Cato Event Podcast

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

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

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

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.

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.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

“Mass incarceration” has been a ubiquitous term in criminal justice circles because of the extraordinary number of people behind bars in the United States. Many partial solutions have been implemented on the state and federal levels, mostly concerned with sentence length and re-entry services for nonviolent offenders. Those changes have been improvements, for the most part, and have been life changing for thousands of inmates, returning citizens, and their families.However, the fundamentals of our criminal justice system remain unchanged, and our policies continue to put too many people in cages for too long. The politics surrounding crime policy are often driven by fear and vengeance, not experience and data, and thus many jurisdictions are one tragedy — or a crime-rate increase — away from another wave of bad criminal laws. Our collective desire to punish wrongdoing through our criminal justice system too often outweighs the data that suggest better ways to improve public safety and reduce crimi

Increasing political polarization and rising conflict over identity, race relations, immigration, and LGBT rights have left the American political landscape with two increasingly divided extremes and a seemingly elusive moderate middle. Many Americans have come to view religious institutions as a major contributor to this ever-increasing divide — a catalyst for increased intergroup societal conflict rather than a possible cure.However, new research by Cato Institute Director of Polling Emily Ekins finds that religious participation may moderate conservatives’ attitudes on other important culture war issues, particularly matters of race, immigration, and identity.In Religious Trump Voters: How Faith Moderates Attitudes about Immigration, Race, and Identity, Ekins finds that Trump voters who attend church regularly are more likely than nonreligious Trump voters to have warmer feelings toward racial and religious minorities, to be more supportive of immigration and trade, and to be more

News of foreign interference in elections and allegations of mismanagement have prompted lawmakers to take action. Executives from the largest and most popular technology companies have been called before congressional committees and accused of being bad stewards of their users’ privacy, failing to properly police their platforms, and engaging in politically motivated censorship. At the same time, companies such as Google and Amazon have been criticized for engaging in monopolistic practices. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

News of foreign interference in elections and allegations of mismanagement have prompted lawmakers to take action. Executives from the largest and most popular technology companies have been called before congressional committees and accused of being bad stewards of their users’ privacy, failing to properly police their platforms, and engaging in politically motivated censorship. At the same time, companies such as Google and Amazon have been criticized for engaging in monopolistic practices. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

News of foreign interference in elections and allegations of mismanagement have prompted lawmakers to take action. Executives from the largest and most popular technology companies have been called before congressional committees and accused of being bad stewards of their users’ privacy, failing to properly police their platforms, and engaging in politically motivated censorship. At the same time, companies such as Google and Amazon have been criticized for engaging in monopolistic practices. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

News of foreign interference in elections and allegations of mismanagement have prompted lawmakers to take action. Executives from the largest and most popular technology companies have been called before congressional committees and accused of being bad stewards of their users’ privacy, failing to properly police their platforms, and engaging in politically motivated censorship. At the same time, companies such as Google and Amazon have been criticized for engaging in monopolistic practices. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

News of foreign interference in elections and allegations of mismanagement have prompted lawmakers to take action. Executives from the largest and most popular technology companies have been called before congressional committees and accused of being bad stewards of their users’ privacy, failing to properly police their platforms, and engaging in politically motivated censorship. At the same time, companies such as Google and Amazon have been criticized for engaging in monopolistic practices. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Nina Teicholz is the investigative journalist who, in her book The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet, overturned 40 years of official dietary advice and showed that meat, cheese, and butter are nutritious and need not be avoided.At this event, Ms. Teicholz will tell of her discovery of the systematic distortion of dietary advice by expert scientists, government and big business to the detriment of the health of Americans. She will chronicle the succession of unfortunate discoveries she made, and she will describe how the Nutrition Coalition, a non-profit, bipartisan group which she founded and directs, works to educate policy makers about the need for reform of nutrition policy so that it is evidence-based. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

From the nation building of Alexander Hamilton to the trade wars of Donald Trump, trade policy has been a key instrument of American power and wealth. The open trading system that the United States sponsored after the Second World War has served US interests by promoting cooperation and prosperity but has also allowed the allies to become more independent and China to rise. The case studies in Trade and American Leadershipexamine how the value of preferential trade programs is undercut by the multilateral liberalization that the United States promoted for generations, and how trade sanctions tend to be either too economically costly to impose or too modest to matter. These problems are exacerbated by a domestic political system in which the gains from trade are unevenly distributed, power is fragmented, and strategies are easily undermined.Trade and American Leadership places special emphasis on today’s challenges and on the rising danger of economic nationalism. See acast.com/privacy for privacy an

President Donald Trump and North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un are preparing to reprise last year’s Singapore summit. Denuclearization has not proceeded as far as the administration hoped, but reconciliation between North and South is moving forward, leading to fears of a breach between Seoul and Washington. Indeed, with negotiations over host nation support for US forces stalemated, some South Koreans fear the president might follow through on his threats to withdraw American troops.The panelists will assess the likely outcome of the summit, the role of the US-South Korean alliance, and discuss strategies to improve stability and promote disarmament. Join us for a conversation about this important issue and the prospects for peace on the Korean Peninsula. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Is higher education inherently broken, or do we just need tweaks like simplifying financial aid applications? Maybe the problem is too much profit-seeking ... or not enough. Or maybe the incentives for everyone are just wrong. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

There seems to be widespread agreement that America’s Ivory Tower has many cracks, rests on a leaning foundation, and can be prohibitively expensive. But there is little consensus when it comes to identifying the culprits behind the decay. Some say it’s tenure, others say it’s flawed accreditation. Some point the finger at for-profit schools, others at state disinvestment … and the list goes on. Of course, not everyone can be right. Or can they? In this special conference, which uses as its stepping-off point the new Cato volume Unprofitable Schooling: Examining Causes of, and Fixes for, America’s Broken Ivory Tower, top experts will scrutinize many of the most popular suspects for higher ed’s decline and will debate potential policy changes to which their conclusions point. The discussion will be especially timely as the 116th Congress begins its work, including tackling the overdue reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

There are myriad perceived problems with American higher education, from potentially bloated faculty, administration, or both, to unbridled greed. How many problems truly infest the ivory tower? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

To fix the ivory tower, we need to know something about how it was constructed, why, and its record of performance. Indeed, we need to ask if it has ever worked as well as we would like. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

12:30 – 2:00PM Luncheon Address — None of My Business: P. J. Explains Money, Banking, Debt, Equity, Assets, Liabilities, and Why He’s Not Rich and Neither Are You P. J. O’Rourke, H. L. Mencken Research Fellow, Cato Institute For Cato Institute Policy Perspectives 2019 See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.