10/25/95 Ethan Nadelmann on Drug Reform Policy

AOL Transcript 10/25/95 Ethan NadelmannCopyright 1995 America Online, Inc.

PhilCLU: Good evening everyone. Thanks for joining us tonight for what I'm sure will be a fascinating conversation about our nation's drug policy.

PhilCLU: I'm Phil Gutis, the ACLU's media director and host of Constitution Hall, our forum on AOL. I'm delighted to welcome Ethan Nadelmann to our stage tonight.

PhilCLU: Let me take a few moments to introduce Ethan and then we'll get started with your questions. Remember, you can ask questions by using the interact icon at the top of your screen.

ENadelmann: Hello everyone.

PhilCLU: Ethan Nadelmann, Director of the Lindesmith Center, is an accomplished scholar of drug control policy and the international aspects of crime and law enforcement. Over the past seven years, Nadelmann's critiques of United States drug control policy and his recommendations for alternatives to drug prohibition have attracted national and international attention and played a significant role in stimulating the growing debate over drug policy in the U.S. and abroad.

PhilCLU: Please join me in welcoming Ethan to the AOL CenterStage.

PhilCLU: Ethan, let me open with the first question: What is your outlook these days? Is there hope that our ill-fated policies will eventually be changed?

ENadelmann: On the one hand it looks bleak, because what the radical right is advocating. It's sad to see President Clinton, and many of the Democrats jumping on the bandwagon, that allows them to skirt the bigger issues. But, when you look at drug reform policy today, to 7 years ago you see progress.

ENadelmann: First, there were barely 2 or 3 needle exchange programs in the US and now there are dozens in the US. The scientific establishment has help provide that. Medical marijuana is moving forward with a major ballot intiative in California. Drug policy reform initiatives, and public opinion polls have changed to acceptance toward more treatment and prevention. All and all there is progress, with more to come.

PhilCLU: We're talking with Ethan Nadelmann, who was formerly on the faculty of Princeton University, where he was the founding chair of the Princeton Working Group on the Future of Drug Use and Alternatives to Drug Prohibition. The next question comes from Kimba III

Question: Ethan....what would be the possitive affects of legalizing drugs?

ENadelmann: You would see, depending on how much and how far you leagalize, dramatic reductions in the crime, corruption and violence associated with prohibition. One could also expect reductions in accidental poisionins for impure and adulterated drugs. Reductions in drug related HIV and Aids, and far nore senseable drug treatment policies. Also, one would no longer be spending 10's of millions of dollars supporting our drug establishment. We could see billions dollars in tax revenues, from the sale of drugs such as marjiuana, that are now illegal.

PhilCLU: We're talking with drug policy expert Ethan Nadelmann. The next question comes from SeeSalyRun.

Question: Why do we even attempt to control something that people are always going to get one way or the other. Why not take the sin tax money and use it for something useful, like education?

ENadelmann: Well it's important to distiguish between regulation and control, on the one hand, and prohibition, i.e., lack of control, on the other. There are lots of things people want, that may not be especially good for them, and it makes sense for the gov. to invest some energies and resources into discouraging use and forms of regulation. But prohibition is not the correct approach in most cases. It made discourage some, or engaging in other vices, but it is not particularly effective and it can prove highly costly and counter-productive.

PhilCLU: We're talking with drug policy expert Ethan Nadelmann. The next question is from Nikiz4m.

Question: Are you particular about which drugs you wish to legalize?

ENadelmann: I am particular when it comes to the issues of production, manufacture, and distribution. I think we need to heed the lessons and experiences of the aftermath of alcohol prohibition, when this country experimented with a wide variety of alcohol measures, some states legalized beer, but not hard liquor, others legalized everything, some for sale in liquor stores, others only in licensed outlets, and other in grocery stores. Some had high taxes, others low. We need the same sort of local experimentation in the US with the drugs that are now illicit. But, I do believe that it should be legal for adults to posses any drug in small amounts for personal consumption, so long as they do not directly endanger others, such as driving under the influence.

PhilCLU: We're talking tonight about the nation's drug policies with Ethan Nadelmann. The next question comes from Lark39.

Question: How can you call our policies ill fated? Illict drugs are killing hundreds every year. Why would you want to legalize something like that?

ENadelmann: I believe that the legalization of the possesion of drugs by adults is justified, not only on public policy grounds, but also on moral, ethical grounds. I do believe that our right of personal autonomy should include the right to alter one's state of consciousness so long as one does no harm to others. I also believe that underlying the First Amendment rights of freedom, of speech, press, religion and assembly, is a more fundemental right over one's consciousness that inevitably includes the right for one to alter one's consciousness with drugs.

PhilCLU: We're talking with drug policy expert Ethan Nadelmann. The next question is from Gonzo6969

Question: think it would be interesting to actually get some REAL numbers of casual drug users (eg. marijuana peyote and psyillocybin) Any numbers from your side of the research?

