal substances carries the threat of jail or prison time. Oregon is chipping away at that regime, if not dismantling it entirely: Drug possession no longer carries the threat of incarceration, and some drugs are even allowed for therapeutic or purely recreational purposes.
The value of Oregon’s moves, both symbolically and practically, is hard to overstate. I’ve been reporting on the war on drugs for years, and have long imagined the end of the US drug war as a three-legged framework: legalizing marijuana, decriminalizing other drugs, and allowing psychedelics for therapeutic purposes.
Ten years ago, marijuana legalization was widely described as unpopular and controversial, with more Americans opposing it than not. But Oregon has now approved all three legs. On Election Day, Drug Policy Alliance executive director Kassandra Frederique described the Oregon measures passing as “a huge victory taking on a cornerstone of the drug war.”
Oregon, like other states that have relaxed their drug laws, didn’t do so because political leaders woke up to the problem and pushed serious reforms. The three major steps Oregon has taken, instead, were all done through ballot initiatives. The same is true for 13 of the 15 states that have legalized marijuana so far; only two states have legalized cannabis through their legislatures.
Oregon’s example shows that even if politicians remain reluctant and cautious on the issue, the public can take action on its own terms. Less than half of states don’t have an open-ended ballot initiative process. But ballot initiatives can ultimately inspire action beyond state borders; political leaders in New York, which doesn’t have an open-ended process, and surrounding areas started to talk up legalization after Massachusetts and Maine legalized, and they’ve already become more vocal after New Jersey voted to legalize this year.
There are still limits to what any state can do. For one, all the drugs decriminalized or legalized in Oregon, including marijuana, remain illegal at the federal level. While the federal government has taken a hands-off approach to state-level drug policy reforms since President Barack Obama’s second term, federal prohibition creates hurdles to state policies, such as limits on government benefits and banking marijuana profits.
And as Oregon will soon learn, ending the drug war doesn’t mean the end of mass incarceration and all its racially disparate consequences. Most US inmates are locked up for violent and other more serious offenses, not minor drug crimes. This also doesn’t repair the damage already done to many communities by the war on drugs, from aggressive policing to the toll of arrests, incarceration, and criminal records on individuals and their families.
But Oregon, as well as the dozen-plus other states to legalize, has shown that much of the public is fed up with the war on drugs — and there is a way out.
Oregon’s approach is a big step to ending the drug war
Oregon’s ballot initiatives are an acknowledgment that criminalization hasn’t worked to prevent drug use and even large drug epidemics, such as the ongoing opioid crisis. That’s despite criminal prohibition spawning its own negative consequences: millions of arrests, vast racial disparities in those arrests and any resulting incarceration, and an international web of crime and violence as the black market has funneled money into drug cartels and other illicit organizations. All the while, some research suggests that harsher penalties don’t even reduce drug use more than a less aggressive form of prohibition would.
Criminalization might even stop some from seeking help for drug addiction, Elaine Hyshka, a drug policy expert at the University of Alberta’s School of Public Health, told me. “Being liable to criminal charges for drug possession, or criminalizing people who use drugs, is a really significant deterrent for people talking about their substance use problems.”
Oregon’s voters and activists, supported by national advocacy groups like the Drug Policy Alliance, have taken a three-pronged approach to ending the state’s war on drugs:
1) Marijuana legalization: Since 2015, the state has let adults 21 and older possess and grow marijuana. Retail outlets across the state sell cannabis. The state government regulates and taxes marijuana cultivation, distribution, and sales. It’s all a big shift from the days when pot could result in a fine or incarceration.
2) Drug decriminalization: With the 2020 election, Oregon also voted to remove the threat of jail or prison time for simple possession of every drug, including cocaine and heroin. Instead, those caught with small amounts of the drugs will be able to choose between a $100 fine or a “completed health assessment” through an addiction recovery center. Harder drugs like cocaine and heroin would not be legally sold or distributed; possession of higher quantities remain illegal, as do sales and distribution. The initiative also redirected savings, from less incarceration and law enforcement, as well as preexisting marijuana sales tax revenue to addiction treatment.
3) Therapeutic psychedelics: Through a separate ballot measure, Oregon allowed the supervised, therapeutic use of psilocybin. This won’t mean that a person can just go to a magic mushroom dispensary and get the drug. Instead, trained facilitators at a “psilocybin service center” will help administer and then supervise the psychedelic trip. There’s some research backing this approach, showing that just one or two doses of psilocybin can have lasting effects on conditions like depression, anxiety, PTSD, and addiction.
All three of these prongs approach the overall issue of the drug war differently, but they each chip away its foundation: the idea that the use of any of these drugs should be criminally illegal. Instead, they acknowledge that drugs can have value for recreational, therapeutic, or medical purposes, and craft rules on a case-by-case basis according to drugs’ risks and uses.
Oregon is also putting more money into addiction treatment. Based on state analyses, the recently passed decriminalization measure puts more than $100 million a year toward treatment, which would at least quadruple the $25 million the state spent a year before. The question is how this money will be used: There’s significant public funding for addiction treatment out there, but much of it goes to ineffective or downright fraudulent programs, as I’ve covered in Vox’s Rehab Racket project.
Still, if used well, the money could go to a big gap. Just 1 in 10 people with a drug addiction get treatment, according to federal data, largely due to lack of access. “We have gaping holes in coverage,” Renee Johnson, a drug policy expert at Johns Hopkins University, told me. “We just don’t value behavioral health care or mental health care.”
Increased access to addiction treatment remains a key component of any plan to reel back the war on drugs. The hope is that more emphasis on public health, through treatment and harm reduction (which tries to reduce risk rather than eliminate it altogether), will address the problems caused by drug use that criminalization failed to address. If legalization and decriminalization lead to more drug use overall, more and better treatment along with harm reduction could also help combat those trends without the negative consequences created by criminalization.
That’s all in some ways an attempt to emulate the Portugal model that many drug policy reformers have praised for years. In 2001, the small European country decriminalized all drugs, and invested heavily in evidence-based treatment and harm reduction. So far, it seems to have worked well, with lifetime drug use slightly increasing but problematic use, addiction, and their negative consequences declining overall. (Although there are notable differences between Portugal and Oregon’s approaches.)
The question now is if this works in the US. In modern America, decriminalization is a truly untried experiment; no state has done it, besides Oregon. We don’t know if all the money going to treatment in Oregon will be spent wisely and effectively. Cultural attitudes matter too; it’s notable that Portugal, despite its drug policy, maintained a disapproving attitude in general toward drug use — what Stanford drug policy expert Keith Humphreys described, citing the late Mark Kleiman, as “grudging tolerance.”
But if it works, the model could spread to other states, as is now happening with marijuana legalization. Already, activists in Washington state are pushing to get drug decriminalization through their legislature next year.
