Followed. An agency that over the past several years has been mired in a tory us gridlock. Theyve had difficulty really agreeing on anything of great subs. Substance. As a result, many of these areas that we are talking about are very fuzzy. Court nations, Nonprofit Organizations and whether they can spend as much money as they want to on politics coordinations, Nonprofit Organizations and whether they can spend as much money as they want to on. Many of these issues are being punted. Agencies cannot agree on it. They will be weighing in in 2016 which leaves everything up in the air on these specific questions. Host for the radio listeners we showed a headline to one of Dave Levinthals recent stories about gridlocked elections watchdogs. Questions about these Campaign Reports . Time to call in in general. Democratic line, st. Louis missouri, good morning. Caller good morning. Mr. Leventhal, this is a hypothetical question. If you were to add up all the money that was spent on campaigns, president ial on down to state legislatures, over 10 years what kind of figure of money with that be . Guest the caller is going to challenge my math at 930 in the morning. 9 30 in the morning. I can tell you this, without penciling it out in full, you would be talking about tens and tens of aliens of dollars. Tens and tens of billions of dollars. President ial, Congressional Elections easily exceeded 5 billion in 2012. In 2016 that is likely, almost certainly going to well exceed that figure. That does not include state races. That is not include mayoral races. If you go back over 10 years you can see from these examples how this money is going to add up very quickly. Some people will make the case that all right, that seems like a huge number, but look at the operations with advertising budgets and spend millions, even billions over a long. Of time to promote their products. Long period of time to promote their products. What is so bad about these candidates getting their message out . A fair thing to debate. We have this wonderful thing called the const duchenne, it has a First Amendment that gives us a right to speech. Free speech is one of the most revered aspects. You can talk about what you want to do is a candidate. You can tell the public what you think is right and what you think is wrong. I dont think you will get an argument from anyone that the candidates do not have the right to get this message out . All right, can you use unlimited amounts of money to do it. Can you be somebody who does not revealed to the public that you are funding massive campaigns to support or oppose, to promote or teardown a certain candidate and effectively operate in the shadows while you do this . These are some of the big legalistic kinds of questions. Even some people would consider it moral questions, as we do this most public of things sending people to washington to represent us in the halls of power. Host mary, republican line good morning. Caller im curious to know who finances the center for public integrity. I just googled it and i found the two names that jumped out at me george soros and arianna huffington. Can you explain why you have support from such a leftwing force . Guest sure. I am not involved in the financing of the center. Im a journalist. I can definitely say that if you go to our website we have a list of numerous funders, some of whom are conservative, some of whom are liberal who support our work. We are an investigative News Organization and we take money from any source, foundations primarily, and individuals who want to support our work. We would encourage anyone regardless of political persuasion to look at the work that we do, judge it for themselves, and support it if theyd like to. Host can you tell us about where you worked before you came to washington . Guest seven years at the Dallas Morning News before politico. And then before that the mighty eagle tribune come tribune, covering mighty New Hampshire politics. Host as you said, Dave Levinthal, a man who knows Campaign Finance inside and out. We have about 10 minutes left rear questions. Robert, line for republicans. Good morning. Caller good morning, sir. Host go ahead, robert. You are on with Dave Levinthal caller Dave Levinthal. Caller what would you think if donald trump dropped out of the race . What if he ran as an independent . How would that affect the election . Guest republicans do not know what to do with donald trump right now. Some of them do, those are the ones who are supporting him, thinking that he is the ultimate anticandidate candidate. Someone who is going to breathe life into the Republican Party that they year has feared too far to the right or the left or lost its compass. Lots of reasons why lots of people are supporting all of these. Candidate. Dachshund. Myriad candidates. If he did not win in the republican primary season, to pull a ross wrote in 19 ross perot and run as an independent. Even start his own party. Who really knows what donald trump is going to do. He is someone who is a total ex factor in his race right now and as a result is causing a lot of const or nation among republicans. Certainly the other candidates running the nomination. And the party brass, who are concerned about many of the comments hes making. Most recently one was very critical of john mccains military record. Donald trump is in this election and he is probably here to say. As a result, this notion of him breaking off . He could run his own campaign for sure. He has the money to do it. Whether he has 4 billion, 10 billion, 6 billion. Host how much money could he put in . Guest as much money as he wanted to from his own pocket. If you wanted to be selffunded like ross perot did he would have the ability to do that. This is somebody where money is not a concern for him. Support would be another thing. It goes back to that notion that if you have a lot of people donating to your campaign, its more than just money you can use. Its an investment that people are making to support you. Whether donald trump gets that is very unclear but he definitely has the requisite amount of money to run his own campaign, if hes going to spend his way to do it. You can be a billionaire, but when you are talking about billion dollar campaigns he will have to pony up a lot of his own resources. Host good morning tom republican line, louisville. Caller im wondering how much of the Actual Campaign money is spent to continue illegal immigration. I guess the simple fact here in kentucky california has got at least nine representatives that do not represent citizens. They are actually representing illegal immigrants. I know in texas the Supreme Court was going to look at the fact that republicans were redistricting so that they could take advantage of those illegal immigrants. To me that is probably the biggest in going on that you hear nothing about. What would you have to say about that . Guest in a campaign sense it is difficult to quantify how much money in a campaign is going to a specific issue, like illegal immigration or any other issue, for that matter. What i know is this. In the past we have seen some candidates spend a good chunk of their money and resources on messages, on advertisements or Promotional Materials that did talk about the issue of illegal immigration. We