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.

“My Administration is committed to expanding access to lifesaving resources and uplifting evidence-based harm reduction strategies to support sustained recovery for those affected by addiction,” Sherill told the New Jersey Monitor in March. “Real recovery means breaking dangerous cycles, removing people from harmful environments and triggers, and ensuring people have stable access to critical resources.”

“We cannot afford to lose momentum in New Jersey’s efforts to end overdose deaths,” she added. 

The battle over New Jersey harm reduction during Gov. Murphy’s tenure was exemplified by years-long efforts to shut down (and save) the South Jersey Aids Alliance syringe service program (SSP) in Atlantic City.

Partly in response to that situation, Murphy signed legislation in January 2022 that removed the requirement for municipalities to approve SSP, though they retained powers over their location. That bill also expanded harm reduction by paving the way for more SSP statewide, establishing overdose fatality review teams, and decriminalizing syringe possession while allowing for expungement of past convictions.

“The Sherrill administration has not yet signaled an appetite for this kind of [spending].”

Will Gov. Sherill accelerate that kind of progress? Her proposed fiscal year 2027 budget, released on March 10, doesn’t offer much cause for optimism, according to Marleina Ubel, senior policy analyst at New Jersey Policy Perspective. Ubel commented that the proposal gives few specific details about the governor’s harm reduction goals, but looks to maintain the funding from the previous fiscal year of $4.5 million.

For Ubel, maintaining the same funding is effectively a cut, when what’s needed is an increase. “Murphy made legalization, harm reduction, decriminalization and criminal justice a priority,” she told Filter. “He did not shy away from these issues. He was a proponent of supervised injection sites, which is seen by many legislators as a radical policy.”

“We don’t know yet how Sherrill will look on these issues because she hasn’t spoken often about them,” she continued. “But I would be surprised if she was as forward and interested about getting some of those same policies done.”

In total, Murphy’s government invested $145 million into harm reduction programs during his tenure, not including increased funding for treatment and recovery programs, and family and peer support networks. That money included funding allocated by the legislature but most significantly, $119 million the state set aside from national opioid settlements. In 2025, an Advisory Council, set up by the state to oversee and make recommendations on how to spend the settlement money, released a strategic plan, focused on investment in the four areas of housing, harm reduction, treatment and coordinated wraparound services.

But Ubel is unsure whether tax money will now be allocated by state legislators and the governor at or above the levels seen under Murphy.

“The Sherrill administration has not yet signaled an appetite for this kind of [spending],” she said. “We’re in a really tight budget year, and that’s going to play a role. It’s going to be very difficult to get increased funding for many different initiatives. We do know the opioid remediation and recovery work is continuing, and more of that settlement money is being used. We do want to make sure it is used for its intended purpose. We want to see data-driven solutions being uplifted by her administration.”

“The governor is very supportive of these issues. It’s just the fiscal background of how we pay for all this.”

Use of the settlement money already sparked a political firestorm in the state capital, when legislators in 2025 voted to divert $45 million to four of the state’s major hospitals. The decision was lambasted by former Attorney General Matt Plotkin and inspired a “die-in” protest in Trenton, urging lawmakers to restore “raided” funds to harm reduction programs.

Axel Torres Marrero, senior director of public policy at the Hyacinth Foundation, takes a positive view of Sherrill’s intentions, but is fearful of how the Trump administration’s cuts to health care and social services will relate to New Jersey’s financial situation. His organization provides harm reduction and HIV services in seven cities statewide, and lobbies state lawmakers to create more favorable policy.

“We have an existing relationship with the governor that began when she was in Congress,” he told Filter. “We worked with our entire NJ delegation on issues like housing, Ryan White [HIV/AIDS program] and harm reduction. That office was always receptive and supportive. There’s no need for ‘level setting’ and the governor is very supportive of these issues. It’s just the fiscal background of how we pay for all this.”

His primary concern is the effect of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” which makes nearly $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid spending over 10 years. It’s a devastating blow to harm reduction efforts, as Medicaid is the single largest payer for substance use and mental health treatment, and funds medicine and other essential services for people who use drugs. The $186 billion in cuts to SNAP, the food assistance program for people on low incomes is another major problem.

“We’re critically concerned about Medicaid and making sure NJ commits to mitigating the $400 million-plus funding gap from the ‘Big Ugly Bill.’”

“Our clientele relies heavily on health care safety net programs,” Torres Marrero said. “We’re critically concerned about Medicaid and making sure NJ commits to mitigating the $400 million-plus funding gap from the ‘Big Ugly Bill’ … Given that fact, and that we have to offset $150 million or more to make sure SNAP benefits can remain, we support level [harm reduction] funding for this year.”

“The best estimates say if NJ does not offset these cuts, we’ll have about 3,000 people living with HIV cut from the program—plus another 2,000 people who are at risk for HIV, including people actively engaged in substance use,” he added.

State data show that drug-related fatalities in New Jersey rose from 1,096 annual deaths in 2012, to 3,174 by 2022, the highest total recorded. Since then, deaths have slowly decreased, with 2,025 in 2024, the most recent year with full data—still far higher than historical figures. The impacts of vulnerable people losing food security and services aren’t hard to imagine.

New Jersey harm reduction has significantly scaled up since the years of Governor Chris Christie (R), who embraced recovery support and supply-side attacks on opioid prescriptions but was more hostile to harm reduction efforts. From Murphy’s second term, access to harm reduction services skyrocketed—increasing 122 percent from 2022-2024. That year, 4,500 people participated in programs statewide, which now number 47 in total—a massive jump from previously, when just seven programs operated. Programs reported distributing over 16,000 doses of the overdose-reversing medicine naloxone and 500 prescriptions for the opioid use disorder medication buprenorphine.

With newer harm reduction programs still just beginning to scale up, Torres Marrero urged that now is the time for the state to maintain their funding, so progress doesn’t stall or reverse.

“Some organizations are further along than others, those that have a  historical footprint in [this field],” he said. “They have some structural advantages. Those that are newer in this space require and deserve more time. It’s difficult to hire and maintain professionals in this field. It takes about 18 months from receiving funding to then start seeing significant results. Level funding will ensure these programs can remain open. And phase two would be the expansion of these into other communities and counties where the prevalence and incidence rates [show a need].”