Some worry Oregon still doesn’t go far enough
Despite the historic nature of Oregon’s moves, some experts and advocates continue to caution that more action is needed to roll back the state’s — and the US’s — war on drugs.
“There’s still so much more to the drug war than the criminal legal system,” Frederique, of the Drug Policy Alliance, said.
For one, the federal government still prohibits all drugs. That includes marijuana, even for medical purposes. That the Obama administration decided to take a hands-off approach to states legalizing, and President Donald Trump’s administration followed a similar model, is a matter of executive discretion, not a reflection of changes in federal law. That means a future administration, or less cooperative federal law enforcement agents, could still crack down on drugs in Oregon and elsewhere.
Along with federal prohibition, there’s a range of policy outcomes that don’t necessarily lead to an arrest or incarceration. Banking is much harder, if not impossible, for marijuana businesses due to federal prohibition. People can still struggle to get publicly subsidized housing or education if they have a record related to drugs.
Notably, some of the outcomes are cultural. Employers still often test people for drugs, and opt not to hire them if they have a history of drug use — despite the greater understanding across the country that addiction is a medical issue. Those kinds of consequences are part of a war on drugs, some argue, even if they’re not necessarily tied to any particular statute.
Some experts have also pushed against the notion, perpetuated by books like Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow, that the war on drugs is a main driver of mass incarceration. In reality, only 1 in 5 people are in jail or prison right now for drug offenses, and the majority of those in state prisons, where most of America’s incarcerated population is held, are in for violent offenses. What sets America’s massive prison population apart isn’t so much its drug war but punitive practices elsewhere, such as its relatively long prison sentences for even minor crimes.
“It’s not just drug offenses that are causing mass incarceration,” Johnson said. “It’s a piece of the pie, but it’s not the pie.”
America, meanwhile, could take more steps to combat drug misuse and addiction. Better access to evidence-based treatment and harm reduction programs could be a component of that. Drug policy historian Kathleen Frydl has also argued for using other levers of policy, like tariffs, to limit the international distribution of illicit substances; it’s an effort to restrain supplies of illegal drugs, which some evidence does support to make these substances less accessible and used.
All of that is to say: Ending the criminal prohibition of drugs at the state level doesn’t fully solve for all the problems surrounding the war on drugs, including within Oregon.
At some point, America will have to do more than ballot initiatives
It’s notable that Oregon has carried the three major drug policy reforms through ballot measures. It’s also notable that this is the common story for bigger drug policy reforms across the country: While federal and state lawmakers have eased penalties for drug crimes here and here, they’ve by and large resisted anything bigger than merely making criminal prohibition more tolerable — even as there’s been clear public support for bigger reforms.
Consider marijuana legalization. It polls extremely well, with some surveys showing that even a majority of Republicans, who are typically more skeptical of bigger reforms, back legalization. That’s how you get the situation in Montana and South Dakota this year, where state voters simultaneously picked Trump for president and elected to legalize marijuana — while both Trump and Biden opposed legalization at the federal level.
Humphreys recalled his frustrating experience with a related issue in California. In 2013, then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a bill that would have reduced drug possession crimes from felonies to “wobblers,” which can be charged as felonies or misdemeanors. Humphreys was furious that the Democratic governor rejected a modest reform approved by the legislature.
So he endorsed the campaign to get this done through a ballot initiative, Proposition 47. The measure even went further than the bill Brown vetoed, cutting drug possession crime down to flat-out misdemeanors instead of wobblers — effectively defelonizing simple drug possession.
Proposition 47 went on to win by a massive 19-point margin.
“The process failed me,” Humphreys told me. “So here I am endorsing a ballot initiative with Jay-Z.”
There’s an obvious lesson here in that politicians should represent their constituents, who are clearly fed up with a destructive drug war, instead of rejecting milder measures only to see more aggressive ones pass through ballot initiatives.
But there’s another concern, too: Ballot measures really shouldn’t be the main means of making policy on any issue, especially one as complicated as drugs. Let’s say that there are better ways to legalize marijuana than the current commercial model states are embracing, as some experts and activists have argued. Maybe it’s better to put the state government in charge of marijuana distribution and sales, as some states do with alcohol.
That is simply less likely to end up on the ballot. No one wants to run a campaign that effectively argues the government should sell marijuana. It’s also much harder to raise money for this campaign, since the for-profit cannabis business won’t throw its weight behind it. It’s also possible that the measure may not be able to get on some state ballots at all, since the regulations would be much more complicated than some state laws may allow.
For all these reasons, much of the country has been pushed toward the same commercial model for marijuana with no serious alternatives offered.
Ballot measures also can’t be as comprehensive as bills produced by a legislature and governor. While activists and experts note that Oregon’s measures don’t do enough to address concerns about the war on drugs and mass incarceration, the truth is it would be really difficult, if not impossible, to deal with all these issues through the ballot process — requiring possibly dozens of initiatives over years and years. A legislature could, at least in theory, enact many of the necessary reforms in a single piece of legislation.
But that requires lawmakers overcoming the caution they exhibit toward drug policy.
Until then, Oregon activists and voters have demonstrated, with popular support, a possible framework for the US beginning to end its war on drugs.


vox--2020-11-11--Why Trump is suddenly replacing Pentagon officials with loyalists

A retired brigadier general who called former President Barack Obama a terrorist .
A former staffer to Republican Rep. Devin Nunes who wrote a memo accusing federal investigators of harboring anti-Trump bias .
And a close ally of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn whom a former intelligence official described to me as “ shady ” and “ inherently untrustworthy.
” Those are the three men replacing top civilian officials at the Pentagon this week , a swift set of personnel changes that has critics fearing the president ’ s plans for the military and has White House allies cheering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ deep state.
” After President Donald Trump fired Mark Esper as defense secretary on November 9 , it seemed likely that further changes to the Pentagon ’ s senior civilian leadership would follow .
After all , Trump had long empowered John McEntee , his 30-year-old former personal aide whom he tapped to run the Presidential Personnel Office in February , to identify any federal officials suspected of working against the White House ’ s agenda and replace them with administration loyalists .
The Defense Department was always a top target due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other top White House officials like National Security Adviser Robert O ’ Brien , administration sources told me , namely over troop withdrawals and the use of active-duty military to quell anti-racism and anti-police-brutality protests .
“ My sense is that this firing has been in the works for months , but the election gave Trump the opportunity to act , ” said Jim Golby , a retired Army officer now teaching at the University of Texas at Austin .
Who ’ s in , and who ’ s out , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fall was James Anderson , the acting director of policy planning , who submitted his resignation on Tuesday ( it ’ s unclear if he was asked to do so ) .
Anderson tangled with the White House often over the appointment of Trump loyalists to the Pentagon , which is why many suspect he was forced out of his position .
