Oregon ended its three-year experiment with decriminalizing drugs, causing discussion over the fentanyl crisis. Reactions from voters on this decision show mixed sentiments, mirroring the divergent views on drug decriminalization in other states.

While some individuals and states hail this as a necessary step towards public safety and discouraging drug use, others see it as a regressive move that infringes on personal freedom and perpetuates the war on drugs.

• Oregon decriminalized drug possession in 2020 with 58% approval from its voters.
• Oregon’s drug overdose deaths have been fueled predominately by fentanyl.
• Overdose deaths have increased from 280 in 2019 to 1,250 in 2023.

In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis has expressed strong opposition to legalizing recreational marijuana, suggesting it would decrease the quality of life in the state and lead to more marijuana smells. This view is not shared by all, with some calling him a "freedom-hating fraud" for his stance on the issue.

In contrast, states like Colorado and Massachusetts have pursued progressive drug reform policies, similar to the one Oregon attempted. In Colorado, the governor appeared at an equity workshop celebrating minority-owned cannabis businesses. In Massachusetts, Governor Maura Healey granted pardons to tens of thousands of residents with misdemeanor marijuana convictions. Some progressive voters believe in the potential for the cannabis industry to promote economic growth and social equity. They also view legalization as a commitment to addressing the historical injustices of drug criminalization.

In Virginia, however, Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed a bill intended to establish a recreational cannabis market, indicating a more conservative stance on drug reform in line with DeSantis.

These varying responses reflect the ongoing debate over drug decriminalization in the United States. Different states are adopting policies based on a range of economic, social, and political factors. The recriminalization of drugs in Oregon may therefore be seen as part of this broader national conversation, with the state's decision likely to influence and be influenced by developments in other parts of the country.

After Easter weekend erupted into debates over President Biden's Transgender Visibility Day declaration, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers kept the coals hot by vetoing a bill which would bar transgender athletes from women's sports.

Lacking a veto-proof majority in Wisconsin’s legislature, Republicans could only watch as Evers, flanked by transgender advocates, signed the veto Monday afternoon. MIG Reports analysis of discussions surrounding the Wisconsin Governor’s veto found both swift and lasting backlash, with accusations Evers is “eradicating women’s sports.”

What They’re Saying

While Evers condemned the bill, saying it, “threatens the safety and dignity of LGBTQ Wisconsinites,” many online believe Evers’ veto represents a real danger.

• Many mentioning Evers’ move against bill argue this is dangerous for biological women, since transgender women have physical advantages.
  
• The discourse directed at Evers goes on to accuse Evers of “eradicating female sports” and “compromising the safety of women and girls.”

A common assertion in the discourse suggests the bill does not just disregard women’s safety, but that Democrats like Evers are betraying women entirely.

• Those angered over the veto accuse Evers of not standing up for women's rights or call him a misogynist who ignores science.

Riley Gaines, the former NCAA swim star who has become a central advocate against transgenders in women’s athletics, channeled the frustration of many. She took to X (formerly Twitter) to blast the Wisconsin Governor:

BREAKING: I hate women and children

Fixed it for you https://t.co/xZGmOU2vco

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) April 2, 2024

Others focus on a larger flashpoint in American culture wars that have seeped into American schools — parents' rights. Many online question Evers’ beliefs and actions in relation to the rights of parents.

Evers sought to justify his veto on grounds of protecting mental health, writing, “This type of legislation, and the harmful rhetoric beget by pursuing it, harms LGBT Wisconsinites' and kids' mental health.”

But many believe Evers and trans advocates are fueling the mental health crisis plaguing American kids. They argue being transgender is a mental illness, a delusion, or an abuse of children.

Some argue that trans youth should be blocked from women’s sports altogether. A portion of voters suggest alternative solutions like creating separate competition brackets for transgender athletes.

By the Numbers

Since vetoing the legislature’s bill, Governor Evers’ online mentions skyrocketed while his approval nosedived. He quickly found himself facing a barrage of negative attacks with few positive reinforcements.