havent talking about super pacs and outside groups a lot. Some of those organizations also talk about immigration to a pretty strong degree. They cast those messages and advertisements in the light of what those candidates have done, what their record is. As you will see with other issues as well. While i cannot give the caller a specific figure, you connect spect that certainly on the republican side during the primary that areas antedates are going to be a various candidates are going to be talking about this issue and expecting to say a decent amount and spend on that issue as well. It will definitely be in the mix. Host just a couple of minutes left. Tom, pittsburgh, pennsylvania, democratic line, good morning. Caller all of the money they are spending on these elections is at seen. Let me tell you Something Else. When george bush, the dad, became president , one of the first things he said was we are going to have a new world order. Peace, prosperity, partnership. One nation. Thats what the democrats are doing two. Im a democrat. Between hillary and bush . I cannot vote. Another thing. The black population of this country, between 18 and 30, is over 22 , yet we are taking in all of these immigrants. All of these immigrants. Its awful. Host lets see of we can get in dave, california. Caller i wanted to ask we spent all of this money, billions of dollars on and pains in the. We dont have no money here. That seems pretty greedy to me. I just wondered, if it seems like the Election Officials are just in bought. People are always talking about immigration. They can solve immigration in a minute to what the president of the United States says. They dont want to do that. They want people to come here and work for two dollars per hour. Cheap labor. Thats the only thing. Build a fence, built 10 fences, it wouldnt do any good. If they want to solve a problem when an employee target people illegally, he will go to jail and that solves the problem right there. Host what are we looking for when are we looking at the next Campaign Finance numbers coming out . Guest potentially you will have a new set of numbers coming out in october for the candidates themselves. What we will get our first look at what the super pacs who are supporting the candidates are raising. Just at the end of this month we will be reporting on that as well. The last caller brought up an interesting point as well why are we in this situation in the first place . Why can we not change it . In short you have the players also serving as the referees. Neither the democrats nor the republicans want to give the other side and advantage, which is why it is so difficult to get reform or change on the Campaign Finance and passed into law. End passed into law. Host ck. We will have live coverage at 10 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. A russian on synthetic and designer drugs, including legalizing the drugs. This is one hour and a half. [inaudible] good afternoon. We have Foreign Policy studies here at the Cato Institute and i want to thank you for being here. Thank you especially to those of you watching online. The topic today is extremely timely, News Organizations as recently as yesterday in the Washington Post has talked about the proliferation of synthetic or designer drugs that produce psychological and mind altering effects policymakers have really scrambled to outlaw substances that can regain legal status with a modest change in chemical make up. Some of those masquerade as such innocuous products as air fresheners or potpourri. The question we are debating is can these new mind altering substances be outlawed without resorting to tortured legal rationales . Are there alternatives to a prohibitionist strategy or could policymakers better promote Public Safety by requiring strict production standards but not attempting to ban their use . In this recent analysis for those of you watching this is also available online, this new study examines the issues that we will be talking about today and im pleased to welcome him here his remarks will be followed by eric sterling and jacob hornberger. A few words about my friends and mentor ted. Ted is a senior fellow for defense here he served as the director of foreignpolicy in 1995 and is Vice President for defense and Foreign Policy studies from 1995 through 2011. This includes the fire next door, mexicos drug violence and danger to america and bad neighbor policy and those are directly relevant to this topic more probably toward a prudent Foreign Policy for america. He is a contributing editor and serves on the editorial boards and is the author of more than 600 authors and policy studies and his articles have appeared in the New York Times, wall street journal los angeles times, foreign affairs, and many others. He is a frequent guest not just here in the United States but also in europe and east asia and elsewhere. And with that i introduce you. Thank you very much. It is certainly correct that this is a timely topic and it seems like every time you make turnarounds there is a major news article about synthetic drugs and the alleged threat to Public Health and safety in my study focuses on designer drugs which is a subset of artificial substances that mimic the effects of traditional mind altering drugs. They had been around for a number of decades and we are certainly familiar with the methamphetamine phenomenon which has been around for longer than three decades. If you go back to the 1960s over the use of lsd this is not a new issue per se. But what we have seen in the past five years or so is a new family of synthetic drugs and those are the ones that i call designer drugs and there are two major categories and one synthetic marijuana often chose high the name of spies or k2 and bath salts that mimic the effects of cocaine and also flakka is probably the best known of that category. As is indicated a lot of the designer drugs are marketed as perfectly legal substances, everything from this to pet food, most of the substances are labeled not for human consumption. Lets just say that people have disregarded those warning labels with a vengeance and the increased use of designer drugs most of those are coming from production site either in mexico or suburban sites in china and then shipped over to the United States and other markets. As the levels have risen the news media stories have also surged often with headlines about the dire threat to Public Health and safety. Theres no question that there has been a surge of use in designer drugs. Just accessing the data to Emergency Rooms will show that there has been a tremendous surge over the last five or six or seven years and that the drug prohibition argued that this poses an especially serious threat to children. The official of the Drug Enforcement Administration Says that the biggest population are 12 to 17yearolds. The rationale is because these drugs until recently have had an aura of legality and that they were very easy to get and children were prone to use them. I was extremely skeptical about that argument. Children and usually by that we are talking about teenagers have had very little trouble getting access to explicitly illegal substances over the years. I assure you within 15 to 30 minutes you will know who the local drug