And that position was an important one .
The policy planning director is widely viewed as the third-highest civilian post at the Defense Department .
Whoever ’ s in the job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ issues ranging from deterring China and Russia to determining the kinds of ships , planes , and weapons the military requires .
Which is why it ’ s troubling to learn Anthony Tata will assume the role .
Trump had previously nominated him for the Senate-confirmed position , but his appointment fell through this summer after CNN revealed Tata had called Obama a “ terrorist leader ” and Islam the “ most oppressive violent religion I know of ” on Twitter .
Both Republicans and Democrats subsequently backed away from confirming the retired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apologized for his previous comments .
The White House instead placed Tata in a nonconfirmable role at the Pentagon that effectively made him Anderson ’ s No .
2 .
Now with Anderson gone , Tata has the job not even Republican Senators wanted him in .
The same day Anderson submitted his letter of resignation , so , too , did Esper ’ s chief of staff , Jen Stewart , paving the way for her replacement , Kash Patel .
Stewart ’ s departure was always likely with Esper gone .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ see Patel placed at the highest rungs of the Pentagon , as he ’ s popped up almost everywhere in the Trump administration .
As an aide to Rep. Nunes , Patel was the lead author on a 2018 memo released by House Republicans suggesting federal law enforcement spied on Trump ’ s 2016 presidential campaign .
Trump responded that the Patel-drafted report left him “ totally vindicated.
” After that , Patel worked in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as a top adviser to then acting chief Richard Grenell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lead the National Security Council ’ s counterterrorism team .
It was in that role that he traveled to Syria earlier this year , becoming the first top US official to meet with the Syrian government in a decade , to negotiate the release of two American hostages .
Now , Patel will be in charge of managing the defense secretary ’ s day-to-day business while advising him on key policy issues .
It ’ s an important job , for sure , but it ’ s really more about administration and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s why some experts say having Patel in his new role likely won ’ t change too much .
“ It could be a sign of administration incompetence because chief of staff is not the place I would put someone if I were really trying to jam harmful things through the Pentagon , ” the University of Texas ’ s Golby told me .
A third senior civilian official — Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security Joseph Kernan — also tendered his resignation on November 10 .
The retired Navy vice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Defense Department since 2017 ; a Pentagon statement said his decision to step down was “ planned for several months.
” In his place steps Ezra Cohen-Watnick , one of the most controversial figures of the Trump era .
In 2017 , as the top National Security Council official for intelligence , Cohen-Watnick combed through old intelligence intercepts , seemingly in an attempt to back Trump ’ s baseless claim that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower .
He even leaked some of them to a friendly Republican in Congress : Nunes .
After H.R @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adviser in February 2017 , he tried to fire Cohen-Watnick but was blocked from doing so after Trump personally intervened ( reportedly at Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner ’ s prompting ) .
People who know Cohen-Watnick say he ’ s a staunch Trump loyalist who remains steadfast in his belief of a “ deep state ” thwarting the president at every turn .
“ It ’ s disturbing that he ’ s been appointed his new position , ” a former US intelligence official told me , speaking on the condition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shouldn ’ t be serving anywhere in government.
” “ I ’ ve never encountered anyone as shady or inherently untrustworthy as Ezra , ” the official added .
All three new appointees will join Christopher Miller , the newly named acting defense secretary , at the Pentagon .
The former Special Forces officer most recently ran the National Counterterrorism Center until he took over for Esper on November 9 .
Experts say he ’ s aligned politically with Trump but isn ’ t a loyalist or pawn , perhaps calming some fears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand from the president over the next two months .
Why is Trump making these controversial staffing changes now ?
No one knows for sure , but it ’ s probably not as sinister as some fear .
When the resignations and appointments were announced , some worried that a sinister plot was afoot — that Trump loyalists were “ burrowing ” into the Defense Department so they couldn ’ t be removed when Biden takes office , or that there was some sort of coverup going on , or even that Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But experts I spoke to doubt those explanations , and suspect what ’ s really going on is that Trump finally had an opening to clean house at the Pentagon with the election now over , and that he ’ s putting in people more amenable to his wishes in order to finally accomplish some of the policies the Esper-led Pentagon had pushed back on — such as withdrawing all remaining US troops from Afghanistan before Christmas .
Trump promised in October that those troops would be home by the holiday .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Pentagon to fulfill that wish , Defense Department leaders resisted , saying instead any withdrawal needed to be “ conditions-based ” — in other words , when violence in Afghanistan wasn ’ t spiking .
That set off a months-long back and forth that ended with the White House angry at the Pentagon .
A White House official told me O ’ Brien , the national security adviser , had a bad relationship with Esper and wanted him out , recommending to Trump that Miller take his place .
Trump seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pathway is open for the troop withdrawal the president wants .
On Wednesday , Axios reported that Douglas Macgregor , a Fox News contributor and veteran who has long advocated for pulling US troops out of the Middle East , just joined the Pentagon as an adviser to Miller .
That bolsters the claim that the moves are really about an expedited troop withdrawal more than anything else .
That explanation should assuage concerns that the real goal here is for these staffers to “ burrow ” themselves at the Pentagon , meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them from their posts .
But such fears are unfounded , according to Loren DeJonge Schulman , a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security think tank in Washington , DC .
She told me that all the new Pentagon civilian leaders are political appointees .
Biden , then , can easily have them removed once he enters office in January .
“ Political appointees serve at the pleasure of the president , ” Schulman said .
Put together , vigilance and skepticism of the moves are completely fair and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence that something nefarious is afoot , at least not yet .

A retired brigadier general who called former President Barack Obama a terrorist. A former staffer to Republican Rep. Devin Nunes who wrote a memo accusing federal investigators of harboring anti-Trump bias. And a close ally of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn whom a former intelligence official described to me as “shady” and “inherently untrustworthy.”
Those are the three men replacing top civilian officials at the Pentagon this week, a swift set of personnel changes that has critics fearing the president’s plans for the military and has White House allies cheering that he’s finally routed the “deep state.”
After President Donald Trump fired Mark Esper as defense secretary on November 9, it seemed likely that further changes to the Pentagon’s senior civilian leadership would follow. After all, Trump had long empowered John McEntee, his 30-year-old former personal aide whom he tapped to run the Presidential Personnel Office in February, to identify any federal officials suspected of working against the White House’s agenda and replace them with administration loyalists.
The Defense Department was always a top target due to its many clashes with the president and other top White House officials like National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien, administration sources told me, namely over troop withdrawals and the use of active-duty military to quell anti-racism and anti-police-brutality protests.
“My sense is that this firing has been in the works for months, but the election gave Trump the opportunity to act,” said Jim Golby, a retired Army officer now teaching at the University of Texas at Austin.
And act Trump did.
