Cato Institute Event Videos (Full)

On September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorists killed nearly 3,000 innocent men, women, and children in four coordinated attacks, the deadliest such incident in history and the bloodiest day on American soil in over a century. Since that time, the Pentagon says more than 7,000 Americans have been killed in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Greater Middle East, as well as in other military operations associated with the War on Terror. Many Americans still recall the trauma of 9/11 and are aware of the scale of death and destruction wrought that day. Some have a sense of the numbers of U.S. troops killed in wars since. Very few, however, are aware of the others who have died in these wars. For example, the Costs of War Project counts at least 244,000 civilian deaths in just three countries: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Much higher estimates may be derived from episodic reporting of incidents involving noncombatants killed as a result of U.S. military action worldwide. At this special policy forum, a distinguished panel of experts will explore the nature of these casualties, why the U.S. military’s efforts to limit harm to innocent men, women, and children sometimes fail, how and if recent congressional oversight has helped to shed light on the issue, and whether the U.S. media’s inconsistent coverage of noncombatant deaths is a symptom or a cause of the public’s relative ignorance of the true costs of America’s ongoing wars.

Libertarians and conservatives alike claim to be advocates of individual liberty, limited government, and free markets. In some policy spheres, these shared values lead libertarians and conservatives to similar conclusions about public policy. As a result, popular political discourse often conflates libertarianism with conservatism, and proponents of "fusionism" go so far as to regard a libertarian-conservative alliance as being both natural and politically useful. However, the differences between the two political philosophies are at least as significant as the similarities. On matters such as national security and foreign policy, immigration, criminal justice, drugs, surveillance, marriage and the family, and the role of religion in public policy, libertarians and conservatives often clash with one another. Despite whatever similarities they may have, libertarianism and conservatism are substantially different political philosophies. So which one provides better answers to today's most important political questions? We invite you to a debate about the two political philosophies and their associated policy implications. Interns from the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation will go head-to-head to answer the question: Is libertarianism or conservatism the superior political philosophy?

Socialism has failed every time it has been tried, yet it still appeals to parts of the American public that have little or no experience with it. Irreverent but honest economists Robert Lawson and Benjamin Powell will describe what they saw when they visited real-life examples of socialism in Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela and other countries that are living with the socialist legacy. Using anecdotes and informed by scholarship, they will explain why socialism is often catastrophic, why Sweden is not an example of socialism, and why many of the claims of socialist politicians in America are so wrong-headed. Matt Kibbe will describe how young Americans’ views on socialism have evolved in recent years.

Six months after Nicolás Maduro was declared a “usurper” by Venezuela’s National Assembly and Juan Guaidó was sworn in as interim president, political gridlock has set in. The ongoing talks in Barbados between the regime and representatives of the democratic forces do not hold the promise of a swift solution to the crisis engulfing Venezuela. Luis Almagro, secretary general of the Organization of American States, will describe what’s at stake and discuss international efforts that can be made to put pressure on Maduro’s regime. María Corina Machado, former member of the National Assembly and prominent leader of the opposition, will assess the process of restoring democracy so far and offer a strategic vision. Pedro Urruchurtu will briefly explain how Venezuela got to this point.

Since the 2016 election, college campuses have erupted in violent protests and demands for safe spaces and the silencing of views that activist groups find disagreeable. Who are the leaders behind these protests, and what do they want? In Panic Attack, libertarian journalist Robby Soave answers these questions by profiling young radicals from across the political spectrum. Soave documents a multitude of competing post-liberal political views among the young, from the Democratic Socialists of America to Turning Point USA. He explicates the ideologies and social conditions that have fostered these nascent movements, paying special attention to the identarian concerns that often animate Generation Z activists. Although these budding radicals are politically inexperienced and often poorly organized, they have already redrawn the lines of political debate around speech and censorship, and their break from the strictures of postwar party politics has the potential to permanently reshape America’s political landscape.