dealers are and the students know who they are and they can refer you very easily. Many of us can testify for personal experience that it was never difficult to get our hands on liquor even though theoretically we were barred from access to such dunces until the age of 21 years old. I can testify my own experience that i drank more from the ages of 15 to 21 then i have since that time. Easy access argument falls apart pretty easily. What about that most users are designer drugs are 12 to 17yearolds. Well, again we dont have great data on this as of yet. But it pertinent to note that the druggies generally is a special menace to children and a common theme of prohibitionist for decades. And yet the Mental Health Services Administration confirmed the findings of earlier surveys that the use of marijuana and other Illegal Drugs is predominately an adult vice. Well in excess of 80 of users over the age of 18. And there is very little preliminary as it is indicated that this is different than those substances. They dont seem all that popular among teenagers to begin with. Natural marijuana is still by far their drug of choice and the university of michigan monitoring the future study in 2014 found that some 35 of High School Seniors reported using marijuana during the Previous Year and that figure has been remarkably studied over the past two decades. Its a personal thing with me and i get annoyed every time i hear teenagers and especially those in their late teenagers described as children. High School Seniors are either already adult or already 18 years old, or they are 17yearolds on a sharp threshold of adulthood and we want to keep that into perspective. Moreover if we look at drug use among teenagers the synthetic drug issue is not all that big and figures from the 2014 unit of university of michigan study found that the use of marijuana actually declined steadily among all surveyed from 2010 and among 10th graders, reported use from the previous 12 months is the synthetic marijuana it went from 11. 4 less than 6 and this is not a system with a very of an epidemic. We have no chance. What do we do, ignore the problem . There are things we can do. Thethe goal should be to channel the trade every substance as well as other current illicit drugs and illegal channels come into the hands of reputable businesses which means requiring standards for labeling and dosage so that customers no what there getting. And then as citizens of a free society they get to make there own decisions. People see a percentage of the population has a great desire to get high one way or the other. People have been sniffing glue and paint thinner for decades. We are not about out those substances. It would not be effective if we tried. Again the focus ought to be on Harm Reduction policy one that tries to channel the trade through the hands of reputable businesses, guarantees accurate labeling and dosage and then allows people to remain free to make there own decisions for good or ill. Nobody saidnobody said the ability to make these decisions will always ensure wise decisions. That is a matter of individual responsibility. The one thing that we can be sure is that prohibition of synthetic drugs, prohibition of designer drugs is not going to work any better than prohibition has with regard to alcohol in the 1920s or early 1930s or more traditional illicit drugs such as marijuana and cocaine in a decade sense. We ought to at least learn from that lesson and not apply the same failed model with this knew phenomenon. Thank you. [applause] thank you, ted. Let me introduce our to distinguish commentators. Since 1989 eric sterling has been the president of the criminal Justice Policy foundation, a private foundation, a private nonprofit Organizational Foundation that helps educate the nation about criminal justice issues and failed global drug policy. He was counsel from 1979 until 1989 when he was principal aid responsible for developing legislation. For example he was counsel prior to the emergency scheduling amendment in the 1984 comprehensive control act and the designer Drug Enforcement act of 1986 and he was the principal staffer in developing the chemical diversion and trafficking act of 1988 that brought many of the common precursor meant precursor chemicals under dea jurisdiction including the ban on manufacture and distribution of free net round bottomed flasks which he tells me some people find hilarious. I dont know what that is but he will explain. Three next round bottomed flasks. I dont have one. Maybe thats why. Mr. Stirling helped found and serves on the board of directors of families against mandatory minimums and marijuana majority in the voluntary committee of lawyers and a number of other boards. Eric received a ba in 1973 from haverford college. If all thatif all that was not enough he graduated from Hurricane Island Outward Bound school and climbed the matterhorn in 1979. I cant top that. Our 2nd commentator is the founder and president of the future of Freedom Foundation one and raised in louisville, taxes and received a ba in economics from the Virginia Military institute and lot agree for the university of texas. A trial lawyer, and adjunct professor at the university of dallas we toggle on economics. Economics. In 87 he left the practice to become director of programs at the foundation for Economic Education advanced freedom and free markets on talk radio stations all around the country in a number of Television Shows and appears regularly on judge Andrew Napolitano show. With that, take it over. Chris, thank you so much for the introduction. It is an honor for me to be invited to speak to cato. I started attending sessions such as this in 1981 when the offices were right across the street from the library of congress and my thinking was profoundly shaped by the speakers that i heard. And to be asked to speak is really a high. For me command to be on this distinguished panel. This question of synthetic drugs that we are addressing is obviously a tremendous deja vu for me professionally but in some sense it should be a deja vu for libertarians. This is a copy of inquiry magazine from february 1984. The title is the war on drugs over. The government has lost by jack shafer who was managing editor. He is now a senior Political Writer in washington for politico. He lays out in this article for the war on drugs is over essentially the story that we are facing right now dealing with synthetics. He i want to give him credit for being so percy and in this and this 84 article before the legislation i was involved in past. He noted that early on in california synthetics for drugs like heroin is already begun. Unless we turn away from drug prohibition we will be awash in a flood of cheap and deadly synthetic drug substitutes. Itit is important that the drugs we are talking about really are quite harmful. In contrast to drugs like marijuana and heroin you know, heroin legally obtained safely injected does not lead to crime, does not cause tissue damage, lead to insanity. You are simply addicted check includes his article. What can dea do that ithas not already tried . Control the chemicals needed Congress Passed a comprehensive precursor bill very interesting to see at that time the chemistry industry was unable to recognize they are now