Quotes below are from it a magazine article I’ve had for 25 years. They illustrate the no-go vibe around drug policy reform and OSI’s unique position prior to 2000.

From an eye on how social and ideological commitments change over time, consider: in the 1990s there was nonpartisan consensus that “drugs are bad” and should be discouraged including through the criminal justice system. In the 2020s we have one political party who actually DO vote to make drugs more available and to remove drug use from judicial oversight.

How did we get here?

First, OSI established drug policy as a philanthropic “program area” thereby legitimizing drug reform as an appropriate nonprofit focus. After legitimizing drug reform in the philanthropic arena, they did the same in the political arena through first introducing citizen initiatives targeting drug laws and then by aligning many legislators in the Democratic Party to the OSI/DPA drug policy vision. Today, social media connects them directly onto the screens of the progressive voter base they hope to engage.

All this noise shifts public perception.

1. In the 2000s while marijuana was still illegal across the country, there were two other major drug reform donors. Peter Lewis, the chairman of Progressive Insurance was an outspoken advocate for marijuana reform. And George Zimmer, the founder of Men’s Warehouse, was also en enthusiastic marijuana reformer. Neither of these donors (one is deceased) followed OSI into funding access to ALL the other drugs (also they spent tens of millions and Soros has spent hundreds of millions).