The ancient Greeks believed that the mythical Gorgon could turn those who stared at it to stone. The Pentagon’s surveillance technology named after this creature, Gorgon Stare, has used its aerial near-panopticon surveillance capabilities to turn Salafist insurgents into targets. But should such a powerful, virtually all-seeing aerial spying system be allowed to operate over American communities? Arthur Holland Michel, Deputy Director of the Center for the Study of the Drone, tackles this question in his new book, Eyes in the Sky: The Secret Rise of Gorgon Stare and How It Will Watch Us All. Join us on June 25 at 1:00 p.m. as an expert panel talks with Michel about his book and about Gorgon Stare’s implications for the constitutional rights of Americans.

For many Americans, the distinction between military policy and domestic law enforcement is clear: the U.S. military is deployed abroad and tasked with defense of vital national interests, while at home police officers protect life, liberty, and property by investigating and deterring crimes. But as Christopher Coyne and Abigail Hall explain in their book Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic Fate of U.S. Militarism, years of policy decisions at home and abroad have eroded this distinction. Military equipment and tactics often find their way to police departments thanks to what Coyne and Hall call the “boomerang effect,” which can result in needlessly aggressive policing and violations of civil liberties. What are the origins of the boomerang effect? Can police militarization be reversed? Does modern policing require military-grade surveillance equipment? Join us for a book forum featuring Coyne and Hall, who tackle these and other pressing questions.

Congress reformed America’s legal immigration system nearly three decades ago. Since that time, the system’s outdated and arbitrary immigration quotas have doubled wait times for green cards for legal immigrants. At the border, a new challenge has emerged in the form of illegal immigration and asylum seekers from Central America. Wide bipartisan agreement exists that both temporary and permanent immigration policies need to be reformed, yet Congress and the administration have failed to settle on the best approach. As the debate continues in Congress, join us as our speakers explain the problems with and solutions for America’s legal immigration system.

full 0:29:51 Brian Johnson

full 0:40:38 Tracy Basinger, Rob Morgan, Steven Smith, Dan Quan, Colin Wilhelm

full 0:24:33 George Selgin

full 0:21:01 Rodney Hood, Lydia Mashburn

full 0:20:22 Diego Zuluaga

full 0:43:59 Thomas P. Brown, Barry Wides, Todd Zywicki, Lydia Beyoud

full 0:27:28 Lydia Mashburn, Jelena McWilliams

Negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program are at an impasse, and tensions are rising. And while neither side appears to want a war, the path to a diplomatic solution remains unclear. What is obvious, however, is that most U.S. policymakers have little understanding of what the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is or how it operates, a fact that limits America’s ability to peacefully resolve the crisis. Heidi Linton, Randall Spadoni, and Daniel Jasper, by contrast, have firsthand knowledge of the DPRK. Their organizations maintain long-term aid programs in North Korea, and all three have spent time there as part of humanitarian missions, including trips to parts of the country closed to most visitors.

The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that police officers shoot and kill more than 10,000 pet dogs in the United States every year. From SWAT raids to standard calls for service and police visits to wrong addresses, officers are often too quick to use lethal force against family pets, despite the fact that no police officer has ever been killed in the line of duty by a dog. In the award-winning documentary Of Dogs and Men, director Michael Ozias and producer Patrick Reasonover delve into the culture of violence against dogs by police officers. Of Dogs and Men provides firsthand accounts of families and individuals who have suffered the loss of a dog killed during a confrontation with law enforcement. The powerful film takes audiences on a journey with pet owners in pursuit of policy change in the legal system. The stories told in Of Dogs and Men have prompted cooperation and best-practices guidelines from law enforcement organizations such as the National Sheriffs’ Association. Of Dogs and Men was chosen as part of the official selection at both the Anthem and the Austin film festivals and was awarded the Honorable Mention Audience Award at the Austin Film Festival. Victoria Stillwell, host of Animal Planet’s Its Me or the Dog, has said, “Every person who has a dog should watch this film. It could be the difference between life and death.”

Using eagles and flags to rainbows and abstract art, many people have expressed ideas about freedom in art. Are there commonalities among these representations? Do these representations reflect competing values? When do images make a stronger impression than words? What makes some images clichés and some unique and attention-getting successes? Join us to hear a discussion of these questions and more.