That geographic expansion, he continued, should include adding more programs in different neighborhoods of large cities like Newark or Paterson, as well as additional programs in suburban and rural communities in New Jersey’s south and shoreline regions.

Photograph (cropped) by Collin via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 2.0

The post New Jersey Harm Reduction Under a New Governor—and Trump  appeared first on Filter.

On December 17, 2025, Phoenix City Council voted 8-1 to approve the ban. The ordinance makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to sell or exchange syringes, distribute harm reduction kits or hold events for the purpose of providing medical care in parks without prior city approval. It was due to take effect on March 30. But on March 3, the council accepted a request to push it back to June 1.

District 7 Councilmember Anna Hernandez was the only vote in opposition to the original ordinance. “The foundational issue here is that we do not have enough shelter space or housing for folks to live and folks don’t have health care access,” she told local media outlet CALÓ News in February. “So mixing those two things together and now making a barrier for these providers to provide that care, I think is going to be detrimental to this community.”

“They are consistently pointing to neighbors who have logged complaints about litter, medical supplies and discarded syringes.”

Shot in the Dark (SITD), a Phoenix-based volunteer harm reduction provider, has opposed the ban from the start. Member Brian Thoi explained how SITD does mostly outdoor distribution. They don’t have a fixed office location, so the volunteers set up folding tables or tents in places that are easily accessible to people in need, handing out supplies and receiving used supplies.

“We’re trying to get some concrete answers from the city,” Thoi told Filter. “They are consistently pointing to neighbors who have logged complaints about litter, medical supplies and discarded syringes in the parks, as well as feeling uncomfortable being in the presence of medical services provided to people in the park.”

Distribution of sterile syringes, naloxone, fentanyl test strips and other supplies by harm reduction organizations was only authorized in Arizona by a 2021 bill. State law allows cities, counties and private organizations to “establish and operate a prevention program,” with requirements that they provide safe needle disposal, syringes in “sufficient” quantities to prevent reusing or sharing, referrals to substance use treatment and mental health care by request, and education on overdose prevention, peer recovery and prevention of bloodborne disease.

Several state and local organizations have come out against the Phoenix ban. The ACLU of Arizona put out a call to action, inviting supporters to urge the city council to vote no on the ordinance. After it passed, the ACLU condemned the result.

“Outreach in parks is often people’s first, and only link to detox, treatment, or housing,” said Darrell Hill, policy director for the ACLU of Arizona, in a statement. “By targeting healthcare and aid workers trained to meet people where they are, the city is eliminating one of the most effective pathways into recovery.”

As Thoi explained, the council initially passed the ordinance with a 90-day delay, and a council member added an instruction to city staff to research policy issues and potential legal conflicts created by the ban. Confirmation of the new delay to June 1 means, Thoi said, “We are looking at the next few months to engage deeper into advocacy with city council and staff.”

“Participants have maybe interpreted it to mean harm reduction services are banned throughout the city. People have been letting us know they won’t be going out to our sites any more.”

Though the ban is not yet in place, Thoi stressed that it is already harming his organization’s work and the people they serve.

“It’s taking time and energy away from running our programs and services and being put instead into engaging with city staff,” he said. “What we’ve been seeing from a lot of our participants is they’ve heard the reporting on this, and maybe interpreted it to mean harm reduction services are banned throughout the city of Phoenix.”

That confusion has severe consequences. “People have been contacting our info line and letting us know they won’t be going out to our sites any more,” Thoi said, “because they have heard we have been banned or they’re not expecting us to be there.”

“If you want to make a permit system for having events in the park, and don’t want to give me a permit, that’s one thing,” he added. “But to ban harm reduction as a solution to these issues, I wonder what the knock-on effects of this will be. Are we going to see other cities take on these sorts of bans that will affect our work in other parts of the Valley?”

The ban is the latest Phoenix action targeting people experiencing homelessness, in the wake of the 2024 Supreme Court Grants Pass decision, which ruled that city and state governments have the constitutional right to evict people from outdoor encampments even if no shelter beds are available. The city council voted in May 2024 to ban camping within 500 feet of schools, public parks and other locations.

“It will lead to more overdose in the parks, and more 911 calls of people passed out or even dead.”

Based on Phoenix’s January 2025 point-in-time count, homelessness increased 3 percent from 2024-2025, largely driven by an increase in people living unsheltered (up 28 percent). The Maricopa Association of Governments noted that federal funding meanwhile expired for 1,000 shelter beds in the region, as rental costs increased and access to elder care and mental health care services remained limited.

Phoenix has seen a slight downtick in overdose deaths. According to Maricopa County data, deaths decreased 3.5 percent from 2023-2024, but were still higher than in 2020. Restricting vulnerable people’s access to harm reduction resources and referrals threatens this slow progress.

The impending parks ban has also activated other providers. Claudia McCormick-Vargas, a volunteer with Street Medicine, leads outreach in city parks with students from Arizona State University to deliver pet food to unhoused pet owners.

“We asked our students, is there a need, can we help?” she told Filter. “They told us they often see homeless people with their pets at harm reduction clinics on Friday afternoons. That’s how we started helping out. I started to see all the good work that both our students and the harm reduction group Shot in the Dark was doing with our homeless population. I thought it was great that our students were providing medical care and SITD was providing harm reduction supplies.”

The ban, she said, “will have a big impact. These are volunteers that have built a presence and relationships meeting homeless people where they’re at. People trust them and look for them. If this ordinance goes through I don’t see how it will be helpful with the homeless population in our parks. It will lead to more overdose in the parks, and more 911 calls of people passed out or even dead.”

Living on the street can be dangerous anywhere. But in Phoenix, brutal summer heat can kill in a matter of hours. The past several years have seen record high temperatures, with hundreds of heat-related deaths recorded in summer 2025. The climate crisis cruelly intersects with both homelessness and drug use: An estimated 40 percent of deaths were of unhoused people, and two thirds of cases involved drug use.

“Some of the needs I’ve seen are just basic hygiene and water,” McCormick-Vargas said. Despite being asked for it, “We’re not allowed to bring food. Some of the needs I see are for needles, condoms or lighters. In the summer people need to keep their electrolytes up if they’re outside.”

“We’re not going to let ourselves be pushed out of our community just because of some nosy neighbors.”

