Janus Forum “What if the US Legalized All Drugs?”

Good afternoon. Is this working? Yeah, all right. Good. And welcome to the Janus
Forum’s second lecture event of the academic year, “What
if the United States legalized all drugs?” featuring Glenn
Greenwald and John P. Walters. This lecture was
organized by students for students, based
on the principle that no idea, no belief,
should go unchallenged. Before we get started,
I’d like to acknowledges some people who’ve been
instrumental in putting this together. First, the Janus Forum
steering committee, a group of representatives
from political organizations around campus who designed
the lecture and helped us pick the speakers. And the Political
Theory Project, without whose help
we wouldn’t have been able to pull this all together. In addition, I’d like to
acknowledge our friends from the Rhode
Island Urban Debate League who are here today. They are distinguished
high school debaters from the local area
who are here to join us in this conversation. We’re going to hear
from Mr. Greenwald first and then Mr. Walters. Each will present a 20 to 25
minute statement laying out the basics of their
proposition, after which we’ll have an extended Q&A
period featuring you. So think about
questions that you might have for
the speakers, ways you might want to challenge the
premises of our conversation today. Glenn Greenwald is a
constitutional lawyer, a columnist for Salon magazine,
and a best-selling author, most recently of With
Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law is Used
to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful. John Walters is the executive
vice president of the Hudson Institute, and from 2001 to
2009 he served as the director of the White House Office of
National Drug Control Policy, or as he’s– the position
was more commonly known, he was the drug czar in
the Bush administration. So that’s it from me. Please join me in
welcoming Glenn Greenwald. [APPLAUSE] Good afternoon and thanks
for coming, and thank you to the university and
to the various student groups who organized the
event for inviting me. I’m very happy to be here. I was at the– I was on
campus last semester to speak to several groups and
really enjoyed it, and so I’m happy to be back. And I’m also happy for
another reason, which is that I’ve been on a book
tour for the last three weeks, talking almost every
day about my book, and when you do that,
you grow very sick very quickly of hearing yourself
talk about your book, and so the opportunity
to talk about something other than my book
is like sweet candy. So I’m ecstatic
to be able to have a discussion about drug policy. The war on drugs
is– in my view, by far– the most profound
and destructive policy failure of the last 50 years. Every generation
has various policies that future
generations look back upon not just with disagreement,
but with bafflement as to how the citizenry
could possibly have failed to realize
the irrationality and evil of various
conventions and orthodoxies. And like every
generation, we undoubtedly will have multiple policies
that are viewed that way by future generations, some
of which are indiscernible, but certainly the
prime one, I believe, will be the war on drugs. Advocates of drug
prohibition typically cite a variety of
problems grounded in drug usage and related
pathologies as to why that policy is justified. And yet the amazing thing
about the war on drugs, about drug prohibition, is
that that policy at best has no effect on those problems,
and in most cases exacerbates them and make them far worse. One of the most comprehensive
studies on drug prohibition was issued earlier this year by
the Global Commission on Drug Policy, and it was composed
of some of the world’s leading experts in the area, including
people like former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, the former
Secretary General of NATO, multiple former presidents
of a variety of countries, people like George
Shultz and Paul Volcker. And the report was
incredibly well documented, but its bottom line was
as stark as it is obvious, and that is, quote, “The global
war on drugs has failed.” Not “is failing,” not “is likely
to fail,” but “has failed.” I think the easiest way to
understand why that’s so, and the magnitude
of the failure, is to compare it to a
historical precedent, which is alcohol prohibition,
because alcohol prohibition, like
the war on drugs, did almost nothing to alleviate
the problem that it was intended to redress, which was
the decision by many adults to consume alcohol. And yet what it did instead
was spawn extreme amounts of violence in the form
of gangs and others who, because alcohol
was driven underground, engaged in violence to
compete for dominance over the industry. And there really are
only two differences between alcohol
prohibition and drug prohibition that I can see. One is that it took Americans
only 13 years to realize back then what a grievous
error Prohibition was, and they repealed it,
whereas we are now going on 40 years of this
incredibly failed drug war. And the second is that
the violence spawned by drug prohibition is so