Who’s in, and who’s out, at Trump’s Pentagon
The first to fall was James Anderson, the acting director of policy planning, who submitted his resignation on Tuesday (it’s unclear if he was asked to do so). Anderson tangled with the White House often over the appointment of Trump loyalists to the Pentagon, which is why many suspect he was forced out of his position.
And that position was an important one. The policy planning director is widely viewed as the third-highest civilian post at the Defense Department. Whoever’s in the job must advise the secretary on top-level policy issues ranging from deterring China and Russia to determining the kinds of ships, planes, and weapons the military requires.
Which is why it’s troubling to learn Anthony Tata will assume the role. Trump had previously nominated him for the Senate-confirmed position, but his appointment fell through this summer after CNN revealed Tata had called Obama a “terrorist leader” and Islam the “most oppressive violent religion I know of” on Twitter. Both Republicans and Democrats subsequently backed away from confirming the retired Army one-star general, even after Tata apologized for his previous comments.
The White House instead placed Tata in a nonconfirmable role at the Pentagon that effectively made him Anderson’s No. 2. Now with Anderson gone, Tata has the job not even Republican Senators wanted him in.
The same day Anderson submitted his letter of resignation, so, too, did Esper’s chief of staff, Jen Stewart, paving the way for her replacement, Kash Patel. Stewart’s departure was always likely with Esper gone.
It’s also not surprising to see Patel placed at the highest rungs of the Pentagon, as he’s popped up almost everywhere in the Trump administration. As an aide to Rep. Nunes, Patel was the lead author on a 2018 memo released by House Republicans suggesting federal law enforcement spied on Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. Trump responded that the Patel-drafted report left him “totally vindicated.”
After that, Patel worked in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as a top adviser to then acting chief Richard Grenell before moving back to the White House to lead the National Security Council’s counterterrorism team. It was in that role that he traveled to Syria earlier this year, becoming the first top US official to meet with the Syrian government in a decade, to negotiate the release of two American hostages.
Now, Patel will be in charge of managing the defense secretary’s day-to-day business while advising him on key policy issues. It’s an important job, for sure, but it’s really more about administration and management than anything else. That’s why some experts say having Patel in his new role likely won’t change too much.
“It could be a sign of administration incompetence because chief of staff is not the place I would put someone if I were really trying to jam harmful things through the Pentagon,” the University of Texas’s Golby told me.
A third senior civilian official — Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security Joseph Kernan — also tendered his resignation on November 10. The retired Navy vice admiral and SEAL had served at the Defense Department since 2017; a Pentagon statement said his decision to step down was “planned for several months.”
In his place steps Ezra Cohen-Watnick, one of the most controversial figures of the Trump era.
In 2017, as the top National Security Council official for intelligence, Cohen-Watnick combed through old intelligence intercepts, seemingly in an attempt to back Trump’s baseless claim that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. He even leaked some of them to a friendly Republican in Congress: Nunes. After H.R. McMaster took over as national security adviser in February 2017, he tried to fire Cohen-Watnick but was blocked from doing so after Trump personally intervened (reportedly at Steve Bannon and Jared Kushner’s prompting).
People who know Cohen-Watnick say he’s a staunch Trump loyalist who remains steadfast in his belief of a “deep state” thwarting the president at every turn. “It’s disturbing that he’s been appointed his new position,” a former US intelligence official told me, speaking on the condition of anonymity to speak freely. “He shouldn’t be serving anywhere in government.”
“I’ve never encountered anyone as shady or inherently untrustworthy as Ezra,” the official added.
All three new appointees will join Christopher Miller, the newly named acting defense secretary, at the Pentagon. The former Special Forces officer most recently ran the National Counterterrorism Center until he took over for Esper on November 9. Experts say he’s aligned politically with Trump but isn’t a loyalist or pawn, perhaps calming some fears that he’ll cave to any demand from the president over the next two months.
Why is Trump making these controversial staffing changes now? No one knows for sure, but it’s probably not as sinister as some fear.
When the resignations and appointments were announced, some worried that a sinister plot was afoot — that Trump loyalists were “burrowing” into the Defense Department so they couldn’t be removed when Biden takes office, or that there was some sort of coverup going on, or even that Trump was setting the stage for a coup.
But experts I spoke to doubt those explanations, and suspect what’s really going on is that Trump finally had an opening to clean house at the Pentagon with the election now over, and that he’s putting in people more amenable to his wishes in order to finally accomplish some of the policies the Esper-led Pentagon had pushed back on — such as withdrawing all remaining US troops from Afghanistan before Christmas.
Trump promised in October that those troops would be home by the holiday. But while the White House pushed hard on the Pentagon to fulfill that wish, Defense Department leaders resisted, saying instead any withdrawal needed to be “conditions-based” — in other words, when violence in Afghanistan wasn’t spiking.
That set off a months-long back and forth that ended with the White House angry at the Pentagon. A White House official told me O’Brien, the national security adviser, had a bad relationship with Esper and wanted him out, recommending to Trump that Miller take his place. Trump seems to have listened, and now the pathway is open for the troop withdrawal the president wants.
On Wednesday, Axios reported that Douglas Macgregor, a Fox News contributor and veteran who has long advocated for pulling US troops out of the Middle East, just joined the Pentagon as an adviser to Miller. That bolsters the claim that the moves are really about an expedited troop withdrawal more than anything else.
That explanation should assuage concerns that the real goal here is for these staffers to “burrow” themselves at the Pentagon, meaning a Biden administration couldn’t remove them from their posts. But such fears are unfounded, according to Loren DeJonge Schulman, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security think tank in Washington, DC.
She told me that all the new Pentagon civilian leaders are political appointees. Biden, then, can easily have them removed once he enters office in January. “Political appointees serve at the pleasure of the president,” Schulman said.
Put together, vigilance and skepticism of the moves are completely fair and warranted. But there’s no evidence that something nefarious is afoot, at least not yet.


vox--2020-11-11--Report: Election officials find no evidence of widespread voter fraud

In almost every state in America , election officials say they have found no evidence of substantial voter fraud , according to a New York Times report .
The Times ’ s Nick Corasaniti , Reid J. Epstein , and Jim Rutenberg contacted election officials in every state , both Democrats and Republicans , and of the 45 who responded directly , none reported any major issues with voting .
For four other states , the Times “ spoke to other statewide officials or found public comments from secretaries of state ; none reported any major voting issues.
” Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Times ’ s inquiries , but the paper spoke with an election official in the state ’ s largest county : Harris County , which includes the city of Houston and has a population larger than many states .
Even as Texas Republican Lt. Gov .
Dan Patrick announced a $ 1 million reward for voter fraud tips , the Harris County official told the Times that they “ had a very seamless election.
” Steve Simon , Minnesota ’ s Democratic secretary of state , told the Times , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single case where someone argued that a vote counted when it shouldn ’ t have or didn ’ t count when it should .