• Typically, Evers’ averages just 88 mentions a day. That changed after Monday, jumping to 2,383 direct mentions online following the veto.
• Relatively uncontroversial and gaining little attention online, Evers’ approval before the veto hovered at or near 48%. This quickly dropped to 44% the day of his veto, continuing to tumble to 39% on both Tuesday and Wednesday this week.
• Evers found little help from those who support keeping transgenders in women’s sports. Negative comments towards Evers outweighed support by a ratio of 8 to 1.

Looking Ahead

As America hurdles towards another intense election in November, MIG Reports analysis of Trump versus Biden in Wisconsin shows a statistical tie, with an average of 45% support for both Trump and Biden in the last 30 days.

Issues like transgender rights continue to present a nearly impossible balancing act for Democrats in purple states, threatening to tip the scales in Trump’s favor. On one hand, Democrats like Biden and Evers must cater to younger Democrats who grow increasingly progressive on issues like trans rights. On the other hand, they must combat Republican efforts to paint Democrats as the party of Manhattan and not Milwaukee.

Still, Democrats cannot wriggle out of the double bind they find themselves. They are increasingly facing a potential collapse in progressive voter turnout. On Tuesday, more than 48,000 people traveled to the polls in Wisconsin’s Democratic Primary to select “Uninstructed.” This showing took 8% of the vote share, in protest against Biden’s Israel-Hamas war policies. Fearing more discontent among already depressed young progressives, Democrats are forced to hand Republicans another political lightning rod like transgender issues.

LSU’s women’s basketball team left the court during the national anthem, stirring up controversy in a longstanding debate within sports about patriotism and social justice. The conversation reveals various perspectives and interpretations of why the team may have done so.

Viewpoints ranged from strong support to vehement disagreement. Some people perceived this act as a form of protest against social injustices. Others saw it as disrespectful to the flag and national anthem.

Several commenters expressed concern over the rising influence of woke, social justice culture, arguing it is eroding traditional values and creating divisions in society. They believe such actions disrespect the country and its symbols, undermining unity and patriotism. Some also criticize the progressive ideologies that encourage these types of protests. This group often says liberalism has been hijacked by illiberal forces.

There is some commentary defending the LSU team, arguing it’s normal to not be on the court and has nothing to do with the flag or anthem. This instance of LSU players leaving during the national anthem apparently is not an isolated event. Local reporter Chesse Boucha stated, “If you ever go to an actual LSU game you’ll see that they’re never on the court for the anthem. It’s that simple. I’ve covered them for three years and they’ve never been.” Head Coach Kim Mulkey offered “Honestly, I don’t even know when the anthem was played.”

Those defending LSU players also tend to challenge the use of “woke,” saying it’s a derogatory term and asserting it symbolizes rejecting oppressive norms.

An element of the online conversation also criticizes the focus on culture wars and identity politics. Some suggest it distracts from more pressing issues. They argue such debates are fueled by propaganda outlets owned by powerful individuals with vested interests. These commenters warn against being drawn into divisive narratives and urge people to stay informed and critical.

The nationally televised game illustrates how polarized America is on topics of culture and politics – which are becoming frequently intertwined. The conversation about patriotism in sports highlights how differently Americans see social issues like race and activism.

The narrative around gun violence in mainstream media reports is heavily centered on mass shootings and the politicization of the Second Amendment. The discourse often revolves around debates about gun control, mental health reform, and the responsibility of lawmakers in implementing policies to curb gun violence.

However, there is a glaring lack of attention to the rampant gun violence that plagues inner cities. Meanwhile, there is an abundance of reporting on mass shooting incidents like the one in downtown Indianapolis, which left seven juveniles injured.

Americans largely perceive that media reporting is skewed towards sensationalized mass shootings, often ignoring the daily violence that affects marginalized communities in urban areas while also advocating for illegal immigrants to own guns.

Mainstream narratives rarely include the thousands of gun-related deaths and injuries that occur in, largely blue, urban areas. Stories about daily shootings in places like Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore rarely make national headlines. This contributes to a perception that these incidents are normal or expected, thereby reducing the urgency to address them.