ENadelmann: An estimated 70 million Americans have smoked marijuana at least once in their life, thats probably a majority of American citizens between the ages of 16 and 45. Close to 25 million Americans have used cocaine, and close to 20 million, I believe have tried one hallucinogen or another. It's important to note, that the majority of Americans have not had a problem with these drugs.

PhilCLU: We're talking with Ethan Nadelmann, an expert on drug policy. The next question comes from Vazco.

Question: the entire drug testing industry seems to be growing and getting more efficient, does that not contradict the fact that legalization is getting nearer?

ENadelmann: One could have a drug prohibition system with no drug testing, as is the case in many foreign countries, and one could also have legalization with pervasive drug testing. Indeed, it is possible that a drug control policy that replaces prohibitionist methods with universal drug testing, backed by stiff civil commitment penalties, would be even more insidious and venal than our current drug policies.

ENadelmann: It is important to realize that the supposed benefits of drug testing in the workplace have been vastly overstated. Indeed many studies now show few if any benefits to employers from drug testing. I strongly recomend that people examine the recent report of the National Academy of Science on this subject.

PhilCLU: We're talking about national drug policy with Ethan Nadelmann. The next question comes DWhite1974.

Question: Ethan, I was pleasantly surprised to hear that a recent Center Stage guest -- from the National Rifle Association, of all organizations -- believed that the war on drugs is doing more harm than good. Is this further reason for optimism?

ENadelmann: I was not aware that the NRA had adopted such a position. I have met people who believe that the right to use drugs and the right to posses firearms are part, and parcel of the same basic idealogy of freedom. I also know opponents of gun control who are strong advocates of the drug war, and who believe that the government should focus it's criminal justice resources on prosecuting drug users rather than illecit gun possesers.

ENadelmann: My own view is that we need senseable regulation in both domains that attain a reasonable compromise between public health, public safety, and personal autonomy.

PhilCLU: We're talking with national drug policy expert Ethan Nadelmann. Our next question comes from Rmwaterm.

Question: I understand the potential economic benefits of drug legalization vis a vis tax revenue and less police enforcement; however, there are serious economic and social detriments, namely low worker productivity, increased health costs, fetal addiction, etc.

ENadelmann: That assumes that legalization would result in substaintial increases in drug abuse. It seems to me that assumption is faulty. Drug legalization would probably lead to more American using a broader array of drugs with fewer negative consequences than is currently the case under drug prohibition.

ENadelmann: A legal drug regulation regime would provide for drugs of known purity, potency, and quality. There would be fewer overdoses from adulterated drugs and illegal drugs of unexpectedly high potency. Remember also that drug prohibition favors drugs that are more easily smuggled and hidden, i.e. drugs that are more potent and lucurative. Al Capone didn't want to smuggle beer, which was 6% proof, he wanted to smuggle whiskey which was 80% proof. Simarluarly, the Columbiam trafficers don't want to smuggle opium which are smelly and harder to transport. They would rather smuggle cocaine and heroine. Simply stated, drug prohibition tends to favor more dangerous drugs. Legal drug regulation tends to favor more benign drugs.

ENadelmann: Finally keep in mind that the vast majority of Americans have indicated, in public opinion polls and personal behavors that they do not need a drug prohibition system to keep them form becoming drug addicts.

PhilCLU: We're talking with drug policy expert Ethan Nadelmann. Our next question comes from TimArlen.

Question: Wouldn't people rather get high than be productive citizens?? It would be entirely too easy for the entire society to become dependent on escapism.

ENadelmann: Thats a fairly bleek view of human nature, which I do not share. Most Americans, like most human beings seem to posses innate desires to both be productive and to enjoy themselves. Indeed, people commonly use drugs for both purposes. Stimulants such as caffeine, nicotene, and cocaine are offten used to enhance productivity. Used properly, they do in fact enhance productivity. Conversely, alcohol and tranquilizers are used to relax. Only a small minority of people are prone to abuse themselves with any of these drugs,and that small minoirity is likely to remain roughly the same size whether we legalize or continue to prohibit.

PhilCLU: Unfortunately, we are out of time. Please join me in thanking Ethan Nadelmann, Director of the Lindesmith Cener, a project of the Open Society Institute, for joining us this evening. I promise we'll explore this topic again soon, but in the meantime feel free to join us at any time in the Free Speech Zone to discuss this or any other civil liberties questions. And tomorrow night, we tackle, once again, the question of what the Bible really says about homosexuality.

ENadelmann: If people desire further info, they can contact me at ENADELMANN@SOROSNY.ORG or contact the drug policy foundation at info@dpf.org.

PhilCLU: And, of course, a full transcript of this event will be available by tomorrow evening.

PhilCLU: Thanks, everyone. And goodnight.