There was no fraud.
” A spokesperson for Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab , a Republican , offered a similar assessment in an email to the Times , saying , “ Kansas did not experience any widespread , systematic issues with voter fraud , intimidation , irregularities or voting problems .
We are very pleased with how the election has gone up to this point.
” To be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scattered across the country .
As Corasaniti , Epstein , and Rutenberg report : But the Times ’ s review found nothing rising to the level President Donald Trump and his orbit have alleged .
Trump ’ s personal lawyer , Rudy Giuliani , baselessly alleged Saturday in Philadelphia — in the parking lot of a landscaping company — that elections there were full of fraud , but the office of state Attorney General Josh Shapiro told the Times that the elections in Pennsylvania were “ fair and secure.
” Even as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast doubt on the election , the country ’ s democratic processes appear to have worked well .
America ’ s voting infrastructure seems to have worked well America ’ s democracy is not without its flaws .
Voter suppression is an issue in this country , most of it propagated by the Republican Party .
In 2016 , more than 20 percent of potential Black voters in four states were disenfranchised due to a felony conviction .
But voter fraud is nowhere near as big a problem as many Republicans claim .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , the Trump administration invited international election observers from the Organization of American States ( OAS ) to look into early voting , campaign activities , and Election Day voting , and they found no evidence of widespread fraud that affected the election ’ s outcome .
Though the OAS ’ s preliminary report notes the organization ’ s work was limited because of the Covid-19 pandemic , they found no reports of voting irregularities .
And where they have been claiming otherwise , the stories have quickly fallen apart .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joe Biden over the 270 electoral vote threshold , a postal worker had claimed that a postmaster in Erie — a politically heterogenous city in the northwest part of the state — had ballots backdated to be postmarked in time to be counted .
But Erie Postmaster Rob Weisenbach called the allegations “ 100 percent false , ” and the postal worker himself recanted his claims on Tuesday .
Then there is the bevy of pending lawsuits the president and his allies are using to continue to cast doubt on the outcome of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are not about actual voter fraud and will not change the result .
Take the Trump campaign lawsuit to stop 592 absentee ballots from being counted in Montgomery County , in suburban Philadelphia .
There , the campaign is trying to have the ballots revoked because those voters didn ’ t handwrite their full address in a specific place on the outer absentee ballot envelope — something that the respondents point out is not a mandatory requirement .
And as the Trump campaign ’ s lawyers admitted to a judge Tuesday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to believe there is any fraud connected to these votes .
( Even if the suit is successful , it won ’ t go very far toward overturning the election — Biden won Montgomery County by more than 100,000 votes . )
As Vox ’ s Ian Millhiser explained , many of these lawsuits “ rest on minor complaints that are unlikely to matter.
” Trump ’ s campaign filed a suit to stop counting ballots in Michigan , for instance , where Biden was comfortably ahead .
If you ’ re still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ database investigating allegations of voter fraud — many are labeled as fake , false , or misleading .
As Biden prepares to take office on January 20 , the president and his party are actively undermining American democracy .
Trump ’ s attempts to discredit the results of an entirely fair election are highly unlikely to prove fruitful .

In almost every state in America, election officials say they have found no evidence of substantial voter fraud, according to a New York Times report.
The Times’s Nick Corasaniti, Reid J. Epstein, and Jim Rutenberg contacted election officials in every state, both Democrats and Republicans, and of the 45 who responded directly, none reported any major issues with voting. For four other states, the Times “spoke to other statewide officials or found public comments from secretaries of state; none reported any major voting issues.” Texas was the only state not to respond to the Times’s inquiries, but the paper spoke with an election official in the state’s largest county: Harris County, which includes the city of Houston and has a population larger than many states.
Even as Texas Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick announced a $1 million reward for voter fraud tips, the Harris County official told the Times that they “had a very seamless election.”
Steve Simon, Minnesota’s Democratic secretary of state, told the Times, “I don’t know of a single case where someone argued that a vote counted when it shouldn’t have or didn’t count when it should. There was no fraud.”
A spokesperson for Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab, a Republican, offered a similar assessment in an email to the Times, saying, “Kansas did not experience any widespread, systematic issues with voter fraud, intimidation, irregularities or voting problems. We are very pleased with how the election has gone up to this point.”
To be sure, there were some minor issues scattered across the country. As Corasaniti, Epstein, and Rutenberg report:
Some states described small problems common to all elections, which they said they were addressing: a few instances of illegal or double voting, some technical glitches and some minor errors in math. Officials in all states are conducting their own review of the voting — a standard component of the certification process.
But the Times’s review found nothing rising to the level President Donald Trump and his orbit have alleged. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, baselessly alleged Saturday in Philadelphia — in the parking lot of a landscaping company — that elections there were full of fraud, but the office of state Attorney General Josh Shapiro told the Times that the elections in Pennsylvania were “fair and secure.”
Even as the president and his allies have continued to cast doubt on the election, the country’s democratic processes appear to have worked well.
America’s voting infrastructure seems to have worked well
America’s democracy is not without its flaws. Voter suppression is an issue in this country, most of it propagated by the Republican Party. In 2016, more than 20 percent of potential Black voters in four states were disenfranchised due to a felony conviction.
But voter fraud is nowhere near as big a problem as many Republicans claim. And 2020 was no different.
In fact, the Trump administration invited international election observers from the Organization of American States (OAS) to look into early voting, campaign activities, and Election Day voting, and they found no evidence of widespread fraud that affected the election’s outcome. Though the OAS’s preliminary report notes the organization’s work was limited because of the Covid-19 pandemic, they found no reports of voting irregularities.
And where they have been claiming otherwise, the stories have quickly fallen apart. In Pennsylvania, the state that pushed President-elect Joe Biden over the 270 electoral vote threshold, a postal worker had claimed that a postmaster in Erie — a politically heterogenous city in the northwest part of the state — had ballots backdated to be postmarked in time to be counted. But Erie Postmaster Rob Weisenbach called the allegations “100 percent false,” and the postal worker himself recanted his claims on Tuesday.
Then there is the bevy of pending lawsuits the president and his allies are using to continue to cast doubt on the outcome of the election. But by and large, they are not about actual voter fraud and will not change the result.
Take the Trump campaign lawsuit to stop 592 absentee ballots from being counted in Montgomery County, in suburban Philadelphia. There, the campaign is trying to have the ballots revoked because those voters didn’t handwrite their full address in a specific place on the outer absentee ballot envelope — something that the respondents point out is not a mandatory requirement. And as the Trump campaign’s lawyers admitted to a judge Tuesday, there is not currently any reason to believe there is any fraud connected to these votes. (Even if the suit is successful, it won’t go very far toward overturning the election — Biden won Montgomery County by more than 100,000 votes.)
