The Department of Homeland Security promptly issued its standard denial, used to excuse other, comparable killings like that of Renée Goode. It claimed that Araujo had “weaponized his vehicle” and tried to hit an ICE agent with it, “resulting in our officer firing his weapon in self-defense.”

The three other men who were in the van with Araujo—the only full witnesses to the shooting—remain in custody, reportedly under pressure to self-deport. But from behind bars they were able to reach Araujo’s family’s lawyer. They disputed the official account.

“That is a lie,” wrote Jose Trinidad Rojas in a handwritten statement to the lawyer, obtained by the Washington Post. “It is impossible for them to say that they were going to get run over … there were no officers in front of or behind the vehicle. They were on the sides.”

Araujo’s family, too, were outraged by the official explanation. His sons said that their father knew exactly the consequences of resisting ICE. They’re certain, they said, that their father thought he was being carjacked during the incident—it had happened before, and the van contained expensive tools. How was he to know that his assailants, likely masked in an unmarked vehicle, were law enforcement officers?

States have reacted by passing laws to require federal agents to reveal their identity. The Trump administration has sued to have these laws overturned. Its latest target is New York.

In another incident from the same week, in the Chicago suburbs, masked agents slammed a man’s head into the ground, then menacingly jabbed a Taser towards another man who was filming them. When faces are covered, and in the absence of other identifying features, it’s unclear how victims of abuse might seek recourse.

Around the country, states have reacted by passing laws to require federal agents to clearly reveal their identity, rather than hide behind masks and unmarked vehicles. The Trump administration has sued to have these laws overturned. Its latest target in the courts is New York State, which recently passed a statute forbidding state and federal law enforcement agents from concealing their faces. 

The Trump administration sued New York on June 23. The state countersued, to defend its new law, later that day.

“By hiding their faces and refusing to wear identification, federal immigration officers endanger New Yorkers and intentionally evade accountability,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James. “Our communities should not have to live in fear of being disappeared by unidentified masked agents. If the federal government wants to brazenly defy our laws, then we will fight tooth and nail in court to ensure transparency and keep all New Yorkers safe.”

Earlier that month, White House “Border Czar” Tom Homan had threatened Governor Kathy Hochul (D) with a surge in ICE activity. “I made her a promise: you’re going to see more ICE agents than you’ve ever seen in New York City, and it’s coming,” he said.

The federal government’s lawsuit claims New York is threatening the officers’ safety. “Law enforcement officers risk their lives every day to keep Americans safe, and they do not deserve to be doxed or harassed simply for carrying out their duties,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in an accompanying press release. “New York’s anti-law enforcement policies regulate the federal government and are designed to create risk for our agents. These laws cannot stand.”

“When you look at the history, public servants had to be accountable … But hiding behind masks? This is the kind of policing that occurs in coercive, authoritarian regimes.”

The Trump administration’s apparent outrage runs counter to the fact that law enforcement officers have, until recently, been expected to reveal their identities in all but very narrow scenarios, such as undercover work. That’s been the case since the start of modern policing.

“When you look at the history, public servants had to be accountable and revealing their identity is critical to accountability,” Josh Parker, deputy director of  policy for the Policing Project at the NYU School of Law, told Filter.

Not long ago, Parker pointed out, an officer hiding their badge number during an encounter was considered scandalous. “But hiding behind masks? This is the kind of policing that occurs in coercive, authoritarian regimes: the KGB, Nazi Germany, the Stasi,” he said.

“It’s clearly just an intimidation tactic,” Parker continued. “It’s sowing fear, having someone in plain clothes, masked, aggressively approaching people.”

Law enforcement masking additionally seems to have facilitated a spike in people impersonating federal officers, for example to commit robberies. “In 2025 alone there were 31 cases of people posing as federal agents,” Parker said. “There had been five [on average] the years before.”

He also noted that no other branch of work in the criminal-legal system allows for anonymity. “Imagine if a judge or legislator remained anonymous. Public servants with so much power over people’s lives cannot hide their identity.”

“The Houston shooting, it’s predictable. This is the lack of accountability and transparency, with the masking and the intimidation.”

Lieutenant Diane Goldstein (Ret.) served with the Redondo Beach Police Department in California for 21 years, and is now the executive director of Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), which advocates for drug-policy and justice-system reform. She said that officers who hide their identity violate basic tenets of accountable policing.

“First and foremost, accountability and transparency, they undergird the entire legitimacy of the criminal justice system, not just policing,” Goldstein told Filter. “Policing requires accountability and transparency. Period.”

One of the reasons officers shouldn’t hide behind masks or “investigations” that conceal the truth, she continued, is that work such as preventing and investigating acts of violence is radically undermined when the public doesn’t trust authorities.

“In standard policing, even if the officer’s name isn’t obvious, there’s a badge number. That’s how you can file a complaint,” Goldstein said. “The Houston shooting, it’s predictable. This is the lack of accountability and transparency, with the masking and the intimidation. And it’s absolutely crazy they continue to say, Our officers need to be masked so they don’t get doxxed.” 

Photograph (cropped) of ICE agents in Minneapolis in January 2026 by Chad Davis via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 4.0

Lt. Diane Goldstein serves on the board of directors of The Influence Foundation, which operates Filter. LEAP was formerly the fiscal sponsor of The Influence Foundation. Filter’s Editorial Independence Policy applies.

The post “Sowing Fear”—The Legal Battle Over Masked ICE Agents appeared first on Filter.

HB 2105, known as the Immigrant Worker Protection Act, passed the Washington House and Senate in March and was signed by Gov. Ferguson on March 30. It takes effect on June 11. The bill states that it aims to “provide resources and support to employers about their rights and the rights of their workers,” plus “clarity about their rights and responsibilities when engaging with 19 federal agencies that conduct form I-9 inspections.” The new law “[requires] Washington employers to provide notice to workers in the event of a form I-9 inspection and provide additional protections and support for workers and employers.” That notice must be in writing and issued within five days of the investigation being initiated.

“Before the legislation goes into effect, when I-9 audits happen, the employees don’t get to hear about it unless there’s follow-through,” Malou Chávez, executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, told Filter. “This is an opportunity for them to have the same information employers get when they receive inspection notices.”

The law creates a set of responsibilities for the state attorney general, including supplying posters, in several languages, for employers to inform workers of the new notice requirements. Workers must be told which federal agencies are inspecting them, the date the inspection began, and the specific records or documents being requested. Employers will also be advised by the AG that they don’t have to give federal agencies access to private areas of their workplace, and that accessing worker records requires a subpoena or judicial warrant.

Agencies like Homeland Security Investigations are increasingly conducting investigations to check the validity of I-9 documentation provided by employees, verifying they can legally work.

The AG “shall conduct outreach to businesses, employers, and community members to provide information and guidance” for the first year, states the bill. Employers who violate aspects of the law could be subject to legal action, and potentially fined up to $1,000 per impacted worker.

Agencies like Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), a directorate within Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), are increasingly conducting investigations into employers to check the validity of I-9 documentation provided by employees, verifying they can legally work. These investigations are then fueling ICE enforcement raids.

