Lessons from Ecuador: The New Approach to Drug Policy Under President Daniel Noboa

American liberals have recently encountered significant challenges stemming from political developments in Latin America. The recent election of a liberal successor to former President Donald Trump in Argentina is just one of the indicators of shifting political tides. Additionally, a new leader in a neighboring country has swiftly reversed a policy that U.S. leftists have championed for years, signaling a potential pivot in regional governance.

This evolving political climate suggests that American progressives might gain valuable insights from their southern neighbors. The recent inauguration of Daniel Noboa as Ecuador’s president presents an opportunity for reflection on policy effectiveness and public safety.

Daniel Noboa was sworn in Thursday as Ecuador’s president, a role that citizens expect him to use to restore the public safety that drug cartels and other criminal organizations have stolen from them since the start of the year. https://t.co/vJcM5hiANs

— PBS NewsHour (@NewsHour) November 23, 2023

On Friday, as reported by Agence France-Presse, President Noboa made headlines by discarding a policy aimed at legalizing the possession of small amounts of drugs. He argued that such a policy “encourages micro-trafficking in schools and creates a whole generation of addicted children.” This decision demonstrates a clear commitment to prioritizing the health and safety of Ecuadorian youth over liberal drug policies.

The previous policy permitted possession of “up to 10 grams of marijuana, 2 grams of cocaine paste, 1 gram of cocaine, 0.10 grams of heroin, and 0.04 grams of amphetamine” for personal use, according to the Washington Examiner. This initiative was implemented nearly a decade ago during the presidency of socialist Rafael Correa.

During his brief time in office, Noboa, at just 35 years old, has already witnessed the consequences of such policies firsthand. After being inaugurated on Thursday, he wasted no time in announcing the revocation of the previous administration’s approach to drug possession.

“Historically a peaceful haven nestled between major cocaine exporters Colombia and Peru, Ecuador has seen a surge in violence in recent years. Criminal gangs with ties to Mexican and Colombian cartels are fighting for control, leading to a staggering increase in homicide rates,” reported AFP. The murder rate has quadrupled from 2018 to 2022, reaching a startling record of 26 per 100,000 residents.

Experts warn that this trend is likely to continue its upward trajectory. The regulation of drug possession has unforeseen consequences that often extend far beyond initial expectations.

Drastic social policy changes driven by ideology rather than empirical evidence often result in negative outcomes, no matter how well-intentioned they may appear. Frequently, these changes can yield results that are the polar opposite of their original objectives.

In 2020, Oregon became the first state to legalize the possession of small amounts of controlled substances. This measure was approved by 58 percent of voters, as reported by the Washington Post on November 19.

(As a side note, Oregon is governed by Democrats and predominantly conducts its voting through mail-in ballots. This detail may carry implications.)

The underlying premise of this policy was to “transform addiction by reducing penalties for drug use and instead investing in recovery resources,” according to the Post. However, the anticipated outcomes have not materialized as expected. Drug use has escalated, worsened, and become increasingly dangerous.

As highlighted by the Post, “even leading Democratic lawmakers who supported the law, which will likely dominate discussions in the upcoming legislative session, are now open to reevaluating it following a significant rise in synthetic opioid fatalities among states sharing their statistics.”

Even the left-leaning publication The Atlantic has been compelled to cover the realities of Oregon’s drug policy experiment, labeling it a failure.

An article published in July noted: “However, three years later, with rising overdose rates and delays in treatment funding, even some of the measure’s supporters now believe that the policy necessitates revision. In a nonpartisan statewide poll earlier this year, over 60 percent of respondents attributed worsening drug addiction, homelessness, and crime to Measure 110. A majority, including many Democrats, expressed support for reinstating criminal penalties for drug possession.”

Despite these compelling findings, American liberals seem hesitant to learn from tangible realities, and Oregon’s ongoing struggles have yet to serve as the critical lesson they should be.

In California, it took a surprising veto from left-leaning Governor Gavin Newsom to block a bill passed by the state’s even more progressive Democratic legislators. This bill would have allowed San Francisco to establish “supervised consumption sites” throughout the city for drug users, as reported by the U.K. Guardian in June.

Moreover, in Philadelphia, a Democratic-controlled city council has been forced to enact a ban on so-called “safe consumption” sites, according to WHYY-FM, the local NPR station. The mere existence of laws against drug use appears insufficient to persuade leftist advocates that this approach is a non-starter in a city already grappling with profound challenges.

Proponents of drug legalization consistently present the same arguments: Users should be viewed as victims rather than criminals, and societies that penalize minor offenders are creating problems where none truly exist. However, Ecuador’s decade-long experience provides documented evidence that failing to prosecute the possession of drugs like cocaine and heroin exacerbates issues far beyond those posed by the substances themselves, particularly when the government actively strives to protect vulnerable populations—especially children—from drug exposure.

Under the leadership of the new president, Ecuador is signaling a need for a fundamental policy shift. Unfortunately, it remains unlikely that American liberals will be willing to alter their approach in light of these lessons.

This article originally appeared on The Western Journal.