Online discourse often devolves into partisan debates about gun rights and controls. For instance, some voters accuse Chuck Schumer of using a fallen NYPD officer's death to push for gun control. Many claim Schumer and other Democrats politicize the issue. The Second Amendment is frequently invoked in these discussions, with some arguing gun control measures infringe upon constitutional rights.

The mainstream media's failure to highlight inner-city gun violence seems to perpetuate a skewed understanding of the issue. It often favors sensationalized incidents over the chronic violence affecting specific communities. This can lead to policies that do not adequately address the root causes of most gun violence, such as socio-economic disparities and inadequate policing.

Many Americans believe the mainstream media plays a critical role in shaping public opinion and policymaking regarding gun violence. It crucial for voters to have access to comprehensive and balanced new coverage – especially on issues like guns in America. Honest, unbiased reporting on urban gun violence would not only help raise awareness about the extent of the problem, but also promote more effective strategies to combat it. However, many people feel the media often draws false conclusions from a politicized point of view.

Online discussion among American voters and independent journalists often seems to directly dispute media narratives about gun violence. Some point out that most mass shootings are gang-related and occur in African American neighborhoods. This contrasts with the mainstream media's typical portrayal of mass shootings as random acts of violence committed by white, “lone wolf” perpetrators with extremist manifestos.

On Good Friday, the Biden White House announced its plan to honor “Transgender Day of Visibility,” celebrating, “The extraordinary courage and contributions of transgender Americans.” The announcement also proclaimed the day would fall on Easter Sunday, a move which many conservative Christians perceived as an affront to religious norms in America.

Many saw the announcement as an example of "wokeness" or progressive agendas gone awry. They argue overlapping a clearly political observance with important Christian holiday is an inappropriate politicization of religious tradition. Many also accused the administration of intentionally trying to bait Christians into outrage by disrespecting Easter.

Thinly Veiled Hostility Toward American Christians

Traditional Christians voiced strong opposition to Trans Visibility as an affront to their religious traditions and a challenge to the biological realities of gender. They argue the Biden administration is prioritizing secular, progressive values and gender ideology over Christian ones. Many Americans view the Transgender Day of Visibility, along with “Pride” month in June and “Transgender Day of Remembrance” in November, as an intentional way to disrupt traditional moral norms and the sanctity of family life.

Conservatives argue the administration’s choice to make a big deal of the day is purely part of a political agenda. They see government recognition as political encroachment of secular values upon their religious freedoms. This group feels the White House promoting progressive values and ignoring or suppressing Christian values indicates a certain hostility to American Christians.

• Over Easter weekend, discussion about “transgender rights” with mentions of Joe Biden spiked significantly to 1,200 from a normal baseline of almost zero.
• Sentiment toward Joe Biden regarding trans and LGBTQ issues remained steady.
• Sentiment toward Biden regarding religious issues dipped to 45% in the last week, recovering to 54% on Easter Sunday.

Many conservative and religious groups objected to the timing of Biden’s proclamation. They asserted it was a deliberate attempt to overshadow the significance of Easter. They believe the administration is prioritizing political correctness over religious traditions. Some even suggested the move was intended to further polarize the country, exacerbating the divide between traditional religious people and secular, progressive activists.

Evangelical Christians seem to be among the most vocal group to take offense. Many of them perceive this event as a slight or even a direct attack against their faith, questioning the "blasphemy" of the proclaimed Catholic Joe Biden.

Accusations of Political Pandering

Some also view Biden’s proclamation as a strategic attempt to pander to progressive and LGBTQ voters. These commenters claim the Biden administration is attempting to solidify its base among liberal and younger demographics who are more likely to support LGBTQ+ rights.

There are claims the timing of Biden’s announcement isn’t politically motivated as it likely alienates moderate and conservative voters who are uncomfortable with the juxtaposition of a religious holiday and a political statement. However, others insist this alienation is intentional and an attempt to force traditional and religious views out of the political square.

Progressive voters are more positive and supportive toward Transgender Day of Visibility. This is particularly true for those who identify as Democrats or liberals. This group notes the importance of recognizing the rights and identities of transgender people. They see the announcement as a step towards inclusivity and recognition.