much greater than the violence spawned by alcohol prohibition. I mean, the shootouts
in the street between Al Capone
and rival gangs is almost petty
when you compare it to the pervasive
worldwide violence that drug prohibition has
spawned and is continuing to spawn. I think in general,
when assessing policy and whether or not
policies are correct, what one needs to do
rationally is list the benefits that a policy
produces, and then list the cost, and then decide if
the benefits outweigh the cost. That’s just a general principle
of how one rationally assesses the virtue of policies. So I think the way to
begin this debate is to highlight the costs of
drug prohibition, of the war on drugs, in part for
that reason, and in part because when assessing the
possible legalization of drugs, we will know that one of the
principal benefits will be by and large the elimination
of these costs. So let’s look at
the cost of this war on drugs that is now
going on four decades. The first cost is that it
has turned the United States into the world’s
largest prison state. We imprison 2.4
million citizens, more than any country
on the planet by far, including countries that
have far greater populations than the United States,
such as China and India. I think the most striking
statistic in this regard is that the United States
accounts for just under 5% of the world’s population, and
yet 25% of the world’s prison population is on American soil. One out of every four prisoners
is in an American prison. And the primary reason
for that development– there are several,
but the primary reason is our obsession with drug
prohibition and the drug war. In federal prisons, for
example, 57% of inmates are serving time on drug
charges, and most of them were convicted on charges of
possession, not distribution. Beyond this sprawling prison
state, the war on drugs is indescribably racist, both
in application and effect. So you can look at a whole
variety of statistics that prove this to be true. The disparity in punishment
for crack and cocaine offenses is the most well
known and obvious. It’s been reduced somewhat
in the last couple of years, but still exists. But even in that disparity, one
finds very stark statistics. The reason why
crack was punished more severely, or certainly
one of the principal effects, is because it was more popular
among minority populations. And yet even given
that, two thirds of crack users in
the United States are either white or
Hispanic, two thirds are either white or Hispanic. Only one third has
been African-American, and yet 80% of
defendants charged with crack-related offenses
over the past 20 years have been African-American. The group Sentencing Project
issued a report in 2010 that said, quote, “African-American
drug defendants have a 20% greater chance of being
sentenced to prison then white drug defendants.” And Jim Webb, the
senator from Virginia, pointed out on the
Senate floor in 2010 that the usage rates
of illegal drugs among demographic and racial
groups are roughly equal. African-Americans, Latinos, and
whites use and consume illegal drugs at roughly the same
rates, and yet, quote, “African-Americans end up being
37% of those arrested on drug charges, 59% of those convicted,
and 74% of those sentenced to prison.” As a result of these racial
disparities, he said, quote, “America’s criminal
justice system has deteriorated to
the point that it is a national disgrace.” And indeed, as Americans,
we’ve come to the conclusion by consensus that there is
no more nefarious impact to a policy than a racially
disparate effect, that it harms– either by
intent or by effect– racial minorities more
than the majority. And yet that is what the
drug war was from the start, and it has gotten
worse over the years, and it is certainly, in effect,
an extremely racist policy. And now that is a cost that
any proponent of the drug war should confront very seriously. Then there are
the economic costs of the drug war, which
are astronomical, when you add up the cost of law
enforcement– of arresting drug users, bringing them into
the criminal justice system, prosecuting them,
imprisoning them– and then add to that the
extraordinary and always growing interdiction efforts
that the US government engages in both domestically
and internationally. It’s called a drug war
because we deploy our military to a vast extent in order
to find drug supplies and disrupt them. The costs are in the hundreds
of billions of dollars. And this takes place now
in the age of austerity, when all kinds of
extremely valuable services are being cut for
citizens domestically in the name of the
budget deficit, including services that are
directed at drug users and drug addicts to help stop– help
them stop consuming drugs. And so the economic
cost, this hundreds of billions of dollars upon
hundreds of billions of dollars that have been expended
in a variety of ways over those decades, has
huge opportunity costs. Think of the things we
could do with that money. But it also means that
Americans have received very little benefit from
all that money spent, because drug usage rates
