Cato Events Podcast

In November 2012 voters in Colorado and Washington passed landmark measures to legalize the production and sale of cannabis for social use—a first not only in the United States but also the world. Medical cannabis is now legal in 21 states and Washington, D.C., and more than one million Americans have turned to it in place of conventional pharmaceuticals. Public opinion continues to shift toward policies that favor increased personal liberty on the issue of cannabis.

In A New Leaf: The End of Cannabis Prohibition, investigative journalists Alyson Martin and Nushin Rashidian present an expert analysis of how recent milestones toward legalization will affect the war on drugs both domestically and internationally. Reporting from nearly every state with a medical cannabis law, the book features in-depth interviews with patients, growers, doctors, entrepreneurs, politicians, activists, and regulators. The result is a unique account of how legalization is manifesting itself in the lives of millions.

Please join us for a discussion of this book and the changing tide of public opinion on prohibition.

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

Public opinion polls show that, by overwhelming margins, Americans believe that the United States “has a unique character because of its history and Constitution that sets it apart from other nations as the greatest in the world.” However dissatisfied they are with the characters who run it, Americans take great pride in our system of government, with its separation of powers and independently elected president.

Should they? That’s the question F. H. Buckley asks in his powerfully argued new book, The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America. Buckley points out that “parliamentary governments, which lack a separation of powers, rank significantly higher on measures of political freedom” than presidential systems. There are good reasons for that, he argues, among them: parliamentary systems make executives more accountable to the legislature; they discourage political cults of personality by separating the roles of “head of state” and “head of government”; and they make it easier to “throw the bum out” if all else fails.

Should we celebrate our presidential system, or, as Buckley suggests, count ourselves lucky that, for more than 200 years, we’ve “remained free while yet presidential”? Please join us on May 29th for a lively discussion of these foundational issues.

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

Medicaid is already the largest item on many state budgets, and federal spending on the program is expected to increase dramatically in the next decade, putting additional strain on an already overextended national budget as well. As enrollment in the program expands under the Affordable Care Act, policymakers will face challenging decisions in how to best manage the program and its escalating costs moving forward. Please join us for a broad discussion of the economics of Medicaid and to hear ideas for reform from our diverse panel of experts.

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

The president has a constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Previous administrations have been criticized for overreaching — that is, going beyond what the law expressly authorizes. But the Obama administration has pioneered a new way to shirk this duty: suspension of the law. In numerous areas — including Obamacare implementation, immigration law, education funding, and environmental regulation — the administration has carried out its policy objectives not by exceeding the law’s limits but by picking and choosing which provisions to enforce. In some cases it has relaxed legal requirements as an inducement for states to carry out its preferred policies, without any legal basis. In other cases, like immigration, it has established entirely new programs never authorized by Congress. And in every instance this approach has allowed the administration to avoid legal challenge by ensuring that no party suffers an injury sufficient to confer the legal “standing” necessary to bring suit. At least that’s been the working assumption — but it may not hold true in every instance. Please join us to learn about this new abuse of executive power and the prospects for challenging it.

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

This panel will discuss various economic and developmental aspects of ISDS, debate whether ISDS is a necessary inducement for foreign investors, examine the costs and benefits of ISDS rules to various U.S. entities, and consider whether and how ISDS provisions may be impacting the trade agenda.

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

The federal regulatory code has become so voluminous that it now bewilders ordinary citizens. The web of rules and regulations is now so vast that people can become ensnared in circumstances where they meant no harm. Even when there is no infraction, it can be financially ruinous to mount a legal defense against powerful agencies that seem bent on coercing a plea deal or settlement. And what about the reputations, livelihoods, and civil liberties that are sacrificed in that process? Join us for a discussion of these troubling trends and what can be done about them.

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

Purchase BookSmoking is risky for smokers, but is it bad for the rest of us? Science says no. Those who die from smoking tend to die close to retirement age. Lifetime medical costs for smokers are less than for nonsmokers. The risk to others of secondhand smoke is impossible to measure and is probably negligible. In short, smokers are not a public cost. So why are they over-taxed, dissed, and discriminated against in so many ways? A good question, examined at length in Unlucky Strike by John Staddon, author of more than 200 scientific papers, with original illustrations by the renowned artist David Hockney.

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

President Obama recently declared that “the debate” over the Affordable Care Act “is over.” That may be wishful thinking given that the law continues to be unpopular and its implementation keeps hitting snags. Moreover, lawsuits challenging Obamacare are once again reaching the nation’s highest courts. On May 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in Sissel v. Department of Health & Human Services, which involves the claim that the ACA’s “tax” on people without health insurance—as the Supreme Court deemed it two years ago—still violates the Constitution. The Constitution’s Origination Clause requires all tax bills to “originate” in the House of Representatives, while Obamacare came from the Senate (recall how the House voted on the Senate bill after Scott Brown won a special Senate election in Massachusetts and deprived the Democrats of their filibuster-proof majority).  Please join us to hear about Sissel and its implications for limited government from the attorney who will have just argued the case, Cato adjunct scholar Timothy Sandefur.

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

The debate over copyright seems to consist of two irreconcilable poles. One side dismisses copyright as a plaything of political forces, imposing illegitimate restraints on freedom of expression. The opposing side regards copyrights as fundamental property rights that deserve the fullest protection of the law—like rights to houses, cars, and other forms of property. Neither view, however, captures the essence of copyright.In his new book, Intellectual Privilege, Chapman University law professor Tom W. Bell reveals copyright as a statutory privilege that threatens not just constitutional rights, but natural rights as well. He proposes a new libertarian view of copyright that reconciles the desire to create incentives for creators with our inalienable liberties. From this fresh perspective come solutions to copyright’s problems and a path toward a world less encumbered by legal restrictions and yet richer in art, music, and other expressive works.

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

The technocratic approach to ending global poverty favored by development experts often strengthens authoritarian governments and neglects or undermines the preferences and personal choices of poor people. William Easterly will explain why a different branch of economics emerged for poor countries and how it has served the interests of decisionmakers in powerful countries, political leaders in poor countries, and humanitarians in rich countries. Join us to hear Professor Easterly make a case in favor of liberty that has so far been disregarded by the experts: poverty can only be ended and development sustained by respecting the individual rights of the world’s poor.

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