Thoi said that if the ban ultimately takes effect, his organization will have to adapt in ways that could expose volunteers and the people they serve to more risk.

“The reality is, even though it would be sad for us to be excluded from the parks, we will continue to operate as we have in the past,” he said. “We will just be subject to being in places that aren’t as safe. We’ll be in canal paths and vacant lots instead of a well-lit, maintained place that’s accessible to public transit and for people with disabilities. We’ll be pushed further out into the margins to places where maybe it’s dangerous for our participants and volunteers to operate.”

They’re sure of one thing, however: “We’re not going to let ourselves be pushed out of our community just because of some nosy neighbors.”

Photograph via City of Phoenix

The post Impending Parks Ban Looms Over Phoenix Harm Reduction Efforts appeared first on Filter.

The measure, organized by Smart & Safe Florida, aims to legalize “adult personal use of marijuana.” It would allow adults over 21 to possess and purchase cannabis. Possession would be limited to 2 ounces of flower product or 5 grams of concentrate. Certain activities, like driving under the influence and “marketing and packaging attractive to children,” would remain banned. The measure would not create protections for employees who use marijuana, nor for renters whose landlords forbid use in their homes.

Further limitations include the measure’s complete lack of social equity provisions.

The licensing plan is another sticking point for some. The measure would license existing medical marijuana businesses in Florida to sell adult-use marijuana. This would give them “first-mover” advantage over startups in the new market,  though the measure also “Provides for creation of licenses for non-medical marijuana businesses.” Smart & Safe Florida has been funded by medical marijuana companies including Trulieve, a multi-state operator and Florida’s biggest; its 2024 ballot measure was criticized by some advocates as “monopolistic” and “hostile to small businesses.”

“It’s hard to support [the current initiative]; you have to look at the lesser of two evils.”

If approved by voters, legalization would take effect on May 1, 2027. But other details of what it would look like aren’t spelled out by the initiative’s text, and would be left up to state lawmakers and regulators. The many questions for them would include whether people are permitted to grow cannabis at home, and how cannabis tax dollars would be used.

“It’s hard to support [the current initiative]; you have to look at the lesser of two evils,” Christopher Carlos Cano told Filter. A United States Air Force veteran, Cano is a public policy coordinator for the SEIU union and founder of the Suncoast NORML chapter in Florida.

“The greater evil being [criminalization] of cannabis,” he said, “but the tradeoff is allowing the existing Big Cannabis cartels to corner the market and have a vertically integrated system that shuts out businesses and entrepreneurship.”

To Cano, the current initiative is a step backwards from 2024. “It is no different than the previous measure, except it’s more restrictive,” he said. “It institutes a [public] smoking ban in the language and feels like the campaign is trying to placate an element in Florida’s [politics] that would never support this in the first place. Now they’ve opened up the possibility this won’t make it to the ballot by not passing Supreme Court review.”

In 2025, Smart & Safe Florida said it collected over one million voter signatures in support of placing legalization on the ballot. In October, after election officials did not approve a chunk of the signatures, the campaign sued, alleging the state was unlawfully trying to delay the measure. The secretary of state had verified over 662,000 signatures, more than triple the statutory minimum to qualify for the ballot.

Then in December, after the election board had agreed to move the measure forward, State Attorney General James Uthmeier (R) challenged it in the Florida Supreme Court, requesting a review of its constitutionality.

“Polling routinely shows that most Americans oppose the smell of marijuana in public,” Uthmeier said, and the summary language would “deceive Florida parents.”

On January 2, Uthmeier and parties including the Drug Free America Foundation, Florida Chamber of Commerce and a former appeals court judge filed briefs in opposition to the Smart and Safe measure. Uthmeier called the measure “fatally flawed,” as Marijuana Moment reported, saying it “misleads voters in a way designed to garner greater approval, is flatly invalid under the federal Constitution, and violates the single-subject requirement. The Court should therefore strike the proposed amendment from the ballot.”

The court set a January 12 deadline for Smart & Safe to respond, and January 20 for the AG and other parties to respond again. 

Uthmeier’s argument in part focuses on public smoking. The measure’s summary says it “Prohibits smoking and vaping in public.” But the full text concerns “public places” that are owned or operated by government and state entities, leaving any further bans up to the legislature.

“After all, polling routinely shows that most Americans oppose the smell of marijuana ‘in public,’” Uthmeier said, and the summary language would “deceive Florida parents into thinking this initiative will prohibit marijuana smoking near their children in hotels, restaurants, sports venues, and other areas open to the general public.”

For over a decade, Florida has been a hotly contested battleground in marijuana reform. As the third most populous state, it’s a tantalizing prize for legalization advocates. But the state’s rightward shift in recent years has complicated the picture. Republicans led by Governor Ron DeSantis have entrenched conservative leadership that poses major political, legal and even cultural opposition.

Cano is familiar with how Florida Republicans refuse to compromise and will try anything to prevent reform. He noted a 2025 scandal where Florida seemingly negotiated a $67 million settlement with a pharmacy benefit manager; it involved a $10 million donation to a nonprofit run by the governor’s wife, Casey DeSantis, and that money was used to fund opposition to marijuana legalization in 2024.

“Depending on what county you’re in and your color, it means the difference between getting a ticket or going to jail.”

Florida’s unique electoral law also poses a big challenge: The state requires a 60 percent threshold for a citizen-led initiative to pass. This sees measures failing to become law despite winning a majority of votes—like Amendment 2 to legalize medical marijuana in 2014, which lost with over 57 percent support; or 2024’s Amendment 3 to legalize adult use, which lost with nearly 56 percent support (despite the blessing of Donald Trump during his reelection campaign).

Florida voters approved medical cannabis in 2016 with 71 percent support, but past efforts to advance adult-use have included defeats in 2021 and 2022, when ballot initiatives were killed by the state Supreme Court.

As prohibition continues, Cano is acutely aware of the ongoing burden of marijuana arrests and criminal proceedings. There has been some progress, as several jurisdictions have decriminalized low-level possession. But many Florida police departments don’t even report arrests to the FBI, making it unclear how severe criminalization remains in other cities.

“It happens every single day,” Cano said. “Depending on what county you’re in and your color, it means the difference between getting a ticket or going to jail. Florida has some of the most draconian possession limits for cannabis—anything over 20 grams is a felony. You could have under an ounce of weed and be facing five years in prison.”