Liberals also tend to criticize more conservative voters, accusing them of hatred or bigotry towards trans people. Progressive Christians also claim that modern "inclusion and equity” is in line with the teachings of Jesus. Some even express a belief that Jesus himself would not mind sharing the day.

Prior to COVID lockdowns, religion played a significant role in the lives of many Americans. For Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others, religious beliefs or lack thereof often shape worldview, political leanings, and day-to-day decisions. The intersection of religion and politics, particularly for evangelical Christians, was a contentious issue pre-2020. Those who supported then-president Donald Trump were often criticized. This was especially true when his actions and attitudes seemed antithetical to evangelical beliefs.

COVID lockdowns brought about a shift in religious sentiment among Americans, however. With churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship closing their doors by mandate, many turned to online platforms to practice their faith. This period of isolation and uncertainty also led to an increase in spiritual seeking for some, while others questioned their beliefs.

Lockdowns combined with the subsequent economic crisis brought about a shift in focus. Discussions around job creation, economic recovery, and the role of government in these areas became more prominent. Some religious individuals linked their faith to these civic issues, citing the importance of caring for God's creation – including the economy and the environment. 

Predictive Analysis Vs Mainstream Narrative

The future of religious people in America will likely continue to be influenced by political and social issues. The intersection of faith and politics, particularly for evangelical Christians, will likely remain a contentious issue. However, it is possible the results of COVID may be a shift in priorities, with more focus on social justice, environmental stewardship, and economic equality.

Factors that shape religious sentiment for Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, and others will likely remain diverse and complex. These may include personal experiences, societal trends, political climate, and interpretations of religious texts. The rise of online religious practice may also continue, altering the way Americans engage with their faith.

The impact of lockdowns on religion in America has been significant. It seems to have led to permanent changes in religious practice and sentiment. The future of religion in America is somewhat uncertain and will likely be influenced by many factors.

Mainstream media narratives suggest that Christianity, which has historically been the dominant religion in America, is waning. News reports point to decreased church attendance as an indicator of archaic ways of life receding into the past.

Mainstream reporting suggests demographic shifts such as increasing racial and ethnic diversity in America likely leads to increased religious pluralism. There is also a suggestion that secularization will continue to increase, particularly among younger generations who are less likely to identify with traditional religious institutions.

However, external data indicates this narrative does not tell the whole story and may actually be cynical. Some studies show an increase in younger generations attending church services.

• Non-white Millennials drive the largest increase in church attendance.
• 45% of non-white Millennials are attending church weekly, compared to 35% of white Millennials.

Percent Attending Church Weekly

Political dynamics may also shape the future of religion in America. The intertwining of religion and politics, particularly on the Christian right, could further polarize religious communities. Conservative Christians often find themselves at odds with the rise of social justice movements which prompt many faith communities to engage in activism and advocacy.

Technological advancements, from online worship services to religious apps, could transform how people practice their faith. These technologies may make religion more accessible to some. However, they also seem to be raising new questions about the nature of religious community and worship.

In terms of religious sentiment, various faiths continue to hold different views on morality, social justice, and the role of religion in public life. These differences are often shaped by theological beliefs, cultural backgrounds, and personal experiences.

For example, Christians may continue to grapple with issues like LGBTQ rights and racial justice, with different denominations and individuals having differing views. Jews and Muslims may continue to face challenges related to religious discrimination and prejudice, which could shape their religious sentiments and practices. Atheists, meanwhile, may continue to advocate for secularism and the removal of religion from government practices. 

Demographics and Mass Attendance

While Protestant numbers have decreased, Catholicism remains steady and may be trending upward. Furthermore, a possible resurgence of Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) attendees seems to be leading the potential increase. A survey conducted from 2019 to 2021 of TLM parishes across the country identified:

• 2019 average attendance across 59 parishes was 145.
• 2020 average attendance across 61 parishes was 163.
• January 2021 average attendance across 69 parishes was 174.
• June 2021 average attendance across 75 parishes was 196.

In short, the rate of TLM attendance increased by 34% and the number of parishes offering TLM increased by 27%.