in the United States remains extraordinarily high. It’s basically flat. Some years see a
little bit reduction, but it’s gone up
in many categories, and compared to countries that
criminalize drugs far less, the trend has gotten much worse. Countries that take a
health-based approach, not a criminal-based
approach, to drug usage have seen far more benefits
than these hundreds of billions of dollars on criminalization. Then there’s the fact that
the drug war has spawned a very underdiscussed
and yet glaring evil, and that is the privatized
prison industry. Our drug– our
prison populations are simply too great, due
to the drug war, for states to manage any longer,
and they’ve therefore outsourced prisoner– prison
functions, the maintenance of prisons and their operation,
to private corporations. And like all private
corporations, the privatized corporations
that operate prisons want to maximize their
profit, and to do that they need more bodies, more inmates. And to get more inmates, they
employ very expensive armies of lobbyists to ensure
that no reforms take place in the criminal justice system
that would reduce the prison population. They in fact work
toward ensuring that more and more of
our fellow citizens are put into their prisons,
and therefore more profit is generated, and that means
in the overwhelming majority of cases that drug laws are made
ever harsher and ever harsher. Not only that, because they
are motivated by profit, conditions within our
prisons are among the worst of any Western nation. It is a disgrace not only
how many people we imprison, but the conditions which
they suffer, in large part these days because our prison
industry has become privatized. Then there is the destruction
of civil liberties that the war on drugs has
brought and ushered in and continues to usher in. I write a lot about the
erosion of civil liberties in the war on terror, but the
precursor to almost every one of those abuses is
the war on drugs. The nature of the drug trade
and of drug trafficking, and of the size of drugs and
the ease with which they’re concealed, means that in
order to empower the police to disrupt the supply of
drugs or the sale of drugs or to apprehend people who
are possessing or using them, we have to vest our state
and our police force with incredibly
invasive authorities. If you look at the way in which
the Fourth Amendment has been eroded over the past
several decades, the numerous
exceptions that have been created, to the point
where the amendment is almost worthless, almost every
one of those cases has been justified and taken
place in the context of the war on drugs. In addition, we
have created, or we have converted our
domestic police forces into what are really
paramilitary units, which we’ve all seen in response to
political protest and the like. So we’ve empowered the
state to a great degree to invade our privacy rights,
to use force and violence in the name of the
war on drugs, and it has begun to seep into a
variety of other realms, as these powers always do. Then there’s the strain
that the war on drugs puts on our relations
with foreign governments. At exactly the same time
that other governments around the world– our allies
and on multiple continents on the planet– have moved away
from a criminalization scheme and begun treating drug
abuse as what it is, which is a health
problem, the United States has grown more focused
on criminalization, especially internationally. And we’ve continuously put
pressure on other governments to be criminal in
their approach as well. And if you go and talk to
European drug policy makers, as I’ve done, or South
American drug policy makers, as I’ve done, you will
detect incredible resentment at the United States for
trying to bully and pressure and coerce them to
imprison their citizens, to use a harsh
criminalization approach, even though their
policy experts believe that that’s so inadvisable. Maybe the greatest
harm from the drug war is the extreme violence
that it spawns. We all the time hear about
what is taking place in Mexico with drug cartels. We all know about
what’s going on there. We’ve had drug gangs
in the United States running rampant within
inner cities for a long time and bringing horrendous
destruction and violence to those communities. The reason that has happened
is not because of drugs. It’s because of
drug prohibition. It’s because we’ve
taken this industry and driven it
underground and made it illegal that only criminals
can engage in that trade, and criminals use violence
to protect their turf. Again, during
alcohol prohibition, it was common to see
Al Capone’s gangs fighting in the streets
with machine guns with rival gangs over territory. But you don’t see Budweiser
and Heineken shooting at one another over territories,
because that industry is legal and regulated. If we did that with
the drug trade, the violence that
proponents of the drug trade often cite to justify it
would be severely reduced, if not outright disappeared. An additional cost to the war
on drugs and drug prohibition is that it breeds contempt
for the rule of law. We have millions and millions