One incident in Washington State in 2025, in the city of Bellingham, serves as an example of why advocates wanted new legislation. HSI was tipped off in January 2025 that a local roofing company was employing undocumented workers, as KUOW, Seattle’s NPR station, reported. The company was notified that its employees’ I-9s were being investigated, and it complied in turning over documentation for 83 individuals. Federal officials claimed to have found 56 employees who submitted false or fraudulent work documents. On the morning of April 2, ICE agents executed a raid that arrested 37 people.

Prior to the new law, workers in Washington had no way of knowing if they were under investigation—their employer had no obligation to tell them—let alone any proper chance to defend themselves or consult with a lawyer. Employers also faced risks, when informing their workers of an immigration investigation might have led to them being accused of obstruction of justice.

Notice of an investigation could make all the difference between potential wrongful detention or deportation, and no further action.

HB2105 provides clarity on both sides. And the promise of notice of an investigation is likely to help people get their documentation together in time, according to Chávez.

“Presumably if the missing information is [their document is expired], they can go to the attorney who helped with their immigration case—or to their mother’s house, where they left some documentation–to [correct that],” she said. That could make all the difference between potential wrongful detention or deportation, and no further action.

Though scrutiny now is greater than ever, immigrant workers have long contended with difficulties in trying to maintain their legal employment states.

“We do hear stories about someone whose work authorization has been automatically extended but the employer is not accepting that,” Chávez said. “We have to write letters and say ‘this allows the person to be employed’ … the DHS is [also] terminating temporary protected status, or [restricting] the validity period of work documents from five years to one year.”

What’s happening in Washington is a microcosm of the various ways that immigrants and their allies nationwide are resisting an often-lawless federal immigration crackdown that has routinely violated the constitutional rights of immigrants and citizens alike, as cities like Los Angeles, Chicago and Minneapolis have seen raids and mass protests. Andrea Schmitt, an attorney at Columbia Legal Services, explained that the climate created by Trump’s immigration policies can have a chilling effect on people even being willing to exercise their legal rights.

“People who are documented and undocumented alike are all feeling extraordinarily nervous and affected by the immigration tactics this administration has undertaken,” Schmitt told Filter. “That’s because the admin has shown itself repeatedly not to care what your immigration status is, and to argue successfully it has the ability to racially profile and haul people away. They’ve kept people who are documented in detention for extended periods, which can be life-ruining. There is a wide-reaching psychological effect on the immigrant community.”

“It’s so foundational to get to know your neighbors … Find out who is in need of support, and who can offer it.”

Although states and cities have little power to affect immigration policy, which is largely the domain of the federal government, advocates are working towards other legal reforms in Washington State. Senna Seniuk, policy director of the  Washington Immigrant Solidary Network (WAISN), said that immigration advocates are strengthening their relationships with labor unions and other workplace organizers, finding common cause in seeking more comprehensive rights for all workers, regardless of their citizenship status.

Advocates notched another win in March, as Senuik explained. “Some of the other legislation we’ve previously sponsored are the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights, which are basic workplace protections for nannies, cleaners, gardeners, who are typically left out of labor protections in other industries,” she told Filter. “Immigrant community members are working across industries across the state and country, so it’s essential we have these strong relationships with workers’ rights and labor unions to promote shared safety and wellbeing of all workers.” That bill was signed into law by Gov. Ferguson on March 9.

Seniuk emphasized that while it’s important to lobby for state and local legislation to protect rights, it’s equally vital that everyone become involved in protecting their communities on the front end from ICE and other federal enforcement actions.

“It’s so foundational to get to know your neighbors, whether they’re living or working there,” she said. “We’ve seen in Minneapolis, individual streets organizing chats to respond to enforcement. Find out who is in need of support, and who can offer it.”

Photograph via NARA & DVIDS Public Domain Archive

The post WA Adopts Immigrant Worker Protections, Pushing Back Against Feds appeared first on Filter.

The majority decision was reached on October 24 in the case, R. v Wilson. In September 2020, Paul Wilson pulled over his truck in rural Saskatchewan to report the overdose of a woman, Cheryl Delorme, on the side of the road. After an ambulance had stabilized Delorme, Constable Heidi Jo Marshall of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrived on the scene and arrested Wilson, Delorme and two others.

Following the arrest, Wilson’s truck was searched and according to court submissions from prosecutors, weapons, ammunition, drugs and “drug-trafficking tools” were found by police.

“It sounds very simple, but there’s been a lot of debate about whether or not someone can be arrested because the legislation says you can’t be charged or convicted,” DJ Larkin, executive director of the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition (CDPC), told Filter of the decision. “Supreme Court judgments apply nationally, so now the most important thing is to get the message out so people understand they should be safe from arrest for simple possession [when] saving a life.”

“Even though someone can’t be charged or convicted, some police were still arresting people based on suspicion of simple possession,” they added.

Larkin explained that though Wilson was charged with possession with the purpose of trafficking and other firearm-related charges, the issue, “is that it all started with arresting him because he was at the scene of an overdose, which according to police was sufficient to give them suspicion that he was in possession of drugs for personal use.”

Larkin said the interveners argued there were three core principles that the court needed to employ in its analysis.

Larkin and the CDPC were among a host of interveners in the case, alongside the Association des intervenants en dépendance du Québec and Harm Reduction Nurses Association.

Larkin said the interveners argued there were three core principles that the court needed to employ in its analysis. The first being that any public health-related legislation, especially the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, has to be interpreted through the lens of reducing harm. “You have to interpret this legislation to prevent injury, reduce harm and save lives—and [the court] said that very clearly.”

“Second, we argued that you need to make it simple,” Larkin said. “No one who is trying to call 911 while saving a life should need a law degree to understand what their risk is.”

Third, assumptions regarding the benefit to public safety during arrests and drug seizures during overdose response needed to be tested, Larkin said. “The courts said that essentially we need to prioritize the significant public health benefit of encouraging people to call 911 over the remote possibility of a public safety benefit of arresting and searching someone.”

The arguments that law enforcement made in R. v Wilson relied heavily on this supposed possibility, Larkin said. “That’s based on the hypothesis that if you seize someone’s drugs, making drugs less available somehow has a safety benefit. There’s considerable academic research indicating that the opposite is true.”

Several studies and government reports have found that drug seizures are associated with increased risk of overdose, prevent people from accessing life-saving services or calling emergency services during overdoses, and increase harm to people who use drugs.

“The last argument [made by law enforcement and federal prosecutors] was that it would overly limit officers’ ability to do investigations for their own safety,” Larkin said. But if someone pulls a knife out, say, at the scene of a medical emergency, officers always have the power to arrest someone on the basis that they reasonably believe that their safety is in danger. “That hasn’t changed.”

“We need to be able to send a really clear message to young people … otherwise they might be too scared to call.”

To Larkin, this decision is particularly important for youth. “We need to be able to send a really clear message to young people who have a friend who might be using [drugs] for the first time … they need to know immediately that they’re not going to get in trouble because otherwise they might be too scared to call.”

They added that for those who have historically been more likely to have negative interactions with law enforcement—people who lack housing, Indigenous, Black and other racialized people—it signals that police in these instances are expected to provide a medical response, not a punitive one.

Corey Ranger, a British Columbia nurse and president of the Harm Reduction Nurses Association, said it’s incredibly important that communities know that they have legal protection if they stay at the scene of an overdose.