“So, at a time when general Mass attendance was decreasing,” the report pointed out, “attendance at the TLM was dramatically increasing." Church attendance also differs among generations. However, this may be an indicator of continued increases in faith since Millennials are less likely than Boomers to stop attending church all together. They are, however, more likely to attend multiple churches.

The economy also seems to be an influencing factor, likely delaying family creation, as well as causing increased housing prices and other general costs of living. These hardships may be encouraging Americans back to faith.

Given difficult economic conditions and societal disillusionment being exacerbated by COVID lockdowns, searching for meaning is a plausible counterreaction to recent societal turmoil for many Americans. Despite the mainstream media's insistence to the contrary and negative portrayal of religiosity, many Americans are clinging to their faith.

Boeing’s PR disaster in recent months over recurring safety complications is not letting up. American voters are feeling overwhelmingly negative about the jet company – expressing fear and criticism. There is a strong sense of frustration and disappointment with the company's handling of the safety issues. One particular issue people bring up is the incident involving the door panel of a Boeing 737 Max plane blowing out mid-flight.

• Boeing sentiment has been hovering in the mid 40% range while online discussion continues to grow more negative.

Safety Concerns for American Travelers

There is a clear concern about how safe Boeing planes are for passengers, particularly the 737 Max. People recurringly mention a near-collision incident involving a Boeing 737 Max and a Boeing 777, which, among other events, is fueling safety concerns. Some Americans question the safety of Boeing aircraft and often express nervousness about traveling in them.

Following the death of Boeing whistleblower John Barnett, more people are discussing their view of a decline in Boeing's quality and the impact of rushing projects. People are relating the problems to poor management and the company's focus on profits over audits and worker wellbeing, and a growing sense of incompetence in modern society.

The disapproval of safety standards at Boeing are not generally partisan, however right leaning Americans are more likely to bring up DEI, criticizing its woke impact on Boeing's operations. They suggest that DEI is partially responsible for the company's difficulties and call for its removal.

Reactions to Boeing CEO’s Resignation

The public seems to believe Boeing's priorities are more focused on production than on safety and quality. Some even go so far as to suggest that all Boeing aircraft should be melted down and started over.

Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun’s resignation is seen by many as a positive step. But there is also skepticism about whether this will lead to any real changes in the company's approach to safety.

American appear to have a generally negative view of Dave Calhoun and his leadership at the company. They also criticize the executive and management levels of leadership broadly.

There is some public relief at the news of Calhoun's resignation, and some suggest the entire company needs a complete overhaul or "start over." Public views on the company’s brand value indicates widespread dissatisfaction with Boeing's current image.

While some see Calhoun’s resignation as an appropriate response to the company's troubles, others question the timing and express cynicism about the executives' motives.

There is also criticism of large exit packages for departing executives, especially in the light of perceived gross negligence in handling safety issues. Some express concerns about the future of Boeing as a leader in the industry given the ongoing crises.

General Criticism of the Company

There are calls for more accountability and transparency from Boeing, with some suggesting that more information should be released about safety incidents and negligence allegations. Some even raise questions about potential criminal charges or ethical investigations related to safety issues and suspicion around John Barnett’s death.

Overall, public sentiment indicates a lack of trust or confidence in Boeing and its leadership, as well as increasing fear of boarding a Boeing jet. The way the company handles this crisis and its commitment to safety and quality moving forward will likely influence public perception and trust in the company.

The War on Drugs, a global campaign led by the U.S. federal government with the aim of reducing the illegal drug trade, has long been a point of political and social contention. Views on this issue tend to vary depending on political affiliation, racial and economic background, age, and geography.

Partisan Views of the War on Drugs

Democrats generally advocate for a more health-centered approach to the issue. They emphasize prevention, treatment, harm reduction strategies, and decriminalization of marijuana. They often argue the War on Drugs has disproportionately targeted minority communities, leading to systemic racial disparities in drug-related arrests and incarcerations.

Decriminalization or legalization of marijuana efforts emphasize potential economic benefits and reducing the number of nonviolent drug offenders in prisons. They often argue the War on Drugs has disproportionately impacted communities of color and lower-income individuals. This, they say, leads to systemic injustices. The Democratic Party has increasingly endorsed medical marijuana and decriminalization of possession.

