Gauging motives, not judging policies

Polarization too often gets in the way of progress. A flawed Portland law that aims to solve the nation's drug crisis offers a case study into problem-solving with compassion.

We live in a time of bright lines. From culture war issues to partisan identity, Americans seem increasingly compelled to take a side. This is the definition of polarization, and it is not all bad: Mushy moderation is no cure-all. In many cases, we need to take a stand.

The danger is that, in almost every case, the truth is in the nuance. Polarized positions can lock us into thinking doctrinally, not practically or intelligently. In a very real way, polarization often makes us act less intelligently; we allow opinions to guide us instead of logic and grace.

In that context, the Sept. 11&18 cover story by Story Hinckley is a fascinating case study. The Christian Science Monitor is never going to be in favor of drug use. The Monitor is significantly aimed at freeing humanity from forces that would bind and limit our sense of goodness and possibility. Those could be fear, autocracy, or a rigidly partisan mindset. Drug use would certainly be included in that list.

With that in mind, it would make sense to write a story excoriating Oregon’s Measure 110, which decriminalized the possession of small amounts of drugs. But that’s not what we did. Advocacy on behalf of this or that policy is one traditional mode of journalism. Story’s article is a brilliant example of why we think that kind of journalism falls short. The truth is in the nuance. 

Yes, Measure 110 has led to more drug use. But what is it, really? It is an honest attempt to solve the nation’s drug crisis with compassion. Since at least the 1970s, America’s answer to illegal drug use has been to throw people in jail. That is a logical response, but the result has been untold damage on already struggling communities. It also raises the question: Do we care enough about these Americans to try to help them?

One can argue the merits or demerits of the Oregon law. One early takeaway is that some kind of consequence is necessary: Many people who misuse drugs, even given the agency to address addictions, will not do it without some consequence. Another takeaway is that the police – who are on the front lines of the problem – have been sidelined in conversations about the measure. 

Clearly, the policy is not working. Some believe it can, given time. Some believe it is too fundamentally flawed. Yet if society is going to make an honest attempt to deal with drug misuse compassionately, the Oregon program is raising questions that must be answered. And these questions would likely not have been brought to the surface had Oregon done nothing. 

Trying something new inevitably stirs things up and can often make things worse for a time. More important than the policy is the motive. Policies will always be flawed. But the motive, if honest, is a compass that points the way forward through trial and error. 

“I don’t think there is one person thinking, ‘I want to eradicate people who use drugs, and I want them to suffer,’” one advocate tells Story. Everyone wants “people living better lives.” 

That motive is something the Monitor can wholeheartedly support.