going to be regulated not nearly by mpa but dea. The dea approach we will be very different. Very interesting for me as a congressional staffer trying to see how the Interest Groups might respond. Here is one that was unable to mobilize and see what the implications were of this knew regulatory approach. We see that the drug precursors are still getting in the mexico and the United States. Jack asks well, we saw the consequence in the United States. We saw the increased power that the Civil War Cartel has had. Licensed Lab Equipment . And this brings me to a story of the three neck round bottom flasks. The synthesis required that a particular piece of Lab Equipment called at three neck round bottom flask. That was the Standard Laboratory piece. And so congress banned it but it did not been for neck round bottom flask. And of course one would have to do is put a plug into the neck and you would still be able to have a for neck round bottom flask do everything that your three neck round bottom flask would. I dont know how many of you no the name of a chemist in california who is known for the reduction of mdma commonly known as ecstasy in the popular society. A scientist who is interested in the exploration of drugs. And i knew sasha you know that one time were talking about chemistry. I am telling them the story. He. He says, thats the most hysterical act of congress i can imagine. Clearly congress trying to do something which is practice on its face. And he was the one who just cracked up regarding this. Finally, of course if you cant wiselife is a Lab Equipment that you jail everyone who has access. That doesnt happen. There are already enormously harsh penalties. And jack quotes a mentor of mine from American University who says, the clandestine synthetics may well soon swap drug markets and deliver the coup de grace to a dying International Drug system. The plain truth is in a society technologically advanced as ours the government cannot keep people from experimenting. The government crackdown has always been of the process and fouled the market with drugs of uncertain. Potency. We see these things called synthetic marijuana. The law still punishes harshly the production of highquality marijuana that can be produced without contamination. Legally regulated marijuana markets in colorado and washington that were putting in laboratory controls. In maryland where our regulations are going to require that every batch be tested by an independent testing laboratory. We can produce safe highquality cannabis and eliminate the market for synthetic marijuana. These things called incense and bath salts are clearly intended for human consumption and it seems that the prosecutors say to hell theyre is nothing we can do and have not been sufficiently creative and getting the targets of these investigation. Why does a gas station so something by the Cash Register called incense or bath salts fact it is inconceivable to me that you cant send in a sufficient number of welltrained informants to get the clerk to make some kind of statement that indicates that the clerk understands this is for human consumption. And so i will conclude by saying the government is struggling to go along. In 2012 Congress Passed the synthetic drug excuse me. The synthetic drug abuse prevention act of 2012 as though that is going to happen. They added the schedule 15 specific classes of canada netted compounds, 15 specific cabinet. [inaudible] mimetic compound that was specifically banned as well as 1111 of the kind of chemicals sold his bath salts which set up the opportunity for additional kinds of compounds to be sold. The publics demand to get high, to relieve pain whether its from the mentally ill or the mentally intellectually curious that is going to take place and the public remains a risk until these guys are properly regulated and controlled, sold by lessons laboratories, come with appropriate kind of warnings thank you. [applause] thank you. It is great to be back here at the Cato Institute to participate in the program. Done such great work advancing liberty. It is a special honor to be on this panel. One of my real life libertarian heroes. A special honor to be here discussing his paper. As i was reading through this paper and listening to tell his remarks and erics remarks as well ii think the central message that was coming through to me throughout all of this was just the utter futility that no matter what the drug warriors do, no matter what they do its not going to change anything. Is a classic case of just utter futility. And i was thinking back to an open letter written in the 1990s six years after this article americans talking about. An open letter by Milton Friedman that appeared in the wall street journal to bill bennett who was the drugs are at that time. Friedman said to bennett the same sort of thing that had says in this paper. Bill, you know i beseech you. And this war on drugs 25 years ago because it will not accomplish what you hope to accomplish. It will only bring death, destruction and a loss of wellbeing for the people of society. And then he cites a column that he wrote 17 years before the1973 when the drug war is really getting wrapped up. And in that article he made the same. That had makes in this paper about designer drugs. Pointing out that crack cocaine was developed as a response to the government crackdown on regular crack regular cocaine eileen. Because it was so expensive the black market brought into existence crack cocaine, sheep, more addictive and it went on to ravage people in the inner cities, especially africanamericans. Here you have this program that is utterly futile. Why wouldwhy would it surprises . Just look at basic law of supply and demand the government enacts a law this is no one is permitted to take drugs. Their expectation is that everyone will obey. We just made it illegal. Well, life doesnt work that way. When you make a peaceful activity illegal that people want to engage in is a high probability that people are going to continue engaging in that activity despite what the law says and especially for drug addicts of people that just enjoy taking drugs. And so they violate the law. Then you putthen you put out of business all the reputable businesses pharmacies pharmaceutical companies and you turn over the Distribution Network to the unsavory types the people that did not give a hoot whether someone dies or not. And so the drug warriors get angry so they go after the drug lords in the drug gangs and you have to incarcerate them on a regular basis. But all that that does is generate high prices exorbitant profit that induces more people to get into the business, including regular ordinary people who see a chance fora chance for a quick score and of course never dreaming of what it cant. Now, if the consequences of this war or benign. If it was just a matter of giving something to do, jobs for federal judges and prosecutors and dea agents deputy sheriffs, that would be one thing. Okay. Let them have there jobs but it is not like that. There are tremendous adverse effects from this thing. You have got the corruption of course, bribes among the judiciary and the prosecutors and Law Enforcement Asset Forfeiture laws for the cops are stealing money from people. You have got the massive infringement