Many minor marijuana arrests, he added, result in people taking plea deals and being put through the drug court system to get charges dropped.

“There were a couple areas that were concerning for constituents in 2024, one being having a pathway for homegrown, and I think the new initiative allows the legislature to have a pathway without making it mandatory.”

In this context, Roz McCarthy feels that the current initiative has tried to strike a balance in response to voter concerns about the 2024 measure. Based in Orlando, she was inspired to learn more about medical cannabis by her mother’s death from cancer and her son’s ongoing experience with sickle cell disease. In 2016 she founded Minorities for Medical Marijuana. While not directly involved in sponsoring the 2024 measure, her organization did endorse it, and assisted with outreach and education, especially to Black residents and other voters of color.

“I think there were a couple areas that were concerning for constituents in Florida,” she told Filter, “one being having a pathway for homegrown, and I think the new ballot initiative allows the legislature to have a pathway without making it mandatory.”

“It should not be attractive to children,” McCarthy added. “Wherever you can’t smoke tobacco, you should not be allowed to smoke cannabis. So those are some of the things that were added in the language for 2026 that were a positive.” If the Smart & Safe measure is cleared for the November ballot, she is considering doing similar outreach to support its passage.

A February 2025 poll by the University of North Florida found that 67 percent of Florida voters supported legalization, including 82 percent of Democrats, 66 percent of Independents and 55 percent of Republicans. Despite Florida’s highly partisan politics, McCarthy believes marijuana can cut across party lines.

“We’re going to fight for equity, but we also are hamstrung. That is going to be a big hurdle that we have to get over.”

“There’s a lot of education that’s needed across the board and there’s different factions,” she said. “I do believe that there’s some Republicans … who support freedom of choice… There is a high [proportion] of counties that lean Republican, and we know that these are constituents who are also proud medical card-holders.”

The current measure has no social equity provisions, which many marijuana-legal states have enacted. These vary, but usually involve some requirements that certain business licenses be reserved for people with former marijuana arrests, impacted by poverty or from impacted communities; training and education to help applicants understand the rules; and some form of financial support. Such laws respond to concerns that Black and other people of color are excluded from the legal industry, and that legalization privileges larger companies over small businesses.

McCarthy recognizes the importance of social equity, but also the reality that it will be an uphill climb in a state whose governor has made it the central goal of his political career to destroy policies related to equity or other “woke” priorities.

“Equity in Florida for this industry is something that should be a priority,” she said. “We have a state that has deemed some of the initiatives for equity, diversity and inclusion as not being needed and not being supported… We’re going to fight for equity, but we also are hamstrung. That is going to be a big hurdle that we have to get over.”

Photograph (cropped) by manish panghal on Unsplash

The post Florida’s Latest, Embattled Marijuana Legalization Bid appeared first on Filter.

“From Forest to Dust: Socioeconomic and environmental impacts of the prohibition of the coca and cocaine production chain in the Amazon basin and Brazil” was produced by a coalition called Intersection – Land Use, Drug Policy and Climate Justice, involving numerous NGOs.

Its 100-plus pages cover vast historical and geographical expanses, from the Spanish colonial era to today, and from the jungles of Brazil to the ports of West Africa. It calls for a system of legal regulation for coca, but one that doesn’t simply replace the control and violence of trafficking networks with that of multinational corporations. Instead, the authors argue, Indigenous communities and family farms should be centered, to ensure that the coca and cocaine trade won’t harm people and their lands.

“When armed conflict or the military arrive, it pushes the frontier of coca production into forest-covered areas.”

“In some regions, coca acts as a direct driver of deforestation,” Rebeca Lerer told Filter. A Brazilian journalist and human rights activist, Lerer was the editor and coordinator of the report, and founded the Intersection coalition.

“When armed conflict or the military arrive, it moves coca to more remote areas,” she explained. “It pushes the frontier of production into forest-covered areas—then authorities [seek to] eradicate coca, then usually mining or cattle ranching projects come.”

The cocaine trade is tied to environmentally destructive industries, details the report, as it provides financing and the infrastructure needed to move people, goods and services engaged in the illegal wildlife, fishing and logging trades—to name a few.

“The cocaine trade in the Amazon works as an investment bank for other environmental crime,” said Lerer, who also serves as the Latin American secretariat of the International Coalition for Drug Policy Reform and Environmental Justice, one of the groups that collaborated on the report.

“When the [authorities] repress one [cocaine trafficking] route, they shift to another forest area,” she continued. Trafficking groups “then involve traditional communities and local Indigenous lands in these routes. Repression moves this around without reducing the trade or consumption, and while increasing violence.”

The first section of the report was written by David Restrepo, research lead at the Center for Studies on Drugs and Security at the Universidad de los Andes. He gives a brief history of the coca leaf—from its ancient use as a spiritual, medicinal and communal substance in the Andes highlands; to the chemical extraction of the cocaine alkaloid and its launch as a global commodity; and finally, to the onset of prohibition and the rise of wealthy, militarized “cartels.”

“Among the millions of people across South America who continue to chew, cultivate, and revere coca, the leaf is not considered an intoxicant but a vital substance for social cohesion.”

It’s a story that’s taken another twist even since the publication of “From Forest to Dust.” On December 2, the World Health Organization opted not to recommend easing the blanket global prohibition of coca—going against the findings of the agency’s own expert report.

“Among the millions of people across South America who continue to chew, cultivate, and revere coca today, the leaf is not considered an intoxicant but a vital substance for social cohesion and balance with the natural world,” Restrepo writes.

Traditional use spans peoples like the Nasa in Colombia, mambe circles in the northwest Amazon, and Quechua-speaking highland Peru and Bolivia. But the plant’s importance to diverse cultures is overshadowed by its potent white derivative—and authorities’ disastrous attempts to suppress it.

The report covers harmful domestic and international crackdowns, the export of the United States drug war through initiatives like “Plan Colombia,”  and how enforcement moves the trade around, per the “balloon effect.”

“Prohibition, even in its infancy, generated adaptive supply,” Restrepo writes. “When one route closed, another emerged.” He criticizes US and Colombia-led anti-trafficking actions, and notes how Colombia’s 2016 peace deal with the leftwing militia group FARC fragmented the cocaine trade in the country, with “dissident factions, paramilitary successors, and criminal entrepreneurs filling the authority gap.”