“It’s not just about fatal overdoses,” he told Filter, “but it’s about the visible and irreparable harm that’s happening to people when they’re not getting timely rescue breathing, naloxone administration or someone to stay with them to monitor for secondary overdose.”

A recent study showed that people who experience toxic drug events are 19.5 times more likely to have encephalopathy or an acquired brain injury than the general population. “What we know now is that because of the unpredictability of the drug supply that is now also saturated with benzodiazepines, animal tranquilizers and fentanyl, the risk for hypoxic and toxic brain injury has gone up so high in British Columbia,” Ranger said.

Harm reduction proponents have “a lot of work ahead of us to prevent this very harmful, regressive policy backslide that’s happening across the entire country.”

But he noted that while the Supreme Court of Canada decision is “extremely positive,” harm reduction proponents also have, “a lot of work ahead of us to prevent this very harmful, regressive policy backslide that’s happening across the entire country.”

Municipalities, provinces and even the federal government have backtracked significantly in recent years on progressive drug policies. For instance, Bill C-2, the Stronger Borders Act, is a largely interdiction-focused bill that expands police powers and border security measures—ostensibly aimed at reducing the trafficking of fentanyl across borders, following pressure from the Trump administration. This, Ranger said, will only increase the volatility of the drug market.

Several provinces have either considered or already moved to expand involuntary drug treatment legislation. Involuntary treatment as an intervention has limited evidence to support its effectiveness at encouraging abstinence among people who use drugs. Several studies have pointed to links between involuntary drug treatment and increased risk of overdose.

Prescription-based safe supply programs in British Columbia have also been significantly curbed in the past year. And Toronto has closed down overdose prevention sites, while prohibiting the distribution of safe supply and other harm reduction supplies at its new provincially-funded health centers. The provincial government of Saskatchewan, meanwhile, has not only restricted syringe service programs, but released legislation in the spring that would classify fentanyl, methamphetamine and hypodermic needles as “street weapons.”

“Politicians need to do better, and this court case is really, really clear on that.”

“Nothing is being done from an evidence-based standpoint across all levels of government,” Ranger said.

Asked what has been driving the shift away from harm reduction-oriented policies, Larkin and Ranger agree that much of what we’re seeing is a result of misinformation and politicized ideological shifts. 

“People who are getting clicks and likes online and [we have] a reactive government that is responding to the moral panic to avoid getting voted out … so we have policymakers with extremely liberal backgrounds doing extremely conservative things to retain their position of power,” Ranger said.

“The only thing we can do to fix this is really advocate that our policymakers … start being more truthful with us,” Larkin added. “Poltical messaging influences public opinion and then public opinion influences policy. And that is why we’re seeing steps away from evidence-based policy.”

How significant, then, is the new Supreme Court ruling in this national context?

“It has to be a win,” Larkin said. “Having the Supreme Court without caveat, without limitations, say, ‘You will not get arrested for drug possession, please call 911,’ is really important … Politicians need to do better, and this court case is really, really clear on that.”

Photograph of Supreme Court of Canada by Jamie McCaffrey via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 2.0

The post Landmark Ruling Fortifies Canada’s “Good Samaritan” Overdose Law appeared first on Filter.

The FBI data contain glaring inconsistencies and uncertainties, and experts have differing views on whether certain numbers are likely to be over- or underreported. When 2024 was the last year of the Biden administration, there are also questions and fears about what the trajectory will look like under President Donald Trump.

The Uniform Crime Report covers arrests and charges across numerous categories, based on incomplete reporting from many different law enforcement agencies. The 2024 edition shows a total of about 748,000 US arrests for drug possession (down about 7 percent on 2023).

Of that number, about 27 percent—just under 204,000—were classified as marijuana possession arrests. Meanwhile, about 17 percent—almost 132,000—were classified in the weirdly mixed category of “opium/cocaine possession.”

But nearly half—48 percent—of all drug possession arrests were defined even more vaguely, as “other dangerous nonnarcotic drug possession.” That’s almost 340,000 drug arrests for which we have no useful information. (The FBI offers the examples of barbiturates and benzedrine, but it’s highly improbable that they account for most of those arrests.)

A massive 44 percent of all drug sale and manufacturing arrests were classified under “unspecified” or “other nonnarcotic” substances.

Then there were over 45,000 arrests for “synthetic narcotic possession,” and 27,000 more recorded in the vaguest category of “unspecified drug possession.”

Similar problems arise when we look at “drug sale and manufacturing” arrests. The FBI counts a total of roughly 109,000 such arrests (down about 7.6 percent on 2023).

The largest subcategory with named drugs, at 33 percent of the total (36,500 arrests) is “opium/cocaine sale/manufacturing.” Marijuana represents 16 percent (close to 18,000 arrests), and there were about 6,500 arrests recorded for “synthetic narcotic sale/manufacturing.”

But a massive 44 percent of all drug sale and manufacturing arrests were classified under “unspecified” or “other nonnarcotic” substances.

There were an additional 43,000 arrests for so-called “drug abuse violations.” The FBI defines these charges as related to production, distribution and use of certain controlled substances, but it’s unclear what distinguishes them from the other categories.

None of this inspires any confidence in the statistics, but for what it’s worth, the report also gives some demographic breakdowns. It shows that marijuana possession arrests continue to grossly target Black people, who made up 42 percent of the recorded arrests—even though a small majority (52 percent) were of white people. Men were also disproportionately arrested (75 percent), and men aged 25-29 made up a disproportionate 16 percent of the recorded total.

There were broadly similar patterns for “opium/cocaine possession,” where 63 percent of recorded arrests were of white people, and 32 percent of Black people. Men aged 30-34 represented 17 percent of arrests.

The ratio for the smaller category of “synthetic narcotic possession” was 21 percent Black and 71 percent white. The large category of “other dangerous nonnarcotic drug possession” showed 76 percent of arrests being of white people—though Black people were still overrepresented compared to population size, at 17 percent.

Marijuna arrests—particularly those for possession—continue to dominate in states that haven’t legalized.

Analysis of the data by the advocacy group NORML showed how state-level legalization has contributed to national decreases in marijuana arrests.

“Nationwide, that percentage [of overall drug arrests] is being driven down by legal jurisdictions [where we] see very few low-level marijuana possession arrests taking place,” Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, told Filter.

But marijuna arrests—particularly those for possession—continue to dominate in states that haven’t legalized.

NORML showed, for instance, that 98 percent of the 27,300 marijuana arrests in Texas were for possession alone. Meanwhile nearly half of all drug arrests in Indiana were for marijuana—of which 96 percent were for possession. In states from Alabama (98 percent) to Wisconsin (95 percent) possession cases made up the vast bulk of thousands of total marijuana arrests.

NORML has also noted historic decreases in marijuana arrests over the years—they peaked in 2007, at over 870,000. But today’s reality of hundreds of thousands of arrests continuing in many parts of the country, even as a legal trade thrives elsewhere, leaves a bitter taste.

State legalization makes a big difference. “When you legalize adult-use marijuana markets, you see a precipitous decline in arrests, and that includes all types of marijuana arrests,” Armentano said. “Possession arrests fall the most, but you see declines overall.”

“We’re seeing ‘justice by geography.”

Jason Ortiz, director of strategic initiatives at the Last Prisoner Project, also reflected on regional imbalances.