of Americans regularly who break the law by
consuming illegal drugs. It is a very high probability
that a majority of people in this room have at
some point in their life consumed illegal drugs. It is close to 100% certainty
that almost everybody in this room has someone very
important to them, a family member, a close friend,
a loved one, who has consumed illegal drugs
at some point in their life, and perhaps even
does so regularly. And what’s amazing about
that is that they probably have done that without any
consequences of any kind, if they’re white and
middle class or higher. So you have millions and
millions of Americans routinely violating the
law, which breeds contempt for the law itself. And on top of that, you have
this extremely disparate impact from these violations, so
that if you are relatively wealthy and white, you
almost will certainly suffer no consequences from
this pervasive law breaking, but if you are poor
and/or a racial minority, there is a very high likelihood
that you will be prosecuted and perhaps even imprisoned. So we have not only contempt
for the rule of law, making the rule of law a joke
by having such pervasive law breaking, but we
have an evisceration of the core principle of
the rule of law, which is that we are all
treated equally before it, regardless of our position,
power, or prestige. That is what the drug war
has done to the rule of law in the United States. And then the final
cost of the drug war is perhaps the most
insidious, and that is that it destroys the lives
of the very individuals whom you will hear from
proponents of the war on drugs they are
only trying to help. So you can have
an abstract debate about whether the
government has the right to punish people for choosing
to put certain substances into their body. You could have the argument
that the government has no right, that adults have
autonomy to make that choice. And what you’ll hear in
response from proponents of criminalization is that
the reason the government has a right to prohibit
drugs for adults is because drugs
are very harmful, and we have to save
people from themselves, and save their families from
the effects of drug consumption. And yet what is it that
we do to these people that we’re trying to help
and to help their families? We take them and we
charge them with crimes. We turn them into felons,
which in this climate renders them unemployable,
and we put them into cages for many
years, taking them away from their children
and their families. Nothing devastates
American communities, communities of color
and of poor people, not like drugs, but like
drug prohibition and the war on drugs. It is incredible,
warped, and perverse, that people argue
that the reason why drug prohibition and the
drug war is necessary is because drugs harm
people, when the response is to take those people and
turn them into felons and put them into cages. Just to give one statistic
that underscores that point, in 1985 in America,
one out of 125 children had a parent in jail. Today it is one out of 28. One out of 28 American children
have a parent in prison. And for black children, the
number is one out of nine. One out of nine African-American
children in the United States have a parent in prison. And if you add to
that the people who have been in prison,
parolees and others who have been released, the
number is much higher. So you have this policy
that is justified ostensibly to help
people and communities, which in reality
it is destroying. So those are the costs,
and that brings up the question of what happens
if you were to legalize drugs? And one obvious answer is
that all of those costs more or less will disappear. Now, I think those
costs that I just outlined are quite
overwhelming, so anyone who wants to stand up here
and advocate for the drug war and drug criminalization
should be able to provide you
some very ample benefits to justify those costs. Now what people
will typically say is that the reason we
need criminalization is because if we legalize
drugs, usage will skyrocket. And typically that claim
will be grounded in nothing but pure speculation. It’s from the same people
who have essentially been issuing deceptive claims
about drugs for decades. They’ll tell you if we legalize
drugs, usage will skyrocket. But they have no empirical
evidence to support that claim. The only real empirical
evidence that we have about what happens when you
decriminalize or legalize drugs is to look at what has
happened in Portugal, which is the subject of a report that
I wrote for the Cato Institute in 2009, and
presenting an update to next week in Washington,
because Portugal in 2000 decriminalized all drugs,
all narcotics, soft drugs and hard drugs. And the reason they did that was
because throughout the 1990s, Portugal had by far the most
extreme and unmanageable drug problem in all of Europe. There were heroin addicts
laying in the streets of Lisbon. The entire country was subsumed
with addiction problems and related pathologies of
sexually transmitted diseases and drug-associated crime. And what they found was that