The Jones Act is back in the news, with legislation introduced this year to repeal the law and the White House said to be considering a limited waiver of the law for the transport of liquefied natural gas. It’s about time. For nearly 100 years, the Jones Act has served as a burden on the U.S. economy and has raised transportation costs, damaged the environment, and even harmed U.S. exports. In the course of doing so, it has also manifestly failed to achieve its stated policy goals, with U.S. shipbuilding and the Jones Act fleet itself in a decades-long decline. Questions also abound about the law’s contribution to national security, as illustrated by the shortage of merchant mariners to crew the government-owned vessels in times of war and the Navy unable to afford ships from vastly uncompetitive U.S. shipyards to meet its sealift needs. Learn more about the Jones Act

When is it appropriate to resist the agents of the state? For many, the answer may be (all too) easy: never. But the United States itself was founded on one such act of resistance, and libertarians have always been deeply skeptical that the agents of the state enjoy any special status in moral philosophy. May an individual legitimately resist state agents? In what cases is such resistance allowed? What methods may be used, and to what ends? Philosopher Jason Brennan argues that sometimes, individuals have not only a right to resist unjust state actions but even an obligation to do so.

Free trade provides enormous benefits to developing countries. Arvind Panagariya will describe its impressive record in promoting growth and reducing poverty at a time when some policymakers in rich and poor countries are turning toward protectionism. He will explain how openness was key to the economic success of countries like South Korea and Taiwan and will refute claims that industrial policy, infant industry protection, or measures that erected barriers to trade have worked better than free trade itself. Anne Krueger will comment on Panagariya’s full-scale defense of free trade and warn about threats to the liberal, global trade regime. 

Depending on the type of institution, inflation-adjusted college prices have as much as tripled over the past 30 years. This cost increase has launched vociferous arguments about its underlying causes. Perhaps no theories loom larger than that cuts in direct state funding have forced schools to raise revenue from their students or that federal student aid has enabled colleges to inflate their prices no matter what is happening with their other funding streams. Join a panel of experts as they debate which theory is right, which is wrong, whether even more important factors are at work, and what to do about it all.

How did the modern dynamic economy, filled with wealth and opportunity, come about? In his new book, The Wealth Explosion: The Nature and Origins of Modernity, Stephen Davies examines the surprising, fundamental, and continuing processes of innovation and transformation that have produced the world we live in today. Exploring the academic literature and competing theories, he seeks to answer three questions of fundamental importance to any economist or historian: How and why is the world different today than that faced by our ancestors? What explains why this transformation began in northwestern Europe about 240 years ago? And, given this, can the modern dynamic economy endure?

Should art offend? Does it matter if people are offended? Should offensive art be displayed? Should it be censored? Who decides what is offensive or appropriate? Join us to hear a discussion of these questions and more.

International security in the 21st century is increasingly characterized by the use of cyber operations. Concern over this still-developing domain of competition has led to inflated assessments of its dangers and greater support for a more aggressive U.S. posture on cyber security and cyber warfare. How do great powers like the United States, Russia, and China employ cyber capabilities? What threats does the United States currently face in this realm, and what is the most effective method of defense? What are the vulnerabilities of complacency, and, conversely, the risks of escalation? Join us to discuss these issues and more with experts in the field.

At any given time, the United States holds almost two million people in prison for felony convictions. Often overlooked, however, are more than 11 million people who cycle in and out of American jails every year for misdemeanor offenses. Despite composing the largest part of our criminal system, misdemeanors don’t usually garner the same policy attention as more overtly draconian features of the system — such as decades-long mandatory minimum prison sentences — because they are viewed as “minor offenses.” However, the overall punitive effect of misdemeanors, particularly on poor people and people of color, far exceeds what should be imposed for supposedly minor crimes. In her recent book, Punishment without Crime: How Our Massive Misdemeanor System Traps the Innocent and Makes America More Unequal, Professor Alexandra Natapoff explains how our police, courts, and jails create a machinery of injustice that doles out unfair punishments and extracts wealth from those who can least afford it. She writes that the American criminal system “moonlight[s] as a regressive tax system and anti-welfare machine” that criminalizes the impoverished and further adds to their burdens. Natapoff’s research shows that the American petty crimes enforcement apparatus undermines the most important functions of criminal law by corroding the constitutional processes meant to provide justice to all. Join us Tuesday, May 7, as Professor Natapoff discusses her important and revealing book with the Cato Institute’s Jonathan Blanks.