As Vox’s Ian Millhiser explained, many of these lawsuits “rest on minor complaints that are unlikely to matter.” Trump’s campaign filed a suit to stop counting ballots in Michigan, for instance, where Biden was comfortably ahead. If you’re still in doubt, check out BuzzFeed News’ database investigating allegations of voter fraud — many are labeled as fake, false, or misleading.
As Biden prepares to take office on January 20, the president and his party are actively undermining American democracy. Trump’s attempts to discredit the results of an entirely fair election are highly unlikely to prove fruitful.


vox--2020-11-11--Trump’s final two months in office might be the worst Covid-19 months yet

Evidence-based explanations of the coronavirus crisis , from how it started to how it might end to how to protect yourself and others .
While election night unfurled into election week , America ’ s Covid-19 pandemic was reaching its most critical stage yet .
The United States is now facing a record number of coronavirus cases ( averaging 119,000 every day for the last seven days , according to the Covid Tracking Project ) and a record number of hospitalizations ( nearly 62,000 as of November 10 ) .
About 1,350 deaths were reported on Tuesday , the highest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s only so much that can be done in the last two months of President Donald Trump ’ s term to change that trajectory .
Trump had not held a public event for a full week until Veterans Day , and his tweets have been fixated on his baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him .
He has not commented on the surge of Covid-19 cases and hospitalizations .
So with the pandemic entering its most dangerous period to date , the country ’ s current leadership — which we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not appear to have any plans to do anything about it .
In one sense , this is not a surprise .
As we learned from a New York Times report over the summer , the Trump administration has long sought to put as much responsibility for the Covid-19 response as possible onto the states .
The White House has de facto committed to a dangerous “ herd immunity ” plan that depends on letting the coronavirus spread unchecked while trying to protect the vulnerable ( despite ample evidence that increased community @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vulnerable ) by refusing to take more aggressive action in combating the virus .
( And privately , according to the Daily Beast , White House officials acknowledge this is their strategy . )
One saving grace of America ’ s decentralized public health response is that states and cities can take their own steps to try to slow down Covid-19 .
San Francisco decided to forbid indoor dining again and also reduced capacity at gyms and movie theaters .
New York state is also requiring bars , restaurants , and gyms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some signs that the latest surge is convincing Republican officials who have been skeptical of more aggressive policies to rethink their approaches .
Iowa Gov .
Kim Reynolds is now requiring people to wear masks in certain circumstances after having long resisted such a mandate .
But that flexibility cuts both ways .
North Dakota Gov .
Doug Burgum is still not implementing a statewide mask mandate even as his state ’ s hospitals reach 100 percent of their capacity ( though he is encouraging people to wear masks ) .
To the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandate in South Dakota ’ s largest city did not result in a new policy , even while the state is experiencing one of the worst Covid-19 outbreaks in the country .
President-elect Joe Biden doesn ’ t actually have any authority yet , though he is attempting to project competence .
As Vox ’ s German Lopez wrote , Biden ’ s electoral victory comes too late to stop the fall and winter surges .
It ’ s now only a question of how bad things get before he takes power .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ official actions was to appoint a Covid-19 task force .
The Trump administration has not yet acknowledged Biden ’ s victory or allowed the formal transition to begin , but the Biden campaign said they anticipated such intransigence .
Campaign officials told me that the former vice president may reach out to state and local leaders during the transition in order to start getting everybody on the same page about what would be necessary to end the pandemic .
But Biden also appears to be mindful of not overstepping his bounds while Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obstruction could even undermine the one piece of good news we received this week : promising ( but still early ) results for the Pfizer vaccine .
ProPublica reported on Tuesday that many states and cities were not yet prepared to distribute a Covid-19 vaccine like this one , which has very specific storage and transportation requirements .
The Trump administration ’ s Operation Warp Speed has paid drug companies to manufacture vaccine doses , an unambiguously good move , but the project is not responsible for actually delivering the vaccine .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states and , based on their preliminary distribution plans , there is still a lot of work to be done .
And yet , Trump officials have been refusing to cooperate with the incoming administration that will actually be responsible for getting people vaccinated .
It is another riff on the same theme : The US is on its own , at least for the next two months .
This story appears in VoxCare , a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America ’ s health care debate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ inbox along with more health care stats and news .

While election night unfurled into election week, America’s Covid-19 pandemic was reaching its most critical stage yet.
The United States is now facing a record number of coronavirus cases (averaging 119,000 every day for the last seven days, according to the Covid Tracking Project) and a record number of hospitalizations (nearly 62,000 as of November 10). About 1,350 deaths were reported on Tuesday, the highest total since mid-August.
And there’s only so much that can be done in the last two months of President Donald Trump’s term to change that trajectory.
Trump had not held a public event for a full week until Veterans Day, and his tweets have been fixated on his baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him. He has not commented on the surge of Covid-19 cases and hospitalizations.
So with the pandemic entering its most dangerous period to date, the country’s current leadership — which we are stuck with until January 20 — does not appear to have any plans to do anything about it.
In one sense, this is not a surprise. As we learned from a New York Times report over the summer, the Trump administration has long sought to put as much responsibility for the Covid-19 response as possible onto the states.
The White House has de facto committed to a dangerous “herd immunity” plan that depends on letting the coronavirus spread unchecked while trying to protect the vulnerable (despite ample evidence that increased community spread will inevitably find its way to the vulnerable) by refusing to take more aggressive action in combating the virus. (And privately, according to the Daily Beast, White House officials acknowledge this is their strategy.)
One saving grace of America’s decentralized public health response is that states and cities can take their own steps to try to slow down Covid-19. San Francisco decided to forbid indoor dining again and also reduced capacity at gyms and movie theaters. New York state is also requiring bars, restaurants, and gyms to close early.
And there are some signs that the latest surge is convincing Republican officials who have been skeptical of more aggressive policies to rethink their approaches. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds is now requiring people to wear masks in certain circumstances after having long resisted such a mandate.
But that flexibility cuts both ways. North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum is still not implementing a statewide mask mandate even as his state’s hospitals reach 100 percent of their capacity (though he is encouraging people to wear masks). To the south, a debate over a mask mandate in South Dakota’s largest city did not result in a new policy, even while the state is experiencing one of the worst Covid-19 outbreaks in the country.
President-elect Joe Biden doesn’t actually have any authority yet, though he is attempting to project competence. As Vox’s German Lopez wrote, Biden’s electoral victory comes too late to stop the fall and winter surges. It’s now only a question of how bad things get before he takes power.
One of the president-elect’s first official actions was to appoint a Covid-19 task force. The Trump administration has not yet acknowledged Biden’s victory or allowed the formal transition to begin, but the Biden campaign said they anticipated such intransigence. Campaign officials told me that the former vice president may reach out to state and local leaders during the transition in order to start getting everybody on the same page about what would be necessary to end the pandemic. But Biden also appears to be mindful of not overstepping his bounds while Trump is in office.