Republicans typically support strong law enforcement measures to combat drug trade. They argue for increased border security and stringent punishment for drug offenders. They often attribute the drug problem to lax immigration policies and assert that stronger border controls could help prevent drugs like fentanyl from entering the country. This group prioritizes maintaining public safety however, this viewpoint is evolving.

Some Republicans, such as Georgia's Governor Brian Kemp, have shown support for marijuana legalization, causing confusion among conservative constituents.

Independents generally lean towards more moderate strategies that balance law enforcement with prevention and treatment. Their views are varied, but they often align more closely with the Democratic viewpoint, favoring decriminalization or legalization. 

Other Demographic Groups on the Drug War

Age also plays a significant role in shaping views on the War on Drugs. Younger generations, who have grown up in an era of changing attitudes towards certain drugs like cannabis, are more likely to support reformative approaches like decriminalization and treatment. Older generations tend to maintain more conservative views, favoring law enforcement and punitive measures.

Geography is another factor, as urban and rural communities experience different aspects of the drug crisis. Rural areas, for instance, have been hit particularly hard by the opioid epidemic. And urban areas often struggle with issues related to drug trafficking and violence.

Racial and economic backgrounds also influence perceptions of the War on Drugs. Minority communities, particularly African American and Latino populations, have been disproportionately affected by drug-related arrests and incarcerations. Economically disadvantaged communities often bear the brunt of the drug crisis, suffering higher rates of substance abuse and related health issues.

It's likely that the War on Drugs will remain a politically divisive issue. As the country continues to grapple with the fallout from the opioid epidemic, debates will likely center around the balance between law enforcement and treatment strategies. Furthermore, concerns about racial justice and the societal impacts of drug criminalization will continue to shape public discourse on this issue.

As newer generations become more politically active, it’s possible there will be a shift towards more progressive policies. However, strong law enforcement measures will likely remain a key component of the country's overall strategy to combat drug abuse.

Online commentary concerning opioids is a large, varied topic which produces a lower sentiment than conversations pertaining to drug enforcement. 

Some of the common discussion include:

Fentanyl

There's a widespread concern about the proliferation of fentanyl in the illegal drug supply — a highly potent synthetic opioid. Many Americans express fear and confusion about reasons for its presence, given the drug's high lethality. They see fentanyl as counterproductive for drug dealers or the cartels. Some people believe the introduction of fentanyl is a deliberate act to harm or kill users, and there are theories that it is part of a broader conspiracy. Many also acknowledge the extreme danger posed by fentanyl, with some likening its use to playing Russian roulette. Others connect the presence of fentanyl in drugs to the need for changes in border policy.

Opioid Crisis

The opioid crisis is a significant point of discussion, with criticism aimed at politicians and pharmaceutical companies for their roles in the epidemic. Many feel these entities are profiting from the crisis and doing nothing to stop it. There's also a sense of frustration and anger over the perceived lack of action and accountability in addressing the issue, along with related border and crime issues.

Personal Responsibility

Some users emphasize the importance of personal responsibility in drug use, arguing that individuals must make the choice not to consume drugs. However, this viewpoint is not universally shared. Some point to external factors like the availability and potency of drugs and the difficulty of getting clean.

Drug Legislation

There's skepticism about the effectiveness of drug legislation in curbing the drug problem, with some viewing proposed initiatives like the END FENTANYL ACT with cynicism. There's a sense that previous legislation has only made the situation worse, and there's little faith that future legislation will be any different.

Drug Prohibition

Some users see drug prohibition as a significant factor in drug-related deaths, arguing that it forces people to use unregulated drugs and contributes to the prevalence of dangerous substances like fentanyl. There are calls for drugs to be regulated and sold in the same way as alcohol.

The Effect on Families and Communities

The impact of drug use and addiction on families and communities is a recurring theme. Users share personal stories of loss and devastation caused by drug addiction, particularly from fentanyl poisoning. There's also a sense that certain communities, like those with high opioid use, are stigmatized and overlooked.