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 t