Trump’s obstruction could even undermine the one piece of good news we received this week: promising (but still early) results for the Pfizer vaccine. ProPublica reported on Tuesday that many states and cities were not yet prepared to distribute a Covid-19 vaccine like this one, which has very specific storage and transportation requirements.
The Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed has paid drug companies to manufacture vaccine doses, an unambiguously good move, but the project is not responsible for actually delivering the vaccine. As ProPublica noted, that will fall to states and, based on their preliminary distribution plans, there is still a lot of work to be done.
And yet, Trump officials have been refusing to cooperate with the incoming administration that will actually be responsible for getting people vaccinated.
It is another riff on the same theme: The US is on its own, at least for the next two months.
This story appears in VoxCare, a newsletter from Vox on the latest twists and turns in America’s health care debate. Sign up to get VoxCare in your inbox along with more health care stats and news.


vox--2020-11-11--The 2000 election doesn’t justify Trump’s refusal to concede to Biden. Here’s why.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo ’ s news conference on Tuesday will be best remembered for his shocking comment that despite President Donald Trump ’ s loss to President-elect Joe Biden , “ there will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.
” But another defense he gave for the Trump administration ’ s refusal to concede an election Trump lost warrants some attention .
As he seemingly tried to temper his initial statement refusing to accept the election results , Pompeo compared this election with the controversial 2000 one , saying , “ It took us 37-plus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We conducted a successful transition back then.
” Pompeo ’ s implication was that the outcome of this election is similar to what happened in 2000 , when George W. Bush ’ s victory over Al Gore wasn ’ t determined until a Supreme Court decision on December 12 of that year .
And he ’ s far from the only Trumpworld figure who has invoked 2000 to justify Trump ’ s refusal to concede .
The Trump appointee leading the General Services Administration , the head of the National Republican Congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Trump loyalist Gov .
Kristi Noem ( R-SD ) have all taken this tack .
But comparing the president ’ s chances favorably to Bush ’ s win in 2000 probably isn ’ t the most convincing way to defend Trump ’ s refusal to acknowledge the reality that he lost .
As a reminder , the 2000 election came down to Florida ’ s 25 electoral votes , which were ultimately decided by a margin of just over 500 votes .
Hard-fought recounts in the state brought the terms “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” into public consciousness .
Florida — and by extension the presidency — wasn ’ t decided for Bush until December 12 , when , in a controversial decision , the Supreme Court determined that an ongoing recount in Florida violated the 14th Amendment ’ s equal protection clause .
Trump is clearly hoping for something similar to happen this time around .
But there are two glaring differences between Trump ’ s loss to Joe Biden and the Bush-Gore situation that make the 2000 comparisons inappropriate .
When the Supreme Court halted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bush led Gore by 537 votes .
That was roughly one-third of the 1,784-vote margin that Bush led Gore by following the initial tally after polls closed .
Recounts rarely change the result of an election .
A recent analysis from FairVote found that from 2000 to 2019 , only three of 31 statewide recounts overturned the result of a race , and in all three cases , the original margin of victory was under 0.05 percent .
The margins in the key states where Biden bested Trump by relatively narrow margins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s true that Georgia , for one , will conduct an automatic recount .
And the Trump campaign has already announced its intent to request a recount in Wisconsin , where it is legally allowed to do so because of the narrow margin .
But given Biden ’ s current lead there , it ’ s nigh impossible that Trump flips it — hence the decision from Vox ’ s partners at Decision Desk to call the Midwestern state for Biden .
Even in the highly unlikely result that recounts somehow flip @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden , who appears to have won 306 electoral votes , would still have more than the 270 electoral votes necessary to clinch the presidency .
The 2000 election came down to hundreds of votes in a single state .
Biden , by contrast , has a decisive advantage in the Electoral College with at least one state to spare .
So while it would make sense for Trump to refuse to concede if the result hinged just on Georgia or Arizona , recounts don ’ t provide him with a realistic path @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of votes in an election he lost by tens of thousands Recounts aside , Trump ’ s hope seems to be that he ’ ll benefit from a Supreme Court decision in a way similar to Bush in 2000 , when Bush v. Gore effectively handed Bush the presidency by stopping a recount .
As my colleague Ian Millhiser recently detailed , the Court ’ s reasoning “ was widely viewed at the time , and is widely viewed now , as a political decision and not an exercise in legal reasoning.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the Supreme Court intervening in an election .
But the problem for Trump is that his legal team has yet to come up with a case that could conceivably force the issue .
Trumpworld has spent the past week insisting that fraud swung the result for Biden in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan , but they ’ ve been unable to produce any credible evidence to back it up .
Kayleigh McEnany ’ s appearance on Tuesday evening ’ s edition of Sean Hannity ’ s Fox News show illustrated the increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump campaign has filed a dozen lawsuits alleging irregularities , but none of them have been successful .
Notably , in a Pennsylvania court on Wednesday , a lawyer representing Trump acknowledged that allegations being brought by the campaign in Montgomery County don ’ t rise to the level of fraud .
As the above transcript indicates , the case involves 592 ballots in a state that Trump lost by nearly 50,000 votes .
That ’ s just one of many lawsuits brought by the Trump campaign , but it illustrates a broader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t challenging anywhere near a sufficient number of votes to affect the outcome .
Along similar lines , litigation brought by the campaign in Arizona impacts fewer than 200 ballots in a state Trump lost by nearly 15,000 votes .
In short , the Trump campaign hasn ’ t produced any evidence of fraud , and the allegations of irregularities have no chance of affecting Biden ’ s ultimate victory .
Even the campaign ’ s most significant legal challenge — one in Pennsylvania to mail ballots that arrived after Election Day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far too few to jeopardize Biden ’ s victory in the state .
By contrast , the Supreme Court got involved in the 2000 election because there were legitimate constitutional questions raised by Florida ’ s recount process , and the resolution of them had decisive implications for the result .
As Kristine Phillips recently explained for USA Today : Ultimately , comparisons between 2020 and 2000 would carry more water if this year ’ s election was closer and the Trump campaign could wage a legal fight for its survival in one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ win with states to spare , no state is as close as Florida was two decades ago .
Moreover , the Trump campaign ’ s strategy has been to make allegations of irregularities and then try and find evidence for them later .
That may be an effective way to delegitimize Trump ’ s loss in the eyes of his supporters , but it doesn ’ t work in courtrooms .

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s news conference on Tuesday will be best remembered for his shocking comment that despite President Donald Trump’s loss to President-elect Joe Biden, “there will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration.” But another defense he gave for the Trump administration’s refusal to concede an election Trump lost warrants some attention.