the more they criminalized, the worse the problem became. And so they commissioned an
independent study composed of apolitical experts that
were given one mandate, and that mandate was
to answer the question, what can the
Portuguese government do to bring this
problem under control? And what this panel
of experts concluded, they examined all options
with the exception of full legalization,
and the only reason they didn’t consider that
option was because Portugal is bound to treaties that the
United States enforces that bar countries from legalizing
drugs, and if you’re a small country like
Portugal, you actually have to abide by your
treaty obligations. So they weren’t able to
consider that option, but they did consider
every other one, and they found that
decriminalization was unanimously the
conclusion of the panel said the optimal way to bring
these problems under control, and because they
had the endorsement of an apolitical
panel of experts, the parliament in Portugal
legalized drugs in 1999, and the Portuguese president
signed it into law in 2000. We now have a decade’s
worth of empirical data about what has happened,
and what has happened is that on almost
every category, Portugal went from being one of
the worst countries in Europe to one of the best. In numerous key demographic
groups, like teenage groups, drug usage on an absolute
level, in terms of raw numbers, actually decreased. Decreased. In other demographic categories,
it increased slightly, but far less than what
other states, including those with harsh criminalization
schemes in the EU, experienced. And it’s, I think,
counterintuitive to a lot of people to
tell you– to show you that when Portugal
decriminalized drugs or got rid of its criminalization
scheme, things got better. So I just want to
outline quickly the three reasons why
policymakers in Portugal will tell you that happened. The first is that when
you criminalize drugs, it creates a wall of
fear and animosity between the citizenry
and the government, and especially the police. That makes it impossible
for the government to offer services or education
to citizens, because citizens perceive the government
not as their friend, but as the entity to fear. Norm Stamper, who was the former
chief of police of Seattle and a veteran of the
police force for 34 years, said, due to the
drug war, quote, “In cities across the country,
young people, poor people, and people of color have come
to view us as the enemy.” And so by decriminalizing
drugs, policymakers in Portugal have been able to speak
to the population, offer services,
reach out to them, because they are no
longer the enemy. They’re not trying to convert
their citizens into criminals and put them into cages. They’re trying to offer
services on a health basis to those who want them. The second reason
why that happened is because when you stop
spending hundreds of billions of dollars on putting drug
users into the criminal process and prosecuting them and
putting them into cages and then trying to– and then
losing the– what they can contribute on an employment
level, huge amounts of money are freed up for things
like drug counseling and methadone clinics and
ways to educate people about how to reduce sexually
transmitted diseases, or provide job programs
that make people not have to go out on the
street and commit crimes. And so by freeing up their money
and spending their money not to put their drug addicts
into cages but to send them to counseling and
offer them clinics, drug addiction decreased
and therefore drug usage did as well. The third reason
why this happened is because when people now are
caught using drugs in Portugal, they don’t go to criminal
courts with a judge sitting in a robe who judges them
guilty and sends them to prison. They go to a panel composed
of health experts and drug experts who encourage them
to seek drug counseling and provide the
mechanism to do so. And so instead of
sending people to prison and turning them into hardened
criminals who are unemployable, they are turned into
healthy citizens who no longer are criminalized,
but are offered help. And what’s most amazing is
that when Portugal first decriminalized
drugs– Portugal is a very conservative and
Catholic country that still criminalizes abortion. This policy was
incredibly controversial, as you might expect. A decade later, there
is no controversy in Portugal over this policy. There is no significant
political faction that advocates repeal
of decriminalization. It is one of the sources
of national pride about the incredible success
that decriminalization has brought about. So when you think about drug
decriminalization or drug legalization, and think
that the reason you’re opposed to it– if not in all
cases, than at least in some– is because it’ll lead to a
massive increase in drug usage, I would say two things. Number one, the cost of the
policy that you’re advocating is vastly more substantial
than that cost, even if you’re right. And the one real
empirical case that we have to know whether or not
that’s true, in Portugal, disputes that assertion
and says that there really is no substantial increase,
or increase of any kind, in drug usage when