on Civil Liberties the bashing down a peoples doors, shooting of innocent people shooting there pets, massive invasions of privacy and it just never stops. A few days ago some us officials said about the drug war that just escaped from a mexican prison that man has destroyed thousands of lives and were going to get him back in the jail. Well, that may be but the fact is that the drug warriors have destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives if not millions with death and destruction and, of course, overfilling the penitentiaries. Thethe penitentiaries the biggest business in america primarily because of the drug war. I grew up on the border in laredo. So when i was in high school andin late 60s when the drug role was starting to be going have friends whose lives were destroyed. But we always went across the river on dates and had a great time. It was a a nice place to grow up and have fun. Tourists were flooding the border area to get a taste of old mexico. Not anymore. But they said today is this drug war is just so destructive. It has destroyed the fabric of mexican society. Now. Out of my friends ever go across the river anymore. Its too dangerous. One of the consequences, im glad ted brought this out his paper, this concept of overdose. We hear at all the time. Someone dies of a drug overdose. In virtually every case its never a drug overdose. Thats what they say. The real cause is the corrupted drug, the polluted drug that is a direct result of the illegality because the drug lord, the drug gang they couldnt care less if someone dies. They certainly dont have to worry about a lawsuit as they would in an unhampered market economy are pharmaceutical companies are careful. They put the seals on the casually well and are careful because they no the one death will cause a massive large massive loss of market share bankruptcy,share bankruptcy, and the lawsuits which is one of the tragic consequences. Attics okay. Okay. Drug addiction is a tragedy. But it is a bigger tragedy when they die because of the drug war itself. Finally i should wrapi should wrap this up by saying that is futile is this drug warriors as destructive as it is that is not the real reason why we should call for the end to this war. I mean, we see the futility going to put him back in jail make sure he is incarcerated for the rest of his life without parole like they did the silk road guy. You know, for what . What is the. . They put him back in jail or they dont. Nothing is going to change any more than it has over the last four years. But the real reason that we want to end this war on drugs is not just the futility of it but because of the concept of human freedom. Ted mentioned russia and iran. Conservative examples of the war on drugs. Lets look at the leftist examples like cuba and north korea and china and vietnam all of which have drug laws and the drug war because the drug war is inherent to a tyrannical, totalitarian authoritarian regime. It is only in free societies are people always recognized that people have a right as a concept of human freedom itself to ingest whatever they want to ingest no matter how destructive, no matter how dangerous harmful. If there was ever any reason why we should end this futile war on drugs its because we, thewe, the American People, stand for freedom. Thank you very much. [applause] thank you, jacob, eric. Im going to exercise my authority Tyrannical Authority as moderator because you talk about futility. One of the cases are described is the three neck round banda. The futility of trying to ban to make illegal things that are kind of transparently innocuous, legal and then the process, the market being what it is for the process of getting around those restrictions. And this is a. Command i we will admit this is a topic i had not studied much. I was struck by the ease with which the manufacturers of these chemicals substances can evade restrictions by making very minor changes to the chemical composition to get around the law but then as we have talked about they may inadvertently introduce new harms to users who thought they were getting one thing and get Something Else. Can you talk a little bit more about that concert . We will we have seen is really quite tortured legal reasoning to describe, we aredescribe, were going to make illegal substances like this and others like them sort of thing. Laws that are that vaguely worded. It carries a host of threats to liberty. First of all, i would like to thank eric and jacob for excellent comments on the paper and presentation. What chris has pointed out is an inherent dilemma that prohibitionists face. They can either have laws that are very specific but when your dealing with synthetic drugs a very small change in chemical composition and suddenly create a substance that is no longer covered by law. And i believe the Washington Post article pointed out that currently theyre are about 350 varieties of synthetic drugs and counting. This constantly changes. If you have specific bands this is like playing whack a mole. You been one substance and then get its 1st cousin or 2nd cousin. That is perfectly legal and prosecutors have to go after that and legislators have to go after that. The alternative is to enact very broad bands but as we have seen with other laws that are vague and overly broad that can lead to massive abuses of authority. And people who may have perfectly legitimate businesses suddenly find themselves under scrutiny, under prosecution. And at times not even being clear on what law they violated. So that is an option that i think is inherently destructive to a free society. This is, again, an inevitable problem that prohibitionists confront particularly withconfront, particularly with synthetic drugs that all you need is an enterprising chemist to change the composition of the substance little and a specific bands simply doesnt work. So theyre is an irresistible pressure to come up with broader and broader ever more vague bands despite the destructive effects of that has on the rule of law. You want to add to that . I do. You put your finger on this. In at the Committee Level as we were trying to figure out what to do with the call to take this action, theres a great concern about due process providing real notice to the public of what is permitted and was prohibited. And we are witnesses spoke about this particular problem that in the research trying to find new compounds for medical purposes or otherwise you are going to look at existing drugs because that is your starting. We already no these drugs are effective in the particular psychiatric way. If tweaking it produces something that is useful. There was this concern. We put in language about being intended for human consumption. Those who are doing this kind of experimentation for Research Purposes they are not covered by the prohibition. The danger that people face now the congress is going to say this human consumption thing as too much of a barrier, too much of a barrier. Lets take that out because they are shipping this stuff and we cant prove they intended it for human consumption. Twentyfour insulated. You endyou end up with the prohibition that is squishy. The chemical that may produce these kind of affects. You have a professor at a college a professor at a