“We’ve seen over the years that most of the South and the [inland] Northwest continue to arrest people at ridiculous rates,” he told Filter. “We have states like Idaho that have made their cannabis laws more punitive. “We’re seeing ‘justice by geography,’ where you have half the country in states that have reduced arrests dramatically and others that have kept their laws as severe or even [made them worse].”

While the FBI’s headline numbers are already vague and confusing, Marijuana Moment points out further contradictions within the data: Different tables in the report give four conflicting numbers for “drug abuse violations” and “drug/narcotic offenses,” with totals ranging from 822,000 up to 1.8 million. Such absurd variations go far beyond rounding errors.

The FBI is additionally limited by the voluntary participation of state and local law enforcement agencies. If any police departments choose not to report to the FBI for whatever reason, that creates another blind spot in the arrest data. Police in Florida, for instance, have historically had very low participation rates, and the same goes for the likes of Illinois, Louisiana, Hawaii and West Virginia. In 2022, the only states where at least 90 percent of police agencies reported to the FBI were California, Oklahoma and Rhode Island.

“The biggest problem is a number of local law enforcement don’t report either their entire data sets, or at all,” Armentano said. “The numbers you see are always estimates—the FBI has to try to account for gaps in the data. That’s always been the case.”

There are different interpretations of the likely relationship between the FBI marijuana numbers and reality.

Advocates have also found flagrant errors in how local police agencies report marijuana arrests to the FBI, as Marijuna Moment noted and as Filter previously reported. In 2022, Eric Sterling, a policing advisory commission member in Montgomery County, Maryland, filed a complaint to the federal Department of Justice, calling for an investigation.

Sterling found that police departments in jurisdictions where marijuana was decriminalized were reporting civil violations as criminal arrests. Despite his filing, the DOJ ultimately seems to have done nothing about it.

There are different interpretations of the likely relationship between the FBI marijuana numbers and reality. Ortiz suspects police are encouraged to inflate their marijuana-arrests reporting, when it’s the most widely used federally banned substance and they have budgets to protect.

“There are a few perverse incentives for police to report higher-than-accurate numbers, because they need to justify their budgets,” Ortiz said. “If we were to reflect the actually very low need for cannabis enforcement, that means police would have to cut their budgets. There is incentive to show they are out there arresting and locking people up.”

Armentano sees it a bit differently, however, believing that cops are incentivized to under-publicize marijuana arrests, because of how widespread support for legalization has become, and in order to avoid criticism and negative attention. If his theory is correct, it might help explain what some of the “unspecified” and “other” drug arrests really are, as well as some of the non-reporting.

“It’s been in their best interests to hide the ball,” Armentano said. “They recognize that arresting individuals for possessing small amounts of marijuana is very unpopular. It doesn’t [benefit] them to show that in some jurisdictions, police continue to make tens of thousands of arrests for minor possession. We’ve had police make the argument for years that ‘no one gets arrested for marijuana anymore.’ So there’s no interest in broadcasting the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are being arrested.”

He doesn’t discount the constrasting incentives identified by Ortiz, however. “Perhaps internally they might promote those [marijuana] numbers to other agencies [or politicians with] the ability to siphon more money to their budgets.”

Ortiz worries about the convergence of the drug war with the Trump administration’s war on immigrants.

As the first year of Trump‘s second term draws to a close, how will his priorities and policies affect drug arrest totals for 2025 and beyond? While President Joe Biden initiated a process to move marijuana from Schedule I to III—and Trump endorsed the idea while campaigning—the Trump administration has taken no action yet to actually do it.

But Armentano suspects the administration will have minimal impact on local drug policing. “I don’t think federal policy particularly drives state and local marijuana arrests,” he said. “I think the trends we’ve seen—a significant decline followed by a steady decline—will continue.”

Cause for optimism, he added, is that even in states that haven’t legalized marijuana, like Georgia, Florida, Texas and Pennsylvania, cities and towns are increasingly pursuing local decriminalization policies that cut marijuana arrest rates.

But Ortiz worries about the convergence of the drug war with the Trump administration’s war on immigrants. Regardless of what’s happening with local police agencies when it comes to marijuana arrests, he noted that ICE and other federal agencies are using marijuana and other substances to go after immigrants.

“We’re in a scary place,” he said. “It’s clear the Trump admin has no interest in rescheduling or reducing criminal penalties for cannabis. I have tried my best to reach out to Republicans, and it has not been fruitful. There clearly was a memo or decision to tell other Republicans in Congress to not work on cannabis reform—it seems to be coming directly from guys like [White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor] Stephen Miller. They see the drug and crime issue as a way to deport more Latinos.”

“I think we’re seeing they’re going to use the war on cannabis as another vehicle for deportations, and will see ICE arresting and deporting people, more so than local police,” he said. “Right now is a time when the cannabis space and those who care about our undocumented communities can find an alliance together and resist this use of drug policy to further enforce immigration law.”

Screenshot via the Federal Bureau of Investigation

Correction, October 24: This article has been edited to more accurately reflect Paul Armentano’s comments about the potential incentive for police to under-publicize marijuana arrests.

The post What the Latest Chaotic FBI Data Say About US Drug Arrests appeared first on Filter.

The eight month-long investigation was coordinated by the AG’s Organized Crime Task Force and was part of the Suburban and Upstate Response to the Growing Epidemic Initiative (SURGE). Since 2017, SURGE has led to the arrests of 1,008 alleged traffickers. 

When announcing the seized fentanyl in a press release, James relied on tired drug-scare tactics, stating, “23 pounds of fentanyl is enough to kill one New Yorker every six seconds for an entire year.” The statistic was repeated by journalists.

This would mean that 5,256,000 people would fatally overdose after consuming roughly 2 milligrams of fentanyl each—the lethal amount reported by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). On its website, the DEA depicts the drug’s lethality with a photo of a small amount of fentanyl placed on a pencil tip. 

The truth is that many other factors besides dosage—including a person’s tolerance, biology and route of ingestion, their proximity to harm reduction resources and the nature of any adulterants in the substance they use—all play a role in determining whether or not 2 mg of fentanyl proves fatal.

The message is clear: Fentanyl produces “mass destruction,” and large-scale arrests make our communities “safer.”

Certainly, fentanyl overdoses are deadly; in 2024, fentanyl was involved in almost 90 percent of fatal opioid overdoses across New York State. Yet James’ statistic is more rhetoric than reality: It presumes an inherent dangerousness within fentanyl that puts the public, and New Yorkers in particular, at risk. Drug arrests, the logic follows, save lives.

Onondaga County Sheriff Tobias Shelley (D) echoed this sentiment in the press release. Praising the “collaboration between local and state law enforcement,” he claimed: “Taking these dangerous drugs and weapons off the streets will save lives and make our neighborhoods safer. The individuals charged today were trafficking quantities of fentanyl capable of mass destruction, and their arrests send a clear message that we will not tolerate this.” 

Syracuse Police Chief Joseph Cecile added, “I want to thank the Attorney General’s office, and all our law enforcement partners throughout the state for always being willing to collaborate to make our communities safer.”

The message is clear: Fentanyl produces “mass destruction,” and large-scale arrests make our neighborhoods and communities “safer.”

But massive drug sweeps—enabled and incentivized by our drug policies—are frequently deadly.