In Peru and Bolivia, meanwhile, Restropo explains how coca cultivation has continued to increase. Prohibition “reshuffles and disperses [the trade], often into ecologically fragile regions where state presence is weak.” He cites UNODC data showing that potential leaf yields more than doubled, from 4.1 tons per hectare in 2013 to 8.5 tons by 2023. That single hectare could produce up to 19 kilograms of cocaine per year.

Coca-related forest loss has doubled over the past decade—exceeding 20,000 hectares in some years. The refinement process also produces significant pollutants.

But changing fortunes in the global cocaine trade have made Brazil an emerging player, with groups like the Red Command and the Capital’s First Command taking key roles in manufacturing, the domestic supply and global export.

Amid these changes, coca-related forest loss has doubled over the past decade—exceeding 20,000 hectares in some years. The refinement process also produces significant pollutants from gasoline, sulfuric acid, ammonia and acetone. Field studies show elevated heavy metal and acid residues in nearby soils and waterways, and coca processing areas are associated with more fish and amphibians dying.

But efforts to eradicate coca are also environmentally destructive. Notoriously, aerial crop fumigation operations have poisoned forests, waterways, farms and human beings with the herbicide glyphosate. 

The report’s second section, jointly written by University of São Paulo urban geography researcher Thiago Godoi Calil and members of the Mãe Crioula Institute, continues to document the destruction.

It describes the rise of “narco-deforestation” and “narco-mining”, where the illicit drug trade is tied to illegal extractive industries like logging, wildlife and plant smuggling, and to land-grabs and sex trafficking. The authors note that from 2017-2021, 16 major seizures in the Brazilian Amazon found cocaine shipments in illicit lumber on its way to Europe.

“Because it’s criminalized, there is no control over the waste process. It contaminates water, soil and animals … There are health hazards for lab workers.”

In the following section, members of the Instituto Fogo Cruzado cite UNODC estimates showing that global cocaine production of 3,708 tons in 2023 produced an estimated 2.19 billion tons of carbon dioxide. Every aspect of the production and supply chain—from cutting and burning forests to grow coca, to the refinement process, disposal of waste and transportation—contributes to this. And prohibition means the absence of mitigating regulations.

“The production itself generates impacts,” Lerer told Filter. “So many chemical products are used. Because it’s criminalized, there is no control over the waste process. It contaminates water, soil and animals in the surroundings. There are health hazards for lab workers, and adulterants used by people with poor expertise.”

These environmental harms go far beyond the interior regions of the Brazilian Amazon—including out to the oceans, with chemical traces found in mussels, sharks and other fish.

The multi-billion dollar cocaine industry additionally serves as an “investment bank” for extractive underground industries in Brazil, the authors write: “The main ‘indirect’ effects of the prohibition associated with this refining structure are related to the financing of other illegal activities and the use of political influence and the armed branches of the drug trade to corrupt public agents and avoid oversight. For communities and environmental defenders, this translates into an increase in deaths and threats.”

To put the scale in perspective, the authors estimate that the cocaine refinement industry alone could generate up to $6 billion a year in Brazil—a sum nearly six times larger than the total target for the Amazon Fund ($1.05 billion), a government-managed philanthropic organization combating deforestation.

In another section of the report, Mary Ryder and Steve Rolles of Transform Drug Policy Foundation briefly mention some local efforts—particularly in Europe—to consider legal regulation of cocaine and other stimulants.

Hower, they write, “More realistic in the short term, perhaps, is the possibility for coca based products, such as coca tea, coca leaf or mambe (that only contain a small amount of the active cocaine alkaloid) to be imported and sold in European markets—particularly if coca’s legal status under the UN conventions is revisited.”

“Despite these impacts, drug policy reform is almost entirely absent from the climate policy agenda.” 

Jenna Rose Astwood and Clemmie James, of the International Coalition on Drug Policy Reform and Environmental Justice, conclude the report by describing an approach they call “ecological harm reduction.”

“The question is no longer why the drug war has failed—but why it persists,” they write. “The answer: it enables illegal, unregulated extraction in biodiversity-rich forests vital to our climate future.”

“Despite these impacts, drug policy reform is almost entirely absent from the climate policy agenda,” they continue. “This omission is dangerous. It is not possible to protect the Amazon, or meet climate goals, while ignoring one of the biggest forces driving its destruction.”

Astwood and James call for environmental justice and an end to the drug war, pointing to what they describe as Indigenous peoples’ “approach rooted in ecological interdependence.” But they don’t completely endorse the legal regulation of drugs unless it’s combined with efforts to protect the environment, workers and people who depend on vulnerable lands.

“A legal market, if poorly implemented, can reproduce the harms of prohibition through unsustainable agricultural practices, corporate capture, land grabbing, and further marginalization of those already embedded in the drug economy,” they write. “A just transition to a regulated drug market must reduce the influence of extractive and criminal economies by establishing safeguards to prevent exploitative actors from entering the legal space.”

“We need to start by freeing the coca leaf—from there we should design what this trade should look like from an ecological harm reduction lens.”

Their recommended components of this vision include sustainable environmental practices such as permaculture and companion planting; responsible land, water and energy use; ensuring food security for rural communities; and diversifying agricultural systems. Processing and refining of controlled substances, they argue, should be relocated to urban and suburban areas where waste can be better controlled.

They also endorse various protections for workers including the rights to organize, collective bargaining, safe working conditions, fair wages, and an end to forced and child labor. And land reforms should protect peoples with traditional ties to ecosystems. Stolen lands should be returned with just compensation, and resources should be provided for restitution and community-led redevelopment.

“Prohibition started with the plants, and we think we need to go back to the plants,” Lerer said. “We need to start by freeing the coca leaf—from there we should design what this trade should look like from an ecological harm reduction lens and avoid corporate capture. Illegal cocaine promotes environmental destruction, but ‘Big Pharma’ cocaine is also not going to deliver climate justice.”

Photograph of deforestation in northern Brazil by Felipe Werneck via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 2.0

The post “From Forest to Dust” Shows How Drug Prohibition Drives Climate Crisis 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.