college and suddenly runs afoul because this is too close to a prohibited drug. The danger in this current kind of Political Climate will i think, present a real problem if this log is further watered down. Very good. We dogood. We do have time for questions. A few notes. Wait for the microphone for the benefit of those watching online and identify yourself and your affiliation. The jeopardy rule applies here which means please fraser question in the form of a question. With thatwith that in the back on the wall right theyre. I guess you would call me a prohibitionist. My name is paul a gordon. I have a website called drug abuse prevention. Speak up. My name is probably gordon. I have a website called gordon drug abuse prevention. Com. Okay. I also had a Nonprofit Organization in california and berkeley which was called the committee for Psychedelic Drug information we tried to do everything we could to dissuade individuals not to use marijuana and other Psychedelic Drugs. What you have overlooked all of you is the fact that if you clarify socalled purify the substances you still have a psychoactive substance which is addictive which can be addictive. Longitudinal studies in last year have shown that one in six youngsters, young people become addicted. One in ten adults become addicted to marijuana and what you are overlooking is in order to ascertain the harmfulness of the substance pharmaceutical substance you have to go to the active principle, the thc. No amount of thc could should be used by someone who is driving. You should not drive under the influence of marijuana. The question is if you purify the substances and get around the problem of them being contaminated you still have the issue of addiction for use. Okay. Exactly. That is part of the question have you read the medical research . Do you no that there people who contribute to the medical research have not read the medical research. And they cherry pick those things. But the major. Two points please, maam, this is going on. On. We have a question on the table. Let the panelist respond. One scientific fact. Do you no theyre was research in the 60s which showed that thc in normal human subjects can cause idiosyncratic psychosomatic effects. Did you no . Two questions. Questions. Did you know. First of all, i am always wary about the argument that some people can become addicted therefore we have to outlaw. You can do that with a lot of substances. You can do it with all forms of behavior. A certain percentage of people become addicted to gambling so we have to outlaw all games of chance. Some people become addicted to highfat foods, therefore we ought to outlaw all highfat foods. Obviously some people become addicted to alcohol. Thats why we have alcoholics. Therefore we have the right to outlaw alcoholic beverages. That is not a sufficient reason, particularly in a free society. Some people are going to be susceptible to poor decisions, poor behavior compulsive behavior but that is aa price that we all have to pay to live in a free society unless we want some benevolent guardians of public morality to dictate everything that we do command that is a price i dont think any of us want to pay. When i here someone talk about the risks of addiction or the risks of psychiatric consequences i think about the fact i think of the jingle of dunkin donuts. America runs on duncan. America runs on risk. Our entire Economic Enterprises based on risk. We look at people who want to be athletes and admire the risk. People try to climb the matterhorn fail. Risk is built into the dna of america. The risk of addiction, the risk of these effects is real but small command its a risk that people should be educated about. Folks who want to stop this never ever acknowledge the benefit of the use of these drugs. These drugs are beneficial. The evidence is the tens of millions of people who want to use them because they are addictive but because the effect of these drugs are pleasurable inspiring transcendent. These are real effects and people want to use them and that is why they we will continue to. You want to add . A couple of interesting points. Got her activity enterprising people of the dangers of drugs, i think that is something to be applauded. There are sorry. There are drugs that are dangerous. And one of the beast i have the Marijuana Legalization movement is the argument is made that marijuana is not harmful. I find that problematic because my position is that sort of implies if it is horrible it should be illegal. Why argument in terms of freedom is look im assuming that drugs are absolutely the worst thing in the world for me thats my business. Is no business of the state. If i want to sit in my home and ingest heroine or cocaine or lsd on math thats my business. Thats what being a free person is all about. She makes a valid. About driving on public roads or externalities of the drug. Children, childrens rights, all the different categories i say if you legalize drugs get rid of the unsavory suppliers which would go out of business immediately youre much better off having a supply and distribution of drugs the pharmaceuticals pharmacies were much more responsible when it comes to selling to children and minors than the unsavory elements we have to day. In terms of freedom legalize it but keep people like her to apprise people what a horrible thing it is to become a drug addict. Right here. Retired detective with Law Enforcement against prohibition. On the relative harm of synthetic drugs despite vicious rumors i never went past marijuana. I have no clue what cocaine does. I went to a briefing in the congress three years ago congressman pitt had a dog and pony show with the va and brought in an eer got ner dark and said gave us a couple pick cases and they acted badly, they did things the harmful what reminded me as a Police Officer a guy jumps out of the car at 40 miles an hour. Hes drunk. Question is relatively so people can understand, how relatively dangers his bath salt or meg in comparison to whiskey, alcohol, or some other drug that we all pretty much of a common experience with . I would say this. These are among the more dangerous substances. In part and when you talk about this before because you never quite certain what all is in it which creates its own set of problems. The effects seem to be somewhat unpredictable. But it is good to always keep this in perspective. We have heard the stories before with regard to other substances. Remember all the stories about crack cocaine 25 or 30 years ago. The penalties that were enacted ten times as severe as for powdered cocaine. The hundred. As though there was that kind of real difference in the effect. Going back further, more the lsd scare in the 1960s. This was going to absolutely destroy American Society. If you want to go back farther come back to late 1930s and reefer madness. Obviously marijuana was a drug it was going to completely destroy western civilization. We have to keep the stories in mind. Theres that sense of deja vu. I would not say with regard to some of the synthetic drugs. They appear to be more dangerous and volatile than most of the natural psychoactive drugs. It is good to monitor. Education definitely encourage people to stay away from these. But that oughtbut that ought to be part of a