Puerto Rico's recovery in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria has reinvigorated debate about a relatively unknown law that has hampered its recovery efforts and bogged down its economy. Since 1920, maritime commerce between Puerto Rico and the rest of the United States has been governed by the Jones Act, a law that mandates that vessels transporting goods domestically be U.S.-crewed, U.S.-flagged, U.S.-owned, and U.S.-built. While defenders of the law have argued that the Jones Act provides reliable shipping services from the mainland to Puerto Rico, critics have pointed out that such restrictions significantly raise the cost of domestic imports, placing an added burden on the already economically struggling island. In addition, the law has also been accused of complicating efforts to transition the island's power generation away from its current heavy reliance on oil and coal. At this event, panelists will assess the law's impact on Puerto Rico, highlighting the findings of two recent reports that evaluate the law's economic cost, and will discuss the implications of Puerto Rico's recent application for a temporary Jones Act waiver to allow liquefied natural gas to be imported aboard foreign-flagged ships.

Some political leaders are saying that income and wealth inequality are at unacceptable levels and need to be countered by higher taxes on the wealthy and more transfer payments. But the data used to support those arguments are often misunderstood and omit key elements of the picture. John Early will describe gaps in the official data used in the inequality debate and discuss alternative income measures that better capture the well-being of different groups. Early argues that policymakers need to get the facts right before imposing prescriptions on the economy. John Early has twice been assistant commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, where he became an expert on these measurement issues. He has published a Cato study and a series of op-eds with former U.S. senator Phil Gramm examining the U.S. data on inequality. Following Early, Edwards will discuss the different sources of data on wealth inequality and the role of wealth in the economy. Watch: Short video on economic inequality featuring John F. Early Download the Power Point presentation (PPTX)

Liberalism, a political philosophy that grew out of the Enlightenment and champions reason, freedom, and equality, has lately been criticized by some religious thinkers in the West. Liberalism, in their view, only “atomizes” individuals, weakens society, and ultimately corrodes all faiths. Yet other religious intellectuals think that there are many reasons to appreciate liberalism, including the very freedom that the believers have found in liberal societies to practice and manifest their faith and to be free from the persecutions that have defined much of human history. Moreover, they think that under liberalism, religions flourish in healthier ways — through persuasion rather than coercion, and through civil society rather than state power. This discussion is particularly relevant for Islam, since Muslim opinion leaders are often ambivalent, at best, on whether they should accept liberal standards of human rights or rather reject them as alien and detrimental. If liberalism is rejected even by Western Christians, whose religious traditions have been much more at peace with liberalism, Eastern Muslims will not even consider it.

The disastrous choice to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from power did enormous damage to the wealth, well-being, and reputations of the United States and Great Britain. To this day, the hangover of the Iraq war looms large over the politics of both nations. Yet how each of these “special friends” came to the decision to invade Iraq remains shrouded in mystery and mythology. Until now. On April 24, Patrick Porter, author of Blunder: Britain's War in Iraq, and Michael Mazarr, author of Leap of Faith: Hubris, Negligence, and America's Greatest Foreign Policy Tragedy, will detail the motivations and ideas that drove two great democracies to a war of choice, and explain the lessons that must be learned to avoid similar disasters — today and in the future.

The perceived threat of artificial intelligence (AI) to the American workforce and society more broadly has become a common topic of discussion among policymakers, academics, and the wider public. But is AI a threat? And if so, are there appropriate policy solutions? History is replete with examples of disruption caused by past technological advances. Are the lessons from those advances applicable to AI? These are just some of the questions addressed by the PBS television documentary CyberWork and the American Dream.