you decriminalize. You actually make every
single problem better. And I think if I had one
wish for drug policy debates, is that it would be based in
empiricism and rationality, rather than moralizing,
fearmongering, and speculation, because I think the evidence is
so overwhelming about just how destructive this policy has
been and continues to be. So with that, I
thank you very much, and we’ll turn it
over to Mr. Walters. [APPLAUSE] Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting me. I want to thank the organizers. They made this easy,
and I want to thank them for taking on this topic. It’s a topic that I know is
a sensitive one on campus, and not one that gets discussed
with always both sides of the issue. I think it’s one of those places
where people think they know, and it’s worth talking about. I do believe that we ought to
begin with some empirical data. I do think that’s
important, and I think that the arguments
about the consequences and the history and what’s
doable and what things cost are important in making policy. Let me start with Portugal. There are a number of
statements being made now about Portugal as a model and
what’s happened in Portugal. Let me quote David Raynes
from the BBC report, where Mr. Raynes is the UK National
Prevention Alliance executive counselor. Some of this data is hard
to collect on things. We have some problems even in
checking on rates of change. We are looking at, in some
cases, rates of change in social phenomenon
that are difficult to get current real-time data. But the data that he
reports on Portugal is slightly different
from what you just heard. The number of new cases of HIV
and Hepatitis C in Portugal is eight times the average
in other EU countries now. Portugal has the most cases
of injected drug-related AIDS, with 85 new cases
per million citizens. Other EU countries
average five per million. Since decriminalization,
drug-related homicides have increased 40%. Drug overdoses have
increased substantially by over 30% in 2005. There’s been an increase of
45% in postmortem testing positive for illegal drugs. Amphetamine and
cocaine consumption has doubled in Portugal,
as have cocaine seizures have increased seven-fold
between 2001 and 2006. I don’t want to
leave that a he said, she said report
or data, because I think that’s unnecessarily
confusing here. But one of the
burdens that I think is important for those who want
to legalize to think about it and to argue about is what’s
happened in other places? Because now Portugal’s
being given an example, but some of you are old
enough in this audience to remember if we were
talking about this five, 10 years ago, it would
have been the Netherlands. It would have been Amsterdam. Why aren’t we talking
about Amsterdam? Because Amsterdam
is recriminalizing. Now 71% of their municipalities,
when I was in office, are trying to shut down
those famous coffee shops. I worked extensively with both
the health and the justice minister, because the
problem of addiction and the collateral problems
in society were growing. In fact, what we now
know is something that we didn’t know
when I was your age, and that is that substance
abuse is a disease. We now have, as you probably
have seen in various health classes as you grew up, the
capacity to image the brain, and we can show you the
difference and the parts of the brain that are actually
affected by substance of abuse, which also include alcohol
as well as what we usually refer to as illegal drugs. We can see the
movement from a use where euphoria is
a principal effect. There is– there aren’t–
isn’t the kind of craving, there isn’t the kind of
impairment of judgment, there isn’t the kind of changes
that result in dependency. And then as use goes
on, these effects, which vary from
person to person, we now know some of these
factors are probably inherited. We now know some
of these factors may have to do with
combinations of circumstances and biochemical measures. People become dependent. Your first speaker
mentioned that many of you have experience with drugs. Most people, and
I agree with him, have had experiences
in their families with alcoholism and
substance abuse. They know people
whose lives changed, who became different, who now
are different in some cases today, although there also
are, of course, millions of Americans who
are in recovery. We can treat this disease. It’s still in the
realm of, well, this is really a moral
failing, or this is something we
should be ashamed of, or this is something that
we can’t face directly. But people get clean
and sober because people help them confront this
disease, because we know– and you know if
you have experience with this– that one
of the maybe most pernicious parts of
this disease is denial. Some of you are going to
go home for Thanksgiving, and you’re going to
have dinner, and you’re going to have a family member
there who is not in recovery and needs to be. And if you tell them, and even
use some of their behavior to indicate that maybe
they’re drinking too much, or maybe their lives are out
of control because of substance of abuse, this is not