As drug policy scholars have long known, prohibition incentivizes people in the drug trade to transport compact, potent substances to avoid detection; this has been referred to as the “iron law of prohibition.” “[T]he harder the enforcement, the harder the drugs,” economist Richard Cowan put it when coining the term.

Arresting people who sell drugs also forces buyers to navigate an unpredictable market as new sellers fill the gap. Research has indicated that local overdose mortality increases in the immediate aftermath of a drug bust.

Simply put, when drug raids happen, communities become less safe. Drug-war policies, to adopt the Sheriff’s terminology, are capable of mass destruction.

I interviewed people who use drugs when researching the opioid-involved overdose crisis and mass policing, surveillance and incarceration in New York’s Southern Tier. Nate (a pseudonym) shared that, after Operation Get Money in Binghamton, which resulted in the arrests of seven people and the seizure of 2,700 bags of heroin in 2016, consumers started “tapping bags” with fentanyl. 

“Everyone was panicking,” he told me. “People were tapping bags, because they didn’t have the real stuff anymore…They had to get something to recoup, and they didn’t know what else, so everybody started going to the black market [the internet], getting fentanyl, and cutting it. Boom, everybody’s dying… ‘cause everything is gone. It was like a frantic running around trying to figure out what to do.”

Prioritizing drug arrests over health care and harm reduction services puts consumers at additional risk of drug-related illness, injury and death. People are forced to inject quickly in public spaces to reduce the risk of being arrested, and many must do so with drugs that have untested potencies and compositions. 

Overdose prevention centers, syringe service programs and accessible drug-checking strips not only humanize people who use drugs but reduce fatal overdoses. Yet such programs’ budgets are dwarfed by police budgets, despite the fact that drug sweeps counteract New York’s stated commitment to harm reduction.  

Simply put, when drug raids happen, communities become less safe. Drug-war policies, to adopt the Onondaga Sheriff’s terminology, are capable of mass destruction: They put consumers at increased risk of overdose; make people who sell drugs out to be monsters in need of swift punishment; and engender a vengeance-seeking public caught in a cycle of retributive violence. 

If New York aims to prioritize accessible health care and harm reduction services, then the state needs to disinvest in drug-war policing. Only then can the staggering overdose rate truly be addressed.  

Drug enforcement is not complimentary to harm reduction; it is contradictory to it.

Photograph via the Drug Enforcement Administration

The post New York Attorney General Uses Scare Tactics to Publicize Fentanyl Busts appeared first on Filter.

The District Court of Appeal of Florida Second District on October 1 issued an opinion, authored by Judge Nelly Khouzam, overturning a lower court decision that upheld the “plain smell doctrine” that has long permitted cannabis odor to be used as a pretext for vehicle searches.

The policy was challenged in district court after a man had his probation revoked when police pulled over a car he was in, claimed to smell marijuana, forced the occupants to exit the vehicle to conduct a search and discovered cannabis and pills.

While it might have made sense in the past to use cannabis odor as a pretext for a search when it was strictly prohibited, the state’s laws have “fundamentally” changed, the appellate court said, referencing the legalization of hemp and medical marijuana in Florida.

“The plain smell doctrine can no longer establish probable cause based solely on the odor of cannabis.”

“For generations, cannabis was illegal in all forms—thereby rendering its distinct odor immediately indicative of criminal activity. But several legislative amendments over the years have fundamentally changed its definition and regulation,” it said. “The cumulative result is that cannabis is now legal to possess in multiple forms, depending on discrete characteristics such as where it was procured or its chemical concentration by weight.”

“We are obligated under well-established constitutional principles to give meaning and effect to the legislature’s significant amendments to cannabis regulation,” said the opinion, first reported by News Service of Florida.

“In light of significant legislative amendments to the definition and regulation of cannabis, its mere odor can no longer establish that it is ‘immediately apparent’ that the substance is contraband,” it continued. “Accordingly, the plain smell doctrine can no longer establish probable cause based solely on the odor of cannabis. Rather, we now align the Fourth Amendment analysis for cannabis with the test that applies to other suspected contraband, such that its odor is a valid factor to be considered along with all others under the totality of the circumstances.”

The court also said the issue is a question of “great public importance” for the Florida Supreme Court to look at and eventually resolve.

Cannabis reform enjoys majority support in Florida, according to multiple polls that led up to a 2024 vote on an adult-use legalization ballot initiative. It ultimately fell short of the steep 60 percent threshold for passage, and part of the opposition came from the Florida Police Chiefs Association (FPCA) and the Florida Sheriffs Association (FSA).

Nationwide, courts and lawmakers have grappled with how to revise policing policies to comply with laws permitting cannabis.

Amid the nationwide state-level legalization movement, courts and lawmakers have grappled with how to revise policing policies to comply with laws permitting cannabis for medical or recreational use.

In June, for example, Chicago police officials announced an update to city law enforcement guidance to discourage officers from searching vehicles based merely on the smell of raw, unburnt marijuana.

The revised policy came amid efforts to respond to a state Supreme Court ruling in late 2024 that said police are justified in searching a vehicle if they smell raw marijuana. Advocates and some lawmakers say the ruling is incongruous with a separate high court decision a few months earlier that found the smell of burnt cannabis was insufficient cause to search a vehicle.

In May, a House committee in Illinois had an initial hearing on a Senate-passed bill that would clarify that police may not stop or detain drivers, or search their vehicles, based solely on the smell of cannabis.

Critics of the use of marijuana odor as probable cause for vehicle stops and searches argue that that police disproportionately enforce drug laws against Black and other people of color, and allowing stops based on the claimed smell of cannabis could increase enforcement bias.

A number of other states have passed laws around the smell-of-cannabis justification of police searches. Prior to legalization taking effect in Maryland, for example, Governor Wes Moore (D) allowed a bill to become law that prevents police from using the odor or possession of cannabis alone as the basis of a search. GOP lawmakers unsuccessfully attempted to reverse that policy.

The Minnesota Supreme Court also ruled in 2024 that police can’t use the smell of cannabis alone to justify vehicle searches—a ruling that has since been codified by the legislature and signed into law by Gov. Tim Walz (D).

And in New York in May, Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) signed a budget bill into law that notably does not include a controversial marijuana provision she proposed, which would have allowed police to use the smell of marijuana as probable cause that a driver is impaired and then force them to take a drug test.

Amendments by lawmakers removed the provision, which a coalition of 60 reform groups had argued in a letter to Hochul and top lawmakers would “repeat some of the worst harms of the War on Drugs” and allow law enforcement to “restart unconstitutional racial profiling of drivers.”

Photograph by Rusty Clark via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 2.0

This story was originally published by Marijuana Moment, which tracks the politics and policy of cannabis and drugs. Follow Marijuana Moment on X and Facebook, and sign up for its newsletter.

The post Florida Court: Vehicle Searches Based on Marijuana Odor Alone Are Illegal appeared first on Filter.

“This is one city block,” he said of the neighborhood where an ICE detention Center is located, the site of peaceful protests. “The city of Portland is 145 square miles. And even the events that are happening down there do not rise to the level of attention that they are receiving.”

Trump begs to differ. “I am directing Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to provide all necessary Troops to protect War ravaged Portland, and any of our ICE Facilities under siege from attack by Antifa, and other domestic terrorists,” he wrote in a September 27 Truth Social post. He added, chillingly, that he’s “authorizing Full Force, if necessary.”

