Cato Event Podcast

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? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Justice John Paul Stevens’s majority opinion in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984) has become among the most hotly debated topics in legal circles. The “Chevron Doctrine,” which says that courts should defer to the interpretations of executive agencies on ambiguous statutes, divides scholars across ideological lines. Chevron’s growth from a “puny little precedent” into a landmark decision makes for an intriguing discussion about administrative agencies, judicial deference, and unintended consequences. What actually happened in Chevron v. NRDC? How much should courts defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of statutes? Is Chevron the ultimate legal example of “be careful what you wish for”? Administrative law experts discuss these topics and more in Chevron: Accidental Landmark, a documentary short from FedSoc Films. Join us for a screening of the film and a panel discussion about the past, present, and future of the Chevron Doctrine. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The first few generations of American leaders made a sharp distinction between advancing the legitimate interests of the republic and taking on foreign causes that purported to overthrow tyrannical rule and establish democratic systems based on respect for fundamental rights. Within the last half-century, however, a number of foreign insurgent groups have been able to manipulate U.S. policymakers and opinion leaders into supporting their causes. Sometimes those efforts have even entangled the U.S. military in bloody, unnecessary, and morally dubious wars, as in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.In Gullible Superpower, Cato Senior Fellow Ted Galen Carpenter examines the most prominent cases in which well-meaning Americans have ended up supporting misguided policies. He underscores the need for future U.S. leaders to adopt a policy of skepticism and restraint toward foreign movements that purport to embrace democracy.  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.