larger package to create a legal drug structure and one that eliminates prohibition so that there are safe,safe, legal alternatives for people who want to use psychoactive substances. And we can continue this crusade of trying to prevent drug use. I am one of these people who , if we have tried a policy for four decades or more in the policy is failed the ought to try Something Else not just continue applying that same model to knew substances. Thats just me. In talking about alcohol and alcohol prohibition bootleg alcohol was adulterated with methyl alcohol and other compounds. Drinkers were blinded and people were paralyzed. It was a term called jake greg which is a kind of paralysis in which people were probably injured. And that, of course, we know, we know, is a function of prohibition, not the legal control. Are these drugs harmful . The evidences of people who present themselves to the police and so on yes, these seem to be quite harmful. They are harmful as a consequence of the market distortions the Law Enforcement create for the drugs that people want to get and that there was the article in the New York Times magazine last sunday people saying i didnt want to use these drugs but they were easier to get being represented as legal. And until drugs that people want to use that can be produced safely better warnings we will see this kind of tragedy happen again and again and again. Right down here in the front. Good afternoon. Former libertarian candidate ive tried to read your book it reads like the worst horror story ever. I watched the movie down the street. How much does all this scare the scare tactics in the war on drugs just benefit the gun industry all of the militaryindustrial complex because everyone has to have a gun. The police have to have more guns and regulars have to have more guns. They all try to outpace each other. A good question. I think that is a subset. It probably does create incentives to have greater and greater armaments but i think you have a drug war industry that has a vested interest in creating as many Horror Stories as humanly possible. And it is often difficult to tell whether those were putting out the stories are simply doing this to further there own career and institutional interest of whether they believe they are propaganda. And i think theres probably a bit of both. But what you are talking about a multi, multibillion dollar a year industry that has locked up with current drug policy at the local, state, and National Level and they are not going to go quietly into that good night of legalization. They are going to use every tactic imaginable to try to preserve the prohibition system and scare stories certainly so that agenda. They are tremendously effective. I think the bias case with regard to cocaine use in the mid 1980s was one factor that really stop the momentum toward a Harm Reduction strategy if not decriminalization if not for legalization. Reverse that. The whole might case changed and it has been a good many years to switch that back to a more rational discussion. I do not think the drug war industry likes to have a discussion about having synthetic drugs within the legal framework. They want the prohibition model applied. This is a job enhancement process at aa minimum. There going to keep pushing stories whatever humanly possible. Chris this morning is actually a warning in the National Commission on marijuana anddrug abuse and 73, the Shafer Commission observed this is a danger that the current approach was bringing about. I think part of what were missing jacob described penitentiaries is the biggest business in america. Obviously making a rhetorical. , but the alley is it is infinitesimal and are 14 trillion probably bigger than that now. The. That i want to make is that the collateral consequences of our Drug Enforcement policies undermine the entire economy jacob did not fully talk about the impact of the tens of millions of people have drug convictions which means their employment prospects are reduced. For an economy that depends on consumption it means those folks are out of the economy. Tens of millions of people are out of the economy. You dont your not able to get a job with a paycheck so you dont get a car loan so you dont get a car made in detroit. The war on drugs kicks off in the 1970s and american car sales start going down relatively. Thinkthink of any particular part of the economy in which you are invested. If you simply have a pension plan 4 o 1 k all of your assets and American Industries are less valuable because those industries are selling less than they could otherwise so if we did not have no one drugs cutting the economic power of the American Public day after day. The message needs to be your membership is being hurt by drug prohibition. You have an obligation to speak on behalf of the American Economy to. Out that this is hurting the bottom line every american investor other than the private prison industry this little the gun industry the small piece of supply. Tiny when you think about the implications for the rest of us. You have been patient. Independent drug policy researcher. I lived in Central America and mexico. I am just curious, for all the panelists, what do you believe are the realistic policy objectives for the Us Government and perhaps other latin american governments that are thinking about drug policy reform. Countries and russia and china completely separate or distinct. Quite honestly i think coming at it from the complete either prohibitionist drug war regime which is really something of the past if you talk to most current uptodate drug policy folks they realize the drug war is over. At the same time you talk about the unfettered access to all kinds of drugs. You get all that out. Unfettered access i dont believe. Regulated drugs to me ultimately is unfettered access. The reason i say that just one example and proposing Something Else. There are in between policies. I dont look at it as a foster economy. There are places like portugal that have the decriminalization of all drugs. Its a little messy because you cant import drugs and you can sell them but the people are not penalized for consuming drugs. The reason why cannot you guys put it out about four or five years ago, the conclusion was it trusts the policy concern of the government which was how addiction. The last. I will make even as early as 20th century theyre was no prohibition but we were beginning to prohibit legal drugs at times. Pharmacies themselves and doctors were not all necessarily prescribing drugs the way they should be today when we invented a more easy, accessible way to use morphine through prescription opiates you have pharmaceutical Companies Marketing those drugs quite strongly to doctors and hospitals. Anyone who goes into hospital today whats the 1st thing they ask you. Im not saying that bad, but it has contributed to an increase in opiate addiction which is led to an increase in heroin addiction and the heroin problem has been the result of your cheaper heroin that actually gives a type of side effect. Do you discern a question that . The problem that you have put your finger on what is best prescribing doctors and the excesses of the pharmaceutical Marketing Enterprise in many cases is correct. The fact that we have prohibition