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 IslandOutward 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 EnforcementAsset 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