the kind of disease where they’re going
to say thank you. Gee, I didn’t
realize I had a rash, or I had high blood
pressure, or I had diabetes. They’re not going to go
willingly and seek treatment. They’re going to get angry. They’re going to push you away. You have to do it
anyway, because everybody that I’ve met that’s been
successfully in recovery got there partly with
a push on their back from somebody in
the family, somebody in the community, sometimes
even law enforcement. I’ll get to that. In fact, the substance
abuse problem, now we understand much more
in health terms, and what was
described earlier is a kind of cartoon of what
might have been– possibly, if you squinted your eyes– true
a while back in some regards, but it’s not true today. Today there’s been a
revolution, and your generation will make that revolution
complete, I believe. In fact, the substance
abuse problem is– I brought a couple of
things to kind of not say data, but to show you trends. It’s been one of the
most pliable in terms of social problems,
in regard to efforts to change the direction
of it in various ways. If you compare it to things
like out-of-wedlock births, or you compare it to
childhood poverty, or you compare it to
other areas of crime, substance abuse has
gone up and down quite dramatically by
societal influences, both those in the
criminal justice system, but those in education,
those in health care. These three slides–
originally this data was prepared by the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation– show per capita consumption
of cigarettes, drugs– cocaine and marijuana– and
per capita consumption of alcohol, which shows
you also something about this phenomenon. The consumption and the base
of consumption is rooted, begins with people
who are not dependent, but the volume that’s
consumed ends up being heavily
weighted toward those who are addicted or dependent. If you want a simple way
of thinking about it, of thinking about
alcoholism, an alcoholic will consume in a week what
a nonalcoholic who drinks would consume in maybe
a month or two months. So the volume gets–
and the amount consumed and the availability of that
to be used by new initiates becomes more
present as it grows. That’s why initially when you
see things like legalization, not only in the Netherlands,
but decriminalization or control of heroin
that was done in the UK, descheduling or downscheduling
of marijuana in the UK, all of which have been reversed,
but over certain periods of time, it didn’t seem to
have that much of an effect, that it took time
for this disease to spread and to manifest
itself in its full– in the full danger. And in almost every
one of these countries, Portugal now remains
an outlier, but we’ll see whether five
years or 10 years from now we’re talking about
Portugal as a place that’s legalized drugs. The burden on
legalizers is, look at the places that
have legalized, they’ve all turned
the other way. There isn’t one example
of a sustained effort to legalize these substances,
because of their health effect, we now understand. And in the old days,
when people thought it was a character
failing, the argument was, well, actually
I can control myself. I have the character
to use these at will and control my behavior. We now know that that’s
a fool’s argument. We can make any of us
alcoholics or drug dependent. It’s a biochemical fact. Your brain, if you
take enough of these frequently enough
over a period of time, you could become dependent. We can do this for rats
and monkeys and mice, because they’re also have
the same biochemical makeup. So we have a problem
with something that people can use and begin
to use for purposes of pleasure that becomes self-destructive. That’s why you see, for
example in the case of alcohol consumption, that for alcohol,
per capita alcohol consumption in the United States
did not return to the pre-Prohibition
levels until almost 1970. That it takes a while
for these things to manifest themselves
in the same fashion. And it does take time for them
to be squeezed out of society, even with the best of policies. But they do change. Let’s see if I can
get this to work. This is a summary
of eighth, 10th, and 12th graders, just in
the period from 2001 to 2007. Some remarkable
things happened here. Ecstasy– hang on. Let me see if I can
find the pointer. Ecstasy here became a much
bigger problem, although it wasn’t a high percentage,
but you had– some of you may remember, you
had a lot of concern about parties and deaths of
teenagers and young teenagers. But it became
something that people began to talk about and
report on and direct, and it changed some
of that behavior. This is the problem
with technology. But you also see,
for example, steroids became a bigger and bigger
problem for the example that, frankly,
professional sports was giving to young
people, and you had more and more,
especially high-school-aged, young people using steroids. It became a topic. Professional sports confronted
it, whether it liked it or not, and you saw significant changes. You also see changes in alcohol. It’s not true that when