Are we running out of resources? That’s been a hotly debated question since the publication of Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb in 1968. The Stanford University biologist warned that population growth would result in the exhaustion of resources and a global catastrophe. University of Maryland economist and Cato Institute’s Senior Fellow Julian Simon, in contrast, argued that humans would innovate their way out of resource shortages. He believed that people were the “ultimate resource” that would make other resources more plentiful. On Earth Day 2019, David M. Simon will recall the humanism and optimism of his late father. Gale Pooley and Marian L. Tupy will present the updated findings from their recent paper “The Simon Abundance Index: A New Way to Measure Availability of Resources” and launch The Simon Project, a new www.humanprogress.org initiative. Finally, George Gilder will discuss the link between human ingenuity, innovation, and prosperity.

Policymakers on both sides of the aisle have proposed new regimes for small-business beneficial ownership reporting. The aim of such legislation is to eliminate opportunities for money laundering and financial crime. However, the proposals before Congress would place heavy new compliance costs on millions of America’s small businesses while continuing to provide opportunities for bad actors to engage in illicit financial activities. Beneficial ownership reporting would add to an already onerous anti-money-laundering/know-your-customer (AML/ KYC) regulatory burden, cited by community banks as the single most costly financial regulation. Furthermore, international experience with beneficial ownership reporting requirements suggests that it will be difficult to make such requirements work in the United States.

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996). Those 26 words (and not a member of Congress) invented the internet as we know it. These words protect internet platforms from lawsuits based on user-generated content, allowing them to open their doors to a dizzying variety of sentiment and speech. Absent that sentence, social media platforms would have strong incentives to suppress any speech that might cause them legal woes. Or, in contrast, they might avoid legal liability by not moderating their forums at all, likely rendering them unusable. Jeff Kosseff tells the story of the institutions that flourished as a result of this powerful statute. He introduces us to those who created CDA 230, those who advocated for it, and those who were involved in some of the most prominent cases decided under the law. As section 230 and the platforms it protects face increasing scrutiny, Twenty-Six Words demystifies this little-known yet vital statute.

Until recently, private social media companies have been free to moderate content on their own platforms. But accusations of political bias have caused some to call for government regulation of the efforts social media companies make to moderate content. Some have even suggested that social media entities ought to be nationalized to ensure they operate in the public interest. Is there a role here for government to play, or would government intervention create unintended consequences while simultaneously stifling free speech? These are just some of the questions addressed in John Samples’s recently published policy analysis, “Why the Government Should Not Regulate Content Moderation by Social Media.” Join us on Monday, April 15, to hear from author John Samples and the director of Cato’s project on emerging technologies, Matthew Feeney.

Over the past two decades, Zimbabwe has been in a state of almost constant crisis. The once-prosperous nation now ranks among the poorest and most repressive countries in the world. Is there a way out of this predicament? Barry D. Wood, who recently traveled to Zimbabwe, will describe the current economic and political situation in the country. Steve H. Hanke will discuss steps that Zimbabwe’s government needs to take to achieve macroeconomic stabilization. W. Gyude Moore will explain the failure of African governments to bring Zimbabwe’s authoritarian government to heel and suggest steps that a more enlightened African leadership could take to break the cycle of violence and economic decline in Zimbabwe. Please join us for a discussion of this once promising and now deeply troubled country.

A quarter century ago, the Cato Institute released a revolutionary book, Patient Power: Solving America's Health Care Crisis, by John C. Goodman and Gerald L. Musgrave. Patient Power introduced the United States to a bold and radical way of thinking about health care. When third parties pay medical bills, Goodman and Musgrave wrote, providers come to view third-party payers as their customers, not the patients. As a result, instead of maximizing patient satisfaction, providers deliver care to maximize their revenue given third-party payment formulas. Instead of falling, costs rise. Third-party payment is the reason patients can't talk to their doctors by phone, email, or Skype. It is why patients don't have Uber-type doctor house calls at night and on weekends. Patient Power showed that if people controlled and managed their own health care dollars, the medical marketplace would change radically—almost overnight. Indeed, Patient Power changed the world. Thanks largely to Goodman and Musgrave's work, more than 20 million people are managing their own health care dollars in health savings accounts. A roughly equal number are managing their medical spending through health reimbursement arrangements. And employers are experimenting with giving individuals complete financial control over everything from hip and knee replacements to blood tests. Come hear the authors of Patient Power and other leading scholars discuss the book's impact on health reform and how its insights can still inform the debate.