Annie Hood, a psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner, drives by the protest every day on her way to work. “The ICE protests have been focused now in a pretty discreet part of the South waterfront,” Hood told Filter. She said she’d read somewhere that Trump had decided the ICE protests warrant a military crackdown after seeing footage of 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. “He got confused, perhaps.”

“Sending in 200 National Guard troops to guard a single building is not normal.”

Governor Tina Kotek (D) and 17 mayors from across Oregon, including Portland Mayor Keith Wilson (D), have denounced Trump’s order, which would station 200 troops in the city. Trump claimed in an October 1 social media post that that troops were already “in place” there—a claim swiftly refuted by local reporting, with indications that it could take several more days.

The state and city have meanwhile filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. 

“Oregon communities are stable, and our local officials have been clear: We have the capacity to manage public safety without federal interference,” Attorney General Rayfield said in announcing the suit on September 28. “Sending in 200 National Guard troops to guard a single building is not normal. If you had a concern about safety at your own home, you’d make a few calls and fill the gaps —not call in an army.”

Rayfield observed there might be more at play than deep-seated concern for the wellbeing of Portland’s residents. “What we’re seeing is not about public safety, it’s about the President flexing political muscle under the guise of law and order, chasing a media hit at the expense of our community.”

Hood, who has long worked with vulnerable populations, is nervous about what a National Guard deployment would mean for unhoused people and people who use drugs in Portland, for whom the environment has already worsened.

“Oregon has been a complicated place to be unhoused in the past few years,” she said. “Recriminalization has led to a focus on liveability crimes.” 

“Any time you have more policing, vulnerable people are impacted first,” Hood added.

“This approach is a weaponization of law enforcement against people in crisis.”

Dr. Phillip Atiba Solomon, co-founder and CEO of the Center for Policing Equity, agrees that Trump’s militarized campaigns create the opposite of “public safety,” especially for marginalized groups. 

“These continued actions by the Trump Administration, despite decreasing rates of crime, nullify the will of voters and local elected officials,” he told Filter. “It replaces local accountability with a system of federal force, escalating conflict and endangering the very communities and officers it claims to protect.”

“Furthemore, this approach is a weaponization of law enforcement against people in crisis,” Solomon continued. “These deployments will harm housing-insecure people, as well as those suffering from mental health issues, treating them as enemies to be eradicated from society, rather than neighbors in need of support and care. Make no mistake, this is the politics of division and domination, not that of safety.”

In June, over the fervent objections of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), the Trump administration sent troops to Los Angeles, where they hassled protestors and unhoused people, and held something resembling a military parade in a park.

In August, federal agents and National Guard troops were deployed to Washington, DC—where they busted people for open alcohol containers and marijuana use, clogged federal courts with low-level cases, and spooked residents enough to empty restaurants and bars.

Trump next threatened Chicago, among other cities, but first opted for Memphis, Tennessee, since he finally managed to find a welcoming local official: Gov. Bill Lee (R). Harm reduction activists in Memphis have drafted survival guides for the vulnerable people most likely to be targeted. Federal officers began making arrests there on September 30.

“It’s a war from within.”

All signs point to Trump further ramping up his campaign against blue cities.

In an unprecedented address to 800 top military officials on September 30, summoned from around the world by “Secretary of War” Hegseth, Trump made an ominous declaration about the military’s future role in US cities.

“The ones that are run by the radical left Democrats—what they’ve done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles—they’re very unsafe places and we’re gonna straighten them out one by one,” he said, to the largely silent auditorium.

“And this is gonna be a major part for some of the people in this room. That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.”

Photograph via Picryl

The post Confusion and Anger in Portland Over Trump Troop Deployment appeared first on Filter.

Memphis harm reductionists are now preparing, working to advise marginalized people in anticipation of a damaging impact.

Trump’s move had been advertised. He recently made similar threats to Chicago—which have been withdrawn for now—and previously deployed troops in Los Angeles and Washington, DC. Those deployments have prompted shock and fear, as well as scrutiny of the supposed justifications and the outcomes.

California Governor Gavin Newsom and local officials were livid when Trump sent National Guard troops and marines to Los Angeles in June to quell pro-immigration protests (and put on a military parade in a park). That deployment ended in July.

If DC’s ongoing situation is any guide, we have a pretty good idea of what the Memphis outcomes might be.

After Trump federalized law enforcement in DC, deploying troops there in August, residents protested or stayed home, leaving businesses empty. A federal agent was hit by a Subway sandwich. “I did it. I threw a sandwich,” confessed Sean Charles Dunn, a former DOJ employee, thus freeing the federal government’s investigative apparatus to concentrate on people drinking beer or smoking weed.

It’s currently unclear exactly what the Memphis deployment will consist of—though it’s likely to involve National Guard troops from other states—or when it will begin. But if DC’s ongoing situation is any guide, we have a pretty good idea of what the outcomes might be.

In mid-September, the Washington Post analyzed 1,273 arrest records, more than a third conducted by federal officials (they didn’t count immigration arrests). One in four arrests were arrested for firearms, even though Trump calls the Second Amendment “an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty.” The gun seizures included a search so illegal the judge berated federal officials from the stand; agents had stopped a young Black man after they saw him tug at his backpack.

The second most common type of arrest by federal officers—one in seven—was for low-level incidents like people drinking alcohol in public or smoking marijuana. They were overwhelmingly young Black men, the Post reported.

While Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) has welcomed the prospect of militarized federal encroachment in Memphis, local leaders beg to differ. “I’m certainly not happy,” said Mayor Paul Young (D).

Those working with people who are marginalized, unhoused and use drugs are more than “not happy.” They’re afraid.

“We know that this National Guard deployment is supposedly to ‘combat crime,’ which often means targeting unhoused people or other ‘undesirables,’ including people who use drugs.”

Dr. Paige Lemen is co-founder of 901 Harm Reduction, a Memphis-based group providing supplies and resources for people who use drugs. In June, as Filter previously reported, Lemen herself was arrested, and described how she had been transporting a drug sample for lab testing. She now fears the city’s most vulnerable will be increasingly threatened.

“We’re concerned because we know that this National Guard deployment is supposedly to ‘combat crime,’ which often means targeting unhoused people or other ‘undesirables,’ including people who use drugs,” Lemen told Filter.

She noted a glaring double standard around drug use. “Everyone uses drugs, and most people use safely in their home and don’t use it chaotically or in a way that develops a substance use disorder. But people who are unhoused can’t use it in the privacy of their own home.”

This visibility of drug users who are also in survival mode on the street, together with behaviors resulting from common mental health issues, makes them easy targets for law enforcement, Leman added.

The group has created a survival guide to be distributed to people in Memphis ahead of the deployment, including as wallet cards and flyers. They remind residents about the doublespeak authorities use to detain people for activities that aren’t against the law. The arrests may not stand up in court. But even a few days in jail can wreak havoc on a person’s mental health and life, as Lemen knows.

“Police often use vague pretexts—’public intoxication,’ ‘disorderly conduct,’ or ‘loitering’—to justify detention/arrest of people who are unhoused, neurodivergent, or disabled,” the guide reads. “These arrests are often discriminatory and can be challenged in court, but the person still suffers the arrest, jail, and record in the meantime.”