one of these substances goes up or down, the other
one goes the other way, that there’s a built-in
amount of abuse. This is an example
over a similar period of time of marijuana
positives through drug testing in the workplace, either
pre-employment testing, for cause, or accident testing. This is for cocaine
and methamphetamine during the same period. Methamphetamine, some you will
remember when you were younger, was a huge and
exploding problem, because the making
of methamphetamine became possible by individuals
in small toxic labs, giving it for free to
themselves and their friends. We ended up, in this
case, using a policy that went after the precursor
chemical that was in cold and allergy medication. Now it’s behind the counter
and is better controlled. It doesn’t go to
zero, but these have serious effects on the problem. Sorry about the quality of
this, because this is actually in the current drug
control strategy, which I don’t have the
original electrons on and had to do a copy of. But one of the great
changes has been in cocaine. Cocaine availability, cocaine
use, cocaine consequences, cocaine seizures, as
a result of efforts to control it in Colombia. This is the Obama
administration’s statement of what’s happened
to the cocaine threat, a remarkable
and historic change. This shows you what
happened in Colombia when that change happened. Huge violence prior and
destruction of institutions, no government presence in
big parts of the country, but a dramatic
change in massacres, homicides, some of
the dangers that you see happening now in Mexico. But when there was– when
there began to be control, now are all these dangers
a result of drugs? And that’s the other argument
that you just heard repeated again about Prohibition. Well, Prohibition
created organized crime, and when you
eliminate Prohibition, you’ll get rid of
all these criminals. Well, that– I’m
actually old enough to remember that Bobby Kennedy
was running organized crime strike forces against
organized crime well after Prohibition ended. Yes, criminals make money on
smuggling– on smuggling drugs, on smuggling guns,
on money laundering, on protection rackets,
on a variety of crimes and destruction, and drugs
is one, but they don’t exist and they will continue to–
they don’t exist because of drug trafficking, and they will
continue to exist well after drug trafficking. This shows you the
aggregate numbers of how many people
use– again, these are self-reported surveys. There are limits to this
data, but I can assure you the limits are more extreme in
Europe and in other countries than they are in
the United States. This shows you the rate of use
and the rate of dependency. Roughly you have about a
third of the overall users, and again, it’s not a census. There probably are more
users than are caught in this who are
dependent, and you see it varies somewhat by
drug, but it’s more or less in the same ballpark. Some drugs are more dangerous in
terms of the movement from use to dependency. But roughly a third
of those who are using are already dependent. There are roughly 20 million
users of all illegal drugs in this survey. The same survey would show
you that for cigarettes, a legal drug, there
are 60 million users. For alcohol, a legal drug, there
are about 130 million users. That is people who use these
substances once a month or more frequently in the aggregate. So in this case, when
I hear the argument, well, Prohibition really
doesn’t work, well, in what sense do you mean it? If you mean could there
be a lot more Americans using these substances
if they weren’t under the current structure,
yes because we can see that with alcohol and
with cigarettes. This shows you admissions
to treatment by drug. You see the relative
percentages, and you also see that the
admission rates for teenagers have changed and are not the
same as those for adults. Part of the reason for that
is the wider use of marijuana and the younger
age of initiation. And of course marijuana
is one of the drugs that our society is most
permissive about that’s still illegal, so it’s not
a coincidence that– but you will also note here that the
amount of treatment for that, compared to alcohol, which
is more available to them, is considerably greater. This is a relative
comparison of those who have been users, the rates
of dependency for alcohol, for marijuana,
and for cigarettes if used as daily smoking
as a proxy for cigarettes. The amount of
movement, especially when you’re young–
now, we now understand that the changes that go
on in the brain from use to dependency are changes that
are much more rapid and much more pervasive before
the age 20, that age– that the human
brain, your brains, continue to mature up through
age 20 in very significant ways that affect– that these
substances are particularly an affront to those
brains before they reach full maturity. It’s easier to change
the wiring in your brain if you’re under
age 20 than it is to do that for
people who are older. However, that change
has lasting effects. My generation, because
I’m a baby boomer, had the largest
cohort involvement in substance abuse of any
cohort we