Please join us on Monday, April 8, for a special discussion of Michael Tanner's newly published book, The Inclusive Economy: How to Bring Wealth to America's Poor. In it, Tanner sets aside the traditional conservative and liberal responses to poverty and explores a fresh approach to this persistent problem. The result is a compelling blend of social justice and limited government. Following Tanner's presentation, Cato research fellow and director of polling Emily Ekins will discuss her ongoing research on Americans' attitudes toward welfare policy, poverty, and work. Attendees will have access to copies of The Inclusive Economy and an opportunity to discuss the issue of poverty and poverty programs with our distinguished panelists during and immediately after the event. To attend, please register by noon on Friday, April 5.

Of the myriad policy priorities established by the current administration and congressional leadership, the tackling of skyrocketing prescription drug prices may have the best chance of moving through the legislative process over the next two years. Bipartisan proposals to address rising prescription drug prices have been introduced in both the House and the Senate; President Trump identified the issue in his State of the Union address as his next major priority; and Speaker Pelosi’s first speech to the 116th Congress listed it as a top issue for the new Democratic majority. Rising prescription drug prices have major budgetary implications for Medicare in particular. Can the program single-handedly place downward pressure on prices without having a negative effect on the rest of the health care system?

What most frightens the average American? Terrorism. North Korea. Iran. But what if none of those are probable or consequential threats to America? What if the world today is safer, freer, wealthier, healthier, and better educated than ever before? What if the real dangers to Americans are noncommunicable diseases, gun violence, drug overdoses—even hospital infections? In this compelling look at what they call the "Threat Industrial Complex," Michael A. Cohen and Micah Zenko explain why politicians, policy analysts, academics, and journalists are misleading Americans about foreign threats and ignoring more serious national security challenges at home. Cohen and Zenko argue that we should ignore Washington's threat mongering and focus instead on furthering extraordinary global advances in human development and economic and political cooperation. Join us as Zenko and Cohen discuss their book, with additional comments by Sharon Burke of New America.

In recent years, libertarians and progressives have found common cause in their concern that the growth of executive power is far in excess of constitutional limits. Our Constitution gives the president few explicit emergency powers, but presidents have invoked national emergencies as justification for a wide variety of actions. After Watergate, Congress created a framework for regulating this authority, in the 1976 National Emergencies Act. With President Trump’s decision to circumvent Congress and declare a national emergency so that he can construct a wall on the southern border, the propriety of the National Emergencies Act and broader separation of powers issues can no longer be avoided. For example, building the wall would entail seizing private property through eminent domain and reallocating funds that Congress has authorized for other purposes. Has the National Emergencies Act become part of the problem, rather than a solution? Should it be reformed? And how, more broadly, can we still allow presidents to appropriately handle moments of crisis while reining in executive overreach? This event is approved for 1.5 hours of California MCLE credit.

The U.S. government’s current strategy of trying to restrict the supply of opioids for nonmedical uses is not working. While government efforts to reduce the supply has reduced both the amount of legally manufactured prescription opioids and the number of opioid prescriptions, deaths from opioid-related overdoses are nevertheless accelerating. Research shows that the increase is due, in large part, to substitution of illegal heroin and fentanyl for the now harder-to-get prescription opioids. Attempting to reduce overdose deaths by doubling down on this approach will not produce better results. Policymakers can reduce overdose deaths and other harms stemming from nonmedical use of opioids and other dangerous drugs by switching to a policy of harm-reduction. Harm reduction has a success record that prohibition cannot match and involves a range of public health options. Unlike prohibition, harm-reduction strategies begin with the realistic and nonjudgmental premise that there has never been, and will never be, a drug-free society. Akin to the credo of the medical profession — “First, do no harm” — harm reduction seeks to avoid measures that exacerbate the harm that prohibition already inflicts on nonmedical users and seeks to focus on the goal of reducing deaths and the spread of disease from drug use. This conference, featuring clinical and research experts in epidemiology, public health, addiction treatment, and harm reduction, will examine the record of various harm-reduction modalities in the developed world and will consider their potential for ameliorating the problems caused by drug prohibition.