Trump’s DC move fits his previous pattern of authoritarian crackdowns, particularly on left-leaning cities. But it was apparently triggered by an August 3 assault on Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old former “DOGE” employee and current Social Security Administration staffer, in an alleged carjacking. A photograph of a bloodied Coristine after the incident caught the attention of the president, who reposted it on social media and vowed retaliation. This individual assault has become the pretext for a sweeping assault.

“This is only the beginning,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said on August 12, with about 800 troops and 500 federal law enforcement agents expected to be deployed. “Over the course of the next month, the Trump administration will relentlessly pursue and arrest every violent criminal in the district who breaks the law, undermines public safety and endangers law-abiding Americans.”

“Other cities are hopefully watching this,” Trump said, warning them to “learn their lesson.”

She said that unhoused people would be taken to shelters and offered mental health or substance use disorder treatment. “If they refuse, they will be susceptible to fines or to jail time. These are pre-existing laws that are already on the books. They have not been enforced.”

At an August 11 press conference with Attorney General Pam Bondi and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump invoked the 1973 Home Rule Act, which established limited local control over DC’s municipal affairs but maintained federal oversight. “[Something’s] out of control,” Trump said, “but we’re going to put it in control very quickly, like we did on the southern border.”

“I’m deploying the National Guard to help reestablish law, order and public safety in Washington, DC, and they’re going to be allowed to do their job properly,” he said.

He also threatened that other cities could be next—singling out New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Baltimore. “Other cities are hopefully watching this…. And maybe they’ll self-clean up,” he said, warning them to “learn their lesson.”  

As for the targets of the DC operations, Trump said: “We have slums here. We’re getting rid of them.” He described the city as being taken over by “violent gangs,” “bloodthirsty criminals,” “wild youth,” “drugged-out maniacs” and “homeless people.”

Trump didn’t explicitly add what is nonetheless crystal clear: that his crackdown will persecute Black and Brown DC residents.

To address Trump’s claims about violent crime in DC, such incidents have been on a downward trajectory for over a decade. In 2010, 1,046 violent crimes per 100,000 residents were recorded; the figure for 2024 was less than half that amount, at 494. The reported crime rate in 2024 was the second lowest since 1966.

Though 2023 saw an increase in the most serious incidents, the level remained well below those of the 1980s and ’90s. Since 2023, homicides have fallen 32 percent in 2024, and by another 12 percent in 2025 so far. The evidence refutes Trump’s feverish portrayal of a city in chaos. 

Trump didn’t explicitly add what is nonetheless crystal clear: that his crackdown will persecute Black and Brown DC residents.

DC, with over 700,000 residents, is demographically 42.5 percent Black, 36.6 percent white and 11.6 percent Hispanic/Latino. According to the most recent “Point in time” census, taken in January, DC had 5,138 people experiencing homelessness—a 9 percent decrease from the year prior. A regional analysis, including DC and the surrounding metropolitan area, found that 67 percent of unhoused single adults, as well as 79 percent of unhoused adults in families, were Black. The proportions are similar among unhoused youth.

Trump has long been railing against encampments of unhoused people, including in DC. Back in March, NBC Washington reported that he complained publicly and to the DC Mayor Muriel Bowser (D) about “unsightly” encampments that he wanted removed.

In response, Bowser ordered the immediate clearance of an encampment along the E Street Expressway. She seems to have violated the city’s own policy, which requires 14 days’ notice before such an action, so people living there can secure their belongings and make plans to move or seek shelter. City officials showed up and ordered everyone present to vacate the site with just one day’s notice. 

In late March, Trump issued an executive order to “[Make] the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful,” which among other provisions required the National Park Service to immediately remove all “homeless or vagrant encampments” on federal land. According to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, this has resulted in 70 encampments being cleared thus far.

“We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital,” Trump declared in an August 10 social media post.

That was followed by Trump’s far-reaching executive order in July, which empowered cities and states to take aggressive action to raid encampments, round people up and force them into treatment programs. It also directly attacked harm reduction interventions and “Housing First” policies.

Trump’s new campaign in DC adds another menacing twist—the threat of removing unhoused people to distant locations. “We will give you places to stay, but FAR from the Capital,” he declared in an August 10 social media post. It recalls his administration’s cruel detention of undocumented migrants in remote facilities.  

Donald Whitehead Jr., executive director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, is familiar with the devastating impacts of encampment clearances and among many advocates condemning Trump’s actions in DC.

“This plan does nothing to solve homelessness, it actually will cause more harm to people experiencing homelessness,” he told Filter. “What we need is a strategy that provides housing and supportive services for people. Criminalizing them does not address homelessness.”

A number of harm reduction and homelessness service providers in DC, whose participants will be directly impacted, were unable to provide comment by publication time.

As a federal district, DC fundamentally lacks control over its own affairs, so is vulnerable to the whims of national politicians. Under the DC Home Rule Act, Congress maintains ultimate authority over its budget and laws—and has historically used that power to block policies like abortion access for low-income women, regulated cannabis sales or syringe provision.

Mayor Bowser’s position appeared to harden against “this authoritarian push.”

DC also lacks an autonomous criminal-legal system. The US Attorney’s Office prosecutes misdemeanor and felony charges in the district, and cases can result in people being incarcerated not in local facilities, but in the federal prison system, often far from their communities.

Under the Home Rule Act, Trump can only federalize the city’s police for up to 48 hours unless he notifies Congress. Then, he can maintain control for up to 30 days; to go longer than that requires an act of Congress.

Mayor Bowser initially called the takeover “unprecedented and unsettling,” but seemed to indicate she would cooperate, given Trump’s authority under the Home Rule Act. “We have a responsibility to support the executive order and one of the roles I have is to ensure that we work very collaboratively with our federal partners,” she said.

Her position seemed to harden later on August 12, when she called on DC residents “to protect our city, to protect our autonomy, to protect our home rule and get to the other side of this guy,” urging them to “make sure we elect a Democratic House so that we have a backstop to this authoritarian push.”

Photograph of National Guard troops in 2021 by Virginia Guard Public Affairs via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

The post Devastating Threats to Vulnerable People as Trump Sends Troops to DC appeared first on Filter.

Jensen opened the small spiritual center in Provo in 2023. Singularism guides supervised “voyages” using psilocybin tea, with none of the psilocybin being consumed or stored outside the facility.