means those folks who have become medically addicted that is stigmatized. They do not have access to the drugs. Suddenly thesuddenly the prescription gets cut off and they turned the heroin because its cheaper his days off to sickness. My sense is that you need Better Regulation of physicians, change the culture of prescribing. Wwor to say i am addicted i have to find another scam. All of this closeout of a prohibition approach. This is wrong and immoral a and it is not. It is not immoral to be addictive addition never be a crime to be an addict. First of all no one i fate has never argued that legalization is say panacea to work beautifully but prohibition to identify the various problems associated with the views to show how those problems are made better through prohibition. But because it is is almost never talked about with that International Environment we have is each stage is an attitude. It is a Key Development one of the things that is most important it blew up the prohibitionist myth that you will see soaring crime rates associate associate with decriminalize system. The trend is in either direction. The stranglehold of the prohibitionist on International Policy and other countries that may have thought for many years the u. S. Led policy was your interests idiocy but you dont tell that to the worlds superpower. Now governments are willing to deviate. Where there is legalized commerce. And to see where that goes i am a strong believer in the yogi berra observation it aint over until its over but i see favorable trends i will not pop the champagne to assume it is legal at the time until we see better results. [laughter] it appears throughout Human History human beings have been abusing substances to cope with daily life as a stimulant or to relax them and that continues throughout history. Therefore do you think the supply of drugs is only catering or providing humans now with something they have been deciphering for centuries that is inherent to human nature . That is an excellent question. It would seem that way given the long long history that comes across different cultures in and so on and. I think there is a percentage of the population that feels that it needs that kind of artificial boost. I have never entirely understood that, but it is enough of a phenomenon it is clear you cannot pass laws against that. That is the one bus and that is indisputable at this point. If you try to prevent it as much as possible but you have a significant percentage of the population that will continue to use those substances regardless of the lot. That will not teacher them from doing what they want to do. Good or bad they will do it. I think that is a deep and profound question in the context of American Society because we obviously live in a very controlled society. Every kid is forced into a Public School system leases by the state living there 12 years with the message drugs are bad but yet over four years the problem has only gotten bigger. Why is that . I think drug addiction is rigid and family but societal implications wise there were alcoholism in the soviet union . There may be a correlation the more controlled the of more despair there is. The less Economic Activity the dynamism that comes originally Free Market Society is absent the plight of the American People is significantly worse than those of cuba or north korea because of the words theyre not hopelessly enslave them those who falsely believe they are free. Eidenshink when you combine that controls society that this is freedom it may be a cause of why there is so much drug abuse in American Society. Ica dissertation of. [laughter] i am very interested. [laughter] so could you quickly go through the brief history of that regulation and where it is now if you give more details of the 430 variations of the synthetic drugs and then the government tried to address it . 1987 congress was developing the antidrug abuse act of 1988 including amendments to the act of 1986. To state that this particular piece of equipment was a major part of the problem with the production of methamphetamine to propose that it be banned so by an act of congress other feature of the antidrug abuse act of 1988 this was enacted and remains part of the controlled substances act. If they change it we will get rich because we will start to buy it spread there are a couple of examples. Most of the laws were passed before 2012 they were specific chemical substances. But what lawmakers are finding is the ink was barely dry and did enterprising chemist in shanghai or wherever it would change the composition of one molecule and suddenly the law did not apply to that substance anymore. So since 2011 that the national and state level there have been very broad bans attempting to enroll lot entire families of substances to trying to deal with the problem in that fashion. Anything that resembles the whole lot drug would be considered in that same category and is outlawed. As an engineer to deal with one problem but it also creates another inherently you have laws that our vague and overly broad. I am not sure that is the pattern we want to encourage in this country because we see abuses in other areas with such laws and we have to be cognizant of that. Also the prosecution were summer was convicted not convicted but charged with violating the sale of the substance at the time she was selling it was not illegal it was made illegal after she was charged. That was in texas the woman was charged with marketing the illicit substance and the charge was filed three months before the Texas Legislature had outlawed that substance. I want to comment on prohibitions that our specific because the designer Drug Enforcement act of 1986 is essentially was very broad it says the analogs should be treated like a schedule one substance that me is a substance the chemical structure of which is similar to the controlled substance and has a stimulant. For air in effect that is similar. That is pretty broad and 1986. Sold the approaches with a broad lot to be enacted and that is still on the books. But state laws have distinctions. One last question. They give for your presentation. So talk about prohibition with the black market to and how much people had to pay that would be helpful and second its not really a probable cause a under the law if lawenforcement abuses the power in of the authority to reduce the opportunity. So how much loss economically for the people who suffer estimate cost of the prohibitionists strategy more generally. An excellent question and. Something appointed out and i guarantee ed gentlemen sitting in the oval office if he had run afoul of the laws. Barack obamacare admitted he used Illegal Drugs but he was lucky and it did not get caught. How many others are their careers blighted because of that . The cost of that is measured in the hundreds of dollars per year this is a massive effect on our society. Something we will see more common if they become more popular because of questionable judgment. We have to make a distinction of activity is under good for you or activities that result in questionable judgment and crime and we tend to blur that distinction with detriment. 84 attending today. Please join us in the conference center
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.