The U.S. government’s current strategy of trying to restrict the supply of opioids for nonmedical uses is not working. While government efforts to reduce the supply has reduced both the amount of legally manufactured prescription opioids and the number of opioid prescriptions, deaths from opioid-related overdoses are nevertheless accelerating. Research shows that the increase is due, in large part, to substitution of illegal heroin and fentanyl for the now harder-to-get prescription opioids. Attempting to reduce overdose deaths by doubling down on this approach will not produce better results. Policymakers can reduce overdose deaths and other harms stemming from nonmedical use of opioids and other dangerous drugs by switching to a policy of harm-reduction. Harm reduction has a success record that prohibition cannot match and involves a range of public health options. Unlike prohibition, harm-reduction strategies begin with the realistic and nonjudgmental premise that there has never been, and will never be, a drug-free society. Akin to the credo of the medical profession — “First, do no harm” — harm reduction seeks to avoid measures that exacerbate the harm that prohibition already inflicts on nonmedical users and seeks to focus on the goal of reducing deaths and the spread of disease from drug use. This conference, featuring clinical and research experts in epidemiology, public health, addiction treatment, and harm reduction, will examine the record of various harm-reduction modalities in the developed world and will consider their potential for ameliorating the problems caused by drug prohibition.

The U.S. government’s current strategy of trying to restrict the supply of opioids for nonmedical uses is not working. While government efforts to reduce the supply has reduced both the amount of legally manufactured prescription opioids and the number of opioid prescriptions, deaths from opioid-related overdoses are nevertheless accelerating. Research shows that the increase is due, in large part, to substitution of illegal heroin and fentanyl for the now harder-to-get prescription opioids. Attempting to reduce overdose deaths by doubling down on this approach will not produce better results. Policymakers can reduce overdose deaths and other harms stemming from nonmedical use of opioids and other dangerous drugs by switching to a policy of harm-reduction. Harm reduction has a success record that prohibition cannot match and involves a range of public health options. Unlike prohibition, harm-reduction strategies begin with the realistic and nonjudgmental premise that there has never been, and will never be, a drug-free society. Akin to the credo of the medical profession — “First, do no harm” — harm reduction seeks to avoid measures that exacerbate the harm that prohibition already inflicts on nonmedical users and seeks to focus on the goal of reducing deaths and the spread of disease from drug use. This conference, featuring clinical and research experts in epidemiology, public health, addiction treatment, and harm reduction, will examine the record of various harm-reduction modalities in the developed world and will consider their potential for ameliorating the problems caused by drug prohibition.

The U.S. government’s current strategy of trying to restrict the supply of opioids for nonmedical uses is not working. While government efforts to reduce the supply has reduced both the amount of legally manufactured prescription opioids and the number of opioid prescriptions, deaths from opioid-related overdoses are nevertheless accelerating. Research shows that the increase is due, in large part, to substitution of illegal heroin and fentanyl for the now harder-to-get prescription opioids. Attempting to reduce overdose deaths by doubling down on this approach will not produce better results. Policymakers can reduce overdose deaths and other harms stemming from nonmedical use of opioids and other dangerous drugs by switching to a policy of harm-reduction. Harm reduction has a success record that prohibition cannot match and involves a range of public health options. Unlike prohibition, harm-reduction strategies begin with the realistic and nonjudgmental premise that there has never been, and will never be, a drug-free society. Akin to the credo of the medical profession — “First, do no harm” — harm reduction seeks to avoid measures that exacerbate the harm that prohibition already inflicts on nonmedical users and seeks to focus on the goal of reducing deaths and the spread of disease from drug use. This conference, featuring clinical and research experts in epidemiology, public health, addiction treatment, and harm reduction, will examine the record of various harm-reduction modalities in the developed world and will consider their potential for ameliorating the problems caused by drug prohibition.