As he seemingly tried to temper his initial statement refusing to accept the election results, Pompeo compared this election with the controversial 2000 one, saying, “It took us 37-plus days in an election back in 2000. We conducted a successful transition back then.”
Pompeo’s implication was that the outcome of this election is similar to what happened in 2000, when George W. Bush’s victory over Al Gore wasn’t determined until a Supreme Court decision on December 12 of that year. And he’s far from the only Trumpworld figure who has invoked 2000 to justify Trump’s refusal to concede. The Trump appointee leading the General Services Administration, the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, campaign legal adviser Jenna Ellis, and Trump loyalist Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) have all taken this tack.
Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD): "We have not finished counting votes ... Back in 2000 Al Gore was given his day in court. We should give President Trump his day in court." pic.twitter.com/AoIK9UVBf2 — The Recount (@therecount) November 8, 2020
But comparing the president’s chances favorably to Bush’s win in 2000 probably isn’t the most convincing way to defend Trump’s refusal to acknowledge the reality that he lost.
As a reminder, the 2000 election came down to Florida’s 25 electoral votes, which were ultimately decided by a margin of just over 500 votes. Hard-fought recounts in the state brought the terms “hanging chad” and “dimpled chad” into public consciousness. Florida — and by extension the presidency — wasn’t decided for Bush until December 12, when, in a controversial decision, the Supreme Court determined that an ongoing recount in Florida violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
Trump is clearly hoping for something similar to happen this time around. But there are two glaring differences between Trump’s loss to Joe Biden and the Bush-Gore situation that make the 2000 comparisons inappropriate.
Unlike Bush-Gore, Biden-Trump isn’t particularly close
When the Supreme Court halted the final Florida recount in December 2000, Bush led Gore by 537 votes. That was roughly one-third of the 1,784-vote margin that Bush led Gore by following the initial tally after polls closed.
Recounts rarely change the result of an election. A recent analysis from FairVote found that from 2000 to 2019, only three of 31 statewide recounts overturned the result of a race, and in all three cases, the original margin of victory was under 0.05 percent. The margins in the key states where Biden bested Trump by relatively narrow margins are nowhere near that close.
Trump is losing to Biden by...
20,539 votes in Wisconsin
47,215 votes in Pennsylvania
12,567 votes in Georgia
14,746 votes in Arizona
36,274 votes in Nevada
These are not margins that get undone in recounts. — Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) November 10, 2020
It’s true that Georgia, for one, will conduct an automatic recount. And the Trump campaign has already announced its intent to request a recount in Wisconsin, where it is legally allowed to do so because of the narrow margin. But given Biden’s current lead there, it’s nigh impossible that Trump flips it — hence the decision from Vox’s partners at Decision Desk to call the Midwestern state for Biden. Even in the highly unlikely result that recounts somehow flip both Georgia and Arizona to Trump, Biden, who appears to have won 306 electoral votes, would still have more than the 270 electoral votes necessary to clinch the presidency.
The 2000 election came down to hundreds of votes in a single state. Biden, by contrast, has a decisive advantage in the Electoral College with at least one state to spare. So while it would make sense for Trump to refuse to concede if the result hinged just on Georgia or Arizona, recounts don’t provide him with a realistic path to victory.
Trump is challenging handfuls of votes in an election he lost by tens of thousands
Recounts aside, Trump’s hope seems to be that he’ll benefit from a Supreme Court decision in a way similar to Bush in 2000, when Bush v. Gore effectively handed Bush the presidency by stopping a recount. As my colleague Ian Millhiser recently detailed, the Court’s reasoning “was widely viewed at the time, and is widely viewed now, as a political decision and not an exercise in legal reasoning.”
So yes, there’s precedent for the Supreme Court intervening in an election. But the problem for Trump is that his legal team has yet to come up with a case that could conceivably force the issue. Trumpworld has spent the past week insisting that fraud swung the result for Biden in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan, but they’ve been unable to produce any credible evidence to back it up. Kayleigh McEnany’s appearance on Tuesday evening’s edition of Sean Hannity’s Fox News show illustrated the increasingly farcical nature of these efforts.
Hannity just featured another episode of Trumpers owning the libs with reams of paper pic.twitter.com/lniNN5GWnJ — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 11, 2020
The Trump campaign has filed a dozen lawsuits alleging irregularities, but none of them have been successful. Notably, in a Pennsylvania court on Wednesday, a lawyer representing Trump acknowledged that allegations being brought by the campaign in Montgomery County don’t rise to the level of fraud.
Today in court, a Pennsylvania judge asked a lawyer for Trump point-blank whether he was alleging fraud.
(Full transcript here https://t.co/K2mfxFbtGZ) pic.twitter.com/y17v0PFkMx — Marc E. Elias (@marceelias) November 11, 2020
As the above transcript indicates, the case involves 592 ballots in a state that Trump lost by nearly 50,000 votes. That’s just one of many lawsuits brought by the Trump campaign, but it illustrates a broader problem: Trump’s lawyers aren’t challenging anywhere near a sufficient number of votes to affect the outcome.
Along similar lines, litigation brought by the campaign in Arizona impacts fewer than 200 ballots in a state Trump lost by nearly 15,000 votes.
Pres. Trump’s legal team has challenged a grand total of 180 rejected ballots in Maricopa County. Biden leads in AZ by 14,746 votes - https://t.co/UH3tkfQ026 — Reid Wilson (@PoliticsReid) November 10, 2020
In short, the Trump campaign hasn’t produced any evidence of fraud, and the allegations of irregularities have no chance of affecting Biden’s ultimate victory. Even the campaign’s most significant legal challenge — one in Pennsylvania to mail ballots that arrived after Election Day — only affects about 10,000 ballots, far too few to jeopardize Biden’s victory in the state.
By contrast, the Supreme Court got involved in the 2000 election because there were legitimate constitutional questions raised by Florida’s recount process, and the resolution of them had decisive implications for the result. As Kristine Phillips recently explained for USA Today:
In 2000, the Supreme Court looked at the issue of equal protection, which requires the government to treat individuals in the same way. There needed to be a uniform way of considering ballots during the recount, and there wasn’t, which violated an equal-protection right voters have to have their ballots treated equally during an election. The court ruled that because Florida counties conduct recounts differently, continuing the recounts was unconstitutional.
Ultimately, comparisons between 2020 and 2000 would carry more water if this year’s election was closer and the Trump campaign could wage a legal fight for its survival in one state. But not only did Biden win with states to spare, no state is as close as Florida was two decades ago.
Moreover, the Trump campaign’s strategy has been to make allegations of irregularities and then try and find evidence for them later. That may be an effective way to delegitimize Trump’s loss in the eyes of his supporters, but it doesn’t work in courtrooms.