“I wouldn’t [call Singularism] a congregation,” Jensen told Filter. “I’m very influenced by my psychotherapy background. It’s more individual ceremonies.”

In each ceremony, he explained, the “voyager” is guided by a supervisor as well as a practitioner who serves the tea. He described the practitioners as “essentially trained clergymen.” When Singularism first opened its doors, Jensen reached out to the county prosecutor, the police chief and the mayor, explaining the nature of his work and inviting them for a tour. 

“I believed we were in the bounds of the law and the constitution,” he said, “and I wanted to open [a] dialogue with them to see how we could operate under RFRA protection.”

No one took him up on his offer. But a year and a half later, Jensen was getting out of his car one day and suddenly found himself surrounded by a SWAT team.

“They raided our treatment center, took our mushrooms, detained me,” he said. “Then sent threatening letters to our landlord saying we were a public nuisance and danger to the community.”

“[T]he prosecution was brought in bad faith as part of a larger effort to harass Plaintiffs for their entheogenic religious practices,” wrote Judge Parrish.

Jensen sued. Utah had passed its Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 2024, stating that a “government entity may not substantially burden the free exercise of religion.” Jensen alleged that law enforcement had violated Singularism’s right to religious expression, which is protected under the First Amendment, and had also violated the state RFRA.

He told Filter that this is the first case to cite the RFRA as a legal defense. The county had requested that the suit be thrown out, but that request has now been dismissed by Judge Parrish, following the preliminary injunction she had granted Singularism in March.

“[T]he prosecution was brought in bad faith as part of a larger effort to harass Plaintiffs for their entheogenic religious practices and in hopes of giving the government a second opportunity to litigate the free-exercise issues presented squarely in this case,” Parrish wrote in her August 4 ruling. “The prosecution has already caused Singularism to lose many of its practitioners and affiliates, and forcing Plaintiffs to wait until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings to secure their free-exercise rights would be the equivalent of issuing a death warrant for their nascent religion.”

The Utah RFRA is modeled after the federal version signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton in 1993. That law was a response to another legal case involving psychedelics, Employment Division v. Smith, which was filed after a rehab facility fired two members of the Native American Church for using peyote—a psychedelic component of their religious ceremonies—and the state of Oregon subsequently denied them unemployment. The Supreme Court ruled against them.

Public outcry over the Supreme Court’s decision led to the federal RFRA. But in 1997, the Supreme Court dealt that law a substantial blow with its decision in City of Boerne v. Flores, when it concluded that the law could not be applied at the state level. As a result, dozens of states have since passed their own RFRA equivalents.

Image via Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons 3.0

The post Federal Judge Rules Psilocybin Church Religious-Rights Case Can Proceed appeared first on Filter.

The list of 18 cities, four counties, 12 states and the District of Columbia skews heavily to the left. It includes every jurisdiction that’s drawn attention for progressive drug policies that have not yet gained wider traction, such as overdose prevention centers, drug decriminalization and psychedelic therapy.

In May, President Donald Trump’s administration published its first such list, which caused widespread criticism and confusion. It included more than 600 jurisdictions, many of them misspelled or mislabeled, selected for unclear reasons. Many had supported Trump and already taken anti-immigrant stances; Huntington Beach, California, made the list despite having passed a formal resolution declaring itself a non-sanctuary city.

By way of explanation for its revised list, on August 5 the DOJ also published an accompanying list of nine “sanctuary jurisdiction characteristics” that it implied were used to guide the selection process. They mainly revolve around noncooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers, which is not a violation of federal law. The DOJ did not specify which characteristics corresponded to which jurisdictions.

Louisville, KY, announced in July that it would begin honoring 48-hour ICE detainer requests.

At the bottom of the list the DOJ noted that it had recently filed several lawsuits, listing only New York City as an example. It also noted it had pressured Louisville, Kentucky, into revoking the policies in question. Louisville had appeared on the May list, and in July the city announced it would begin honoring 48-hour ICE detainer requests. Louisville Metro Department of Corrections reportedly began implementing the new policy August 6, the day after the new list was published. Louisville is no longer on the list.

“It’s meant to intimidate,” Bill Ong Hing, founding director of the Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic at the University of San Francisco School of Law, told Filter. “They will not bring a lawsuit—they’ve lost every lawsuit they’ve been involved in with this issue. They will try to withhold federal funds for some jurisdictions, then those jurisdictions will themselves bring lawsuits [against Trump].”

In 2018, during Trump’s first administration, California jurisdictions sued and ultimately caused a federal appeals court to determine that it was unconstitutional to withhold federal funds due to “sanctuary” policies.

“Sanctuary ordinances do not say ICE can’t come into the jurisdiction and do its work,” Ong Hing said. “It doesn’t mean if ICE asks questions of a police or sheriff’s office, that no response will be given—they’re obligated to respond under federal statutes. All it says is they won’t affirmatively cooperate. Many ordinances simply say don’t ask questions of people you encounter at the department of health or education … there’s no requirement under federal law that police departments ask us what our immigration status is.”

One consequence of these federal threats is that many people lose access to public benefits.

Across the country, an increasing number of “287(g)” agreements allow ICE to delegate immigration enforcement to state and local law enforcement agencies that are willing to assist. Every state without at least one active 287(g) agreement in place appears on the DOJ’s new list. (As of August 8, the ICE online application process for entering into a 287(g) agreement is “offline for revisions.”)

“It turns anyone participating into ICE agents roaming the streets, doing federal immigration stops,” Danny Woodward, a Julius Glickman legal fellow with the Beyond Borders Program, told Filter. “It leads to racial profiling. In 2012 the federal government got rid of this model—because of highly publicized racial profiling.”

Hasan Shafiqullah, immigration supervising attorney of the Law Reform Unit of the Legal Aid Society in New York, explained to Filter that one immediate, tangible consequence of these federal threats is that many people afraid they’ll be targeted for deportation lose access to public benefits, because they won’t show up to the recertification process.

“Let’s say I’m undocumented, I don’t qualify for any benefits, but I have US citizen children entitled under the law to get Medicaid or food stamps,” he said. “If I’m afraid to show up and recertify, what happens to the benefit? My children will [experience] food insecurity or hunger, and not get their wellness checks. It’s damaging because you’re having health and hunger outcomes that are entirely avoidable, only happening because of the chilling effect of people afraid to show up at agencies or even leave their homes.”

Image (cropped) via Immigration and Customs Enforcement

The post DOJ Posts Revised, Much Shorter List of Immigrant “Sanctuary Jurisdictions” appeared first on Filter.

Wisconsin state law ring-fences what governments can spend the money on: It’s meant to be for an approved use related to reducing opioid-related harms. But despite records requests from reporters, governments have failed to provide accurate information when asked, or have delayed doing so, reports Wisconsin Watch.

Reporting levels vary. Milwaukee County, for instance, published 30 pages of data when reporting its opioid spending to the state. But multiple county and municipal governments have shared few details, published information years after state deadlines, or released nothing until they were forced to by journalists. According to the state Department of Justice, it reviews and monitors local governments’ opioid settlement spending, but has no enforcement mechanism. The legislature’s Joint Finance Committee is also responsible for reviewing the spending.

“One of the important parts of effective spending is transparency on how decisions are made.”

Advocates want more transparency, given the widely varying known uses of the money Wisconsin governments have already spent—ranging from jail recovery programs to law enforcement—and the fact that this is just a fraction of the money so far received, with another $400 million incoming.

Adrienne Hurst is the senior technical advisor and Wisconsin team lead for the Vital Strategies Overdose Prevention Program, which conducts policy work and research in the state.

“Wisconsin has posted annually their spend plans and reports for the 30 percent of funding that goes to [the state health department],” she told Filter. “The other 70 percent goes to [counties and cities]. Counties are required to post the activities they fund, and largely they have through the Wisconsin Counties Association. There is a public database [available]. One of the important parts of effective spending is transparency on how decisions are made.”

The Wisconsin Department of Health Services has an online tracker indicating how governments have spent money on different priorities. Here’s what it shows for 2025:

* $6 million for tribal nation abatement, for prevention, harm reduction, treatment and recovery services for the state’s different Indigenous nations.

* $6 million overall for harm reduction including naloxone, fentanyl test strips, and peer support services. The purchased naloxone is for community organizations and public health departments statewide, to be given away free to people in need. $300,000 of this money was used to purchase electronic lockboxes for drug storage in prisons.

* $7.7 million in capital expenditures, or building and renovations, for treatment and other services. This money has paid for a residential drug treatment facility in Appleton to expand to a 70-bed facility; and for a new, 16-bed residential treatment center in Milwaukee.

* $1 million for school based prevention in K-12 schools, and $1 million for after-school programs including a grant to the Boys and Girls Club.

* $1.5 million for community-based prevention programs to nonprofit and faith-based organizations.

* $3 million for medications for opioid use disorder. The state prison department has received half of this money to increase medication treatment to people in residential services and community supervision statewide.

* $2.75 million to pay for room and board for Medicaid recipients in residential drug treatment. By law, Medicaid cannot reimburse for housing costs for patients in these programs.

* $3 million for law enforcement agencies, for stated purposes including drug disposal, keeping opioid users out of jail, staff and training on medications for opioid use disorder, and opioid treatment in jails.

“Wisconsin has dedicated a good chunk of its funding to things like naloxone, fentanyl and xylazine test strips, and providing technical assistance,” Hurst said, detailing the investments in harm reduction. “Obviously the state not only invested in harm reduction, but also treatment interventions.”

“We focus on medication for opioid use disorder because it is life-saving,” she continued. However, “There is investment in less effective interventions like naltrexone which has an inferior outcome.”

“There have also been interventions in things like police-driven harm reduction … We say those are less effective.”

Settlement money going to law enforcement is particularly objectionable to many harm reduction advocates.

“There have also been interventions in things like police-driven harm reduction and naloxone, [which they sometimes] leave behind or carry,” Hurst said. “We say those are less effective at investing in communities worst affected by the War on Drugs and overdose.”

Wisconsin saw a significant reduction in overdose deaths of at least 35 percent in 2024, according to provisional data from the CDC, in a better trajectory than the nationwide trend of a fall of almost 27 percent. But the pain of the ongoing crisis is felt unevenly, and Wisconsin’s allocation of settlement money—which was determined by a formula intended to factor in population and impacts—doesn’t always reflect that.

State health data show that counties with the highest opioid-involved overdose rates from 2014-2023 are scattered throughout the state, from the more populous eastern and southern regions to northern counties bordering Michigan.

Milwaukee County, home to the state’s largest city, had the second highest rate, with 38.9 deaths per 100,000 population, and has received the highest percentage of settlement dollars, just over 25 percent. Up north, Menominee County, home to the Menominee Indian Reservation, has the highest rate—a devastating 76.8 deaths per 100,000 people—but receives a tiny 0.08 percent of settlement dollars.

“In Wisconsin, one third of all overdose deaths happened in Milwaukee County,” Hurst said. “You would expect resources would be heavily focused there. At the same time, sparsely populated communities like Menominee and more rural counties, even though the absolute number of deaths are small year after year, they can have a profound impact on that community. Absolutely you want to invest where most overdoses are happening, but you also want to … safeguard [rural] communities.”

“I think we need to better focus on a strategy to not just prevent overdose deaths, but get to the root.”

Glaring racial disparities are another feature of Wisconsin’s overdose crisis. Black residents have suffered the highest overdose death rate, at 79 deaths per 100,000 population, followed by Indigenous residents at 76 deaths per 100,000. White residents have had a far lower rate of 20 deaths per 100,000, illustrating how economic and social inequalities contribute to and exacerbate overdose deaths.

Alan C. Robinson, president of the Herbal Aspect cannabis brand in Madison and director of a proposed drug checking initiative in the city, urges that people directly impacted by the overdose crisis should be involved in decision-making and allocation of funds.

“Overdose prevention and harm reduction in general is really intersectional with other challenges and disparities people face in everyday life,” he told Filter. “Being unhoused, jobless, [lower] education. There’s a convergence of life stresses that sometimes drive people to self-medicate and use substances. Without a robust and holistic approach—providing housing security and food security—you’re not attacking the root of the problem of substance use. I think we need to better focus on a strategy to not just prevent overdose deaths, but get to the root.”

Image used via Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

The post Questions Over Wisconsin Spending of Opioid Settlement Money appeared first on Filter.