Cato Event Podcast

Needle exchange programs are a proven means of reducing the spread of HIV and hepatitis among intravenous drug users. They are endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the surgeon general of the United States, the World Health Organization, the American Public Health Association, and the American Medical Association. Nevertheless, needle exchange programs are legally permitted to operate in only 30 states and the District of Columbia. Drug paraphernalia laws make them illegal elsewhere.Critics of needle exchange programs claim they “enable” or “endorse” illicit drug use. “Not-in-my-backyard” attitudes fuel opposition in local communities. Experts will discuss the efficacy and role of this harm-reduction strategy as well as the political challenges to its widespread adoption. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In 2005 John Ioannidis of Stanford University published a paper with the dramatic title of “Why Most Published Research Findings are False.” Dismayingly, we now know that he was right. In Scientocracy we explore how science has gone wrong and illustrate it with examples from nutrition, radiation, climate, and other branches of research. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focus on the people and institutions tasked with watching the watchers, including congressional committees, inspectors general, independent privacy boards, and courts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focus on the people and institutions tasked with watching the watchers, including congressional committees, inspectors general, independent privacy boards, and courts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focus on the people and institutions tasked with watching the watchers, including congressional committees, inspectors general, independent privacy boards, and courts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focus on the people and institutions tasked with watching the watchers, including congressional committees, inspectors general, independent privacy boards, and courts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focus on the people and institutions tasked with watching the watchers, including congressional committees, inspectors general, independent privacy boards, and courts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Not since the 1970s have intelligence activities — and intelligence oversight — been as central to America’s domestic political discourse as they are today. From presidential impeachment to election security, from explosive allegations of political wiretapping to debates over the regulation of social media platforms, U.S. spy agencies — as well as the myriad overseers tasked with checking their power — seem to play central roles in the most contentious issues of the day. The common thread is the tension always inherent to intelligence in a democratic society: the need to make necessarily secretive spy agencies accountable to the political branches of government but independent of politics. Yet even as intelligence agencies face unprecedented public scrutiny — and seek to meet unprecedented demands for transparency — the scale and complexity of their work has left many wondering whether meaningful control is possible.The 2019 Cato Institute Surveillance Conference will explore that question with a special focus on the people and institutions tasked with watching the watchers, including congressional committees, inspectors general, independent privacy boards, and courts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Some political leaders are saying that inequality is at unacceptable levels and should be countered by higher taxes at the top end. But income and wealth inequality are complex issues that are often misunderstood. Scott Winship is a long-time expert on inequality and economic mobility and will discuss income inequality. He will be followed by Chris Edwards, who will discuss wealth inequality data, the role of wealth in the economy, and the possible effects of an annual wealth tax.Winship is executive director of the Joint Economic Committee, chaired by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), and leads the committee’s Social Capital Project, a research effort aimed at understanding the health of families, communities, and civil society. The chairman’s office recently released a study comparing measures of income concentration. Edwards examined wealth taxation in a recent Cato study and has completed a new Cato study on wealth inequality with Cato scholar Ryan Bourne. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The disease model of drug addiction takes the view that the addict’s brain has been “hijacked” — that the addict has lost autonomy and self-control and has effectively become a zombie who is controlled by the drug. This model of understanding nonmedical drug use informs modern public policy, leading to policies that criminalize drug use and treat addicts with punishment and coerced treatment.Yet many scholars and experts reject this disease model of addiction. Instead, they consider nonmedical drug use a form of learning disorder in which compulsive behavior is an automatized means of coping with stress triggers. Come hear a distinguished panel of experts discuss a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of substance use and addiction that can produce an enlightened public policy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.