It’s against the law to arrest someone just because they are thought to be experiencing substance use disorder, the guide notes. “But if police claim to see an “act” (e.g., holding a pipe, nodding off in public, or appearing intoxicated), they often use that as grounds for charges, even when weak or discriminatory.” 

The guide warns that, “Even sterile syringes and safer use supplies can be treated as ‘drug paraphernalia’ if police decide to. Always frame them as public health tools.”

The guide advises people to stay calm if they’re stopped by officers, and to remember that they have the right to remain silent. If officers demand to see identification documents, which many unhoused people lack, the guide’s advice is to respond: “I am not required by law to carry ID. Under Tennessee law, I only need to verbally state my name and address, and only if that information is known, if I’m lawfully detained.”

The guide further warns that, “Even sterile syringes and safer use supplies can be treated as ‘drug paraphernalia’ if police decide to. Always frame them as public health tools.” It suggests saying: “These are harm reduction supplies to prevent overdose and disease and were acquired.”

If officers tell someone they’re not free to leave, they have the right to ask why. “If you’re detained or arrested, ask for a lawyer and remain silent,” the guide states. It also reminds people that they should never sign anything they don’t fully understand.

Lemen said that 901 Harm Reduction’s guide will be updated in real time, based on developments on the ground.

Based on what’s happened in LA and DC, they’re bracing themselves.

“After witnessing the results and consequences of this Military force in those cities, we’ve learned that this was NOT about ‘combating crime,’ the guide states. “Instead, the National Guard has targeted, harassed, and arrested unhoused community members, people with past criminal records & records of drug use in MASS numbers!”

Image via the White House

The post Memphis Harm Reductionists Create Survival Guide for Trump Crackdown appeared first on Filter.

The Baltimore City Council Public Safety Committee’s September 9 hearing involved little discussion of harm reduction—even though it was advertised as a top issue on the meeting’s agenda. Instead, it immediately devolved into back-and-forths on how to further crack down on “open-air drug markets,” with police boasting “significant” increases in drug-related arrests.

Though some city council members argued their efforts didn’t go far enough, police officials insisted the city’s drug-war policing has intensified.

“The way we get to the dealers is by arresting the users. There’s no way around it.”

“We want to ultimately get to the supplier of drugs,” Commissioner Richard Worley said. “The way we get to the supplier of drugs is by arresting dealers. The way we get to the dealers is by arresting the users. There’s no way around it.”

The strategy depicted by Worley runs contrary to a consensus among public health experts and harm reduction advocates. For decades, they’ve warned that targeting drug users is futile and potentially deadly.

City health officials have echoed those sentiments, and even the commissioner seemed to undermine his plan when he admitted, “we’re not going to arrest our way out of” the city’s overdose crisis.

That didn’t stop police officials from touting an increase in drug arrests while lamenting the years under former State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby, who implemented a de facto decriminalization policy in 2020 that discouraged low-level drug arrests because the suspects wouldn’t be prosecuted.

There had been 1,450 drug-related arrests in 2025 as of August 30, a 16 percent increase on the equivalent period in 2024, according to data presented by police officials. The resulting charges included over 61 percent that were felonies, and 150 marijuana charges.

In June, a Baltimore Beat investigation found that drug charges plummeted over the last decade before ticking up under current State’s Attorney Ivan Bates, who scrapped Mosby’s nonprosecution policy. People arrested on drug charges are almost exclusively Black, as was the case with 92.5 percent of such arrests in 2024.

Baltimore’s Black community has also been hit hardest by the overdose crisis, with rates among older Black men, in particular, at times doubling that of their white counterparts.

Police officials cited multiple strategies to crack down on drug markets at the hearing, including surveillance, plainclothes District Action Teams and the Group Violence Reduction Strategy. City officials have most frequently praised GVRS, describing it as a successful program connecting those at risk of violent crimes to social services. In practice, however, it has led to widespread drug busts under the guise of violence prevention.

Councilman Mark Conway (D), chair of the Public Safety Committee, called the police department’s plan “insufficient.”

Studies have shown that such drug enforcement strategies can increase overdose death rates by disrupting the drug supply and pushing drug users toward riskier sources. They have also been found in some cases to increase violence among those in the drug trade.

Although Worley called the department’s strategies “comprehensive,” Councilman Mark Conway (D), chair of the Public Safety Committee, was unsatisfied. Conway, who commandeered much of the hearing, called the department’s plan “insufficient.”

“We still need to tie our decisions to outcomes and determine whether or not they’re actually working,” he said. “And I don’t think they’re working yet.”

Councilman Mark Conway (left)

Conway, who has attempted to position himself as a leader in overdose crisis talks but has repeatedly demanded heavier-handed police action, called for a more detailed plan from the police to address drug markets and drug use—yet even he conceded the limited impact of arresting people who sell drugs.

“There will be 50 [people] behind them indefinitely until we figure out how to address the demand for drugs in that area,” he said, adding that he has demanded a comprehensive, written plan to tackle drug markets and drug use for nearly a year.

Despite the problematic nature of the city’s drug enforcement strategies and a nearly $613 million police budget, police officials also cited insufficient staffing and a need to recruit more officers for drug enforcement.

The hearing served as an illustration of the city’s ongoing inability to live up to promises to focus on compassionate care for people who use drugs.

Maryland Governor Wes Moore (D) and Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott (D) have just set out a joint plan to boost policing in the city.

On September 5, the leaders announced the reinstatement of a city-state policing partnership, the first such initiative since 2020. Maryland State Police and Maryland Transportation Authority Police will now be on call to deploy to the city if requested by local police, including for drug enforcement.

“Both agencies have pledged their full support, in partnership with other local and state resources, to prevent and investigate crime and if needed, to assist with the response to calls for service in Baltimore,” state police spokesperson Elena Russo told Filter.

The announcement came amid ongoing hostilities between the governor and President Donald Trump, who threatened to deploy the National Guard to Baltimore after signing an executive order that aimed to criminalize homelessness, ramp up forced institutionalization of those with mental illnesses and substance use disorders, and defund life-saving harm reduction programs.

Scott opposed this, citing historic drops in homicides and other crimes.

With its discussion of providing even more police resources, the hearing served as an illustration of the city’s ongoing inability to live up to promises to focus on compassionate care for people who use drugs.

It wasn’t until halfway through a hearing of over two hours that the subject moved on from enforcement.

In a shift in tone, Conway asserted the city must invest in neighborhoods and provide job training and other services for residents experiencing substance use disorder, noting the city already has agencies tasked with such programs.

He also questioned whether the city health department was taking the overdose crisis seriously enough, citing its struggles to curb overdose deaths during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“If this is the highest priority for the city, it’d be really hard to tell from the outside,” Conway said.

“Being arrested never helped me. We need peers. We need client-based care, we need to meet people where they are.”

In response to questions on how to address the crisis, Councilman Zac Blanchard (D) suggested that the city consider opening an overdose prevention center (OPC) in downtown’s Westside, allowing residents to use drugs under the supervision of medical professionals.

Local harm reduction organizations have long demanded the centers and, more recently, Councilman Ryan Dorsey (D) has become more vocal in his support.

Blanchard’s suggestion provided brief insight into what the city could do to ramp up its harm reduction infrastructure and utilize programs that are proven to save lives and connect people to vital services. The mayor, who has the authority to unilaterally permit OPC to open, has thus far resisted doing so.

That focus on compassionate care for those in need has been sorely missing, said Karl Green, a local harm reduction worker and member of the city’s Restitution Advisory Board who spoke during the hearing’s public comment period.

“Being arrested never helped me,” Green said. “Harm reduction peers and people that don’t necessarily work in recovery but have been through it and show you can overcome it and believe in you… I believe this has been missing. We need peers. We need client-based care, we need to meet people where they are.”

Photographs, including top photograph of Commissioner Richard Worley, by Logan Hullinger

The post Baltimore Overdose-Crisis Hearing Hosts Plan to Arrest More Drug Users appeared first on Filter.

NYC is number one in unregulated cigarette sales because it has the country’s highest tobacco taxes. A pack of 20 legal cigarettes costs $14.55 or more; state and city taxes total $6.85 per pack plus a $1.01 federal tax. The 500,000 New Yorkers who smoke don’t want to pay those exorbitant prices, and smugglers with vans crammed full of cigarette cartons are happy to supply the Big Apple with a cheaper alternative while making a tidy profit.

“Illicit trade and trafficking of cigarettes has been in New York City for a long time,” lead study author Kevin Schroth, JD, an associate professor at Rutgers School of Public Health, told Filter. “This illegal market is found around the world because disparities in pricing across boundaries result in opportunities for people to profit off of those differences.”

The illicit cigarettes are often sold at the same stores as legal ones, stashed away in compartments until a customer uses code phrases like “special price” to signal they want to buy the tax-free versions, according to Schroth.

This is another version of the so-called “balloon effect” familiar to veterans of the drug war.

The attempt to halt New York’s illegal cigarette trade started upstate over a decade ago. Native American reservations, with their tax-­exempt status to sell unstamped cigarettes, used to be the major supplier of untaxed cigarettes in NYC, as the study, published in the Tobacco Control journal, notes. In a 2011 crackdown, state authorities enforced a regulation capping the supply of untaxed cigarettes legally shipped to reservations. Excess cigarettes over that cap had to be taxed. That resulted in a switch in the sourcing of illicit cigarettes to Virginia.

This is another version of the so-called “balloon effect” familiar to veterans of the drug war. Enforcement efforts in one geographic area cause trafficking to simply relocate and emerge from a different area, merely displacing it while causing disruption and harm. Cigarettes may not be illegal, but taxation to the point of unaffordability has the effect, like prohibition, of creating illicit markets that are then targeted by law enforcement.

Cigarette trafficking patterns into NYC appear to have changed recently, according to the Rutgers researchers. Georgia, where the tax per pack is 37 cents, has now become the primary source of illicit cigarettes, and was the origin of 27.8 percent of the littered packs. Virginia, where the tax is 60 cents, is still in the game and made up 20.6 percent.

Out of 12 packs I picked up, eight had Georgia tax stamps and two had tax stamps from Virginia.

Walking around the South Bronx and Harlem, I tried collecting discarded packs myself. It’s notable that toxic cigarette litter, a major contributor to global plastic pollution, has not been the target of political attacks like discarded disposable vapes. Numerous countries have banned disposable vapes—low-barrier, safe alternatives to cigarettes—on the basis that they contaminate the environment.

Out of 12 packs I picked up, eight had Georgia tax stamps and two had tax stamps from Virginia. Ten were Newports, a menthol brand that made up over 43 percent of packs collected for the Rutgers study; almost 90 percent of Newport packs lacked NYC tax stamps. This is evidence that an attempt to ban menthol cigarettes will fail, as it has in Massachusetts. The researchers cautioned, “The role that menthol cigarettes, Newport in particular, play in illicit trade warrants attention as various levels of government consider bans.”

The study reports that the adult smoking rate in NYC declined from 14.3 percent in 2015 to 9.7 percent in 2022. “Even though the tax rates in New York City are high and the illicit market is very large, smoking rates have declined to a point where they are actually lower than smoking rates in the rest of New York State,” Schroth told Filter. “One of the things that we’re seeing is that New York City and State taxes are having a positive impact that’s consistent with their goal of reducing smoking rates and at the same time, the illicit market is providing an alternative for part of the population to avoid those high prices.”

But is the decline in smoking due to high taxes, or something else? Like thousands of people switching to safer nicotine products, such as vapes?

Deadly cigarettes are easy targets for politicians to tax more and more heavily. But many experts see these as regressive taxes, when the vast majority of people who continue to smoke are on low incomes. These “poor taxes” funnel massive amounts of money into state and federal coffers, while further impoverishing people who smoke.

Decades of drug-war history illustrate that punitive strategies don’t eradicate demand for popular drugs. What will work is allowing safer nicotine products to outcompete riskier ones.

The Rutgers study raises the issue of how to combat the illicit trade in cigarettes. The federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act contains a provision to enact a “track and trace” system. “It enables law enforcement to look at a pack and easily identify where it was first legally sold,” Schroth explained. “With a track and trace system, we can know which retailers are participating in that market. That information would be pretty useful for law enforcement.”

Involving law enforcement agents in tobacco control via tracking and tracing should be rejected in favor of a tobacco harm reduction approach. Decades of drug-war history illustrate that punitive strategies don’t eradicate demand for popular drugs. What will work is allowing safer nicotine products (SNP) to outcompete riskier ones—which they will do, rapidly, if they’re less expensive and promoted as 95 percent safer than smoking.

Making SNP like flavored vapes and nicotine pouches widely available at low or no cost to people who smoke would dramatically undercut the illicit cigarette market. The millions of dollars collected from cigarette excise taxes could subsidize SNP provision.

Instead, the New York State Department of Health in collaboration with the New York State Police has just gone full drug-war on the vape industry. On September 3, over a dozen people from all over the state were arrested and a total of 38 criminal charges for illegally shipping vaping products in violation of state law were filed against them.

Since 2020 it has been illegal to sell flavored vapes and to ship them to consumers and unlicensed businesses. But just as the illicit market for low-tax cigarettes is thriving, so is the illicit market for flavored vapes.

“Combustible cigarettes are the most dangerous consumer product in the history of the world. Getting people to move away from them can only be positive.” 

Governor Kathy Hochul (D), using the tried-and-true prohibition canard “the kids,” said: “These companies built their business models around breaking New York’s laws and targeting our kids—now, we’re holding them accountable. With the largest criminal vape enforcement operation in state history, New York is sending a message: if you sell vapor products in violation of our laws, you will face serious consequences.”

Actually, the “serious consequences” of the drug war on businesses that sell vapes is the real crime. Flavored nicotine vapes need to be viewed as a safe supply for people who quit smoking. Prohibition drives them back to cigarettes.

Schroth acknowledges the evidence that making a complete switch from combustible tobacco products to less harmful nicotine options like vapes brings health benefits. “Combustible cigarettes are the most dangerous consumer product in the history of the world,” he told Filter. “Getting people to move away from them can only be positive.” 

Photographs by Helen Redmond

The Influence Foundation, which operates Filter, has received unrestricted grants from Reynolds American, Inc., the parent company of the manufacturer of Newport cigarettes. Filter’s Editorial Independence Policy applies.

The post What New York’s Cigarette Litter Says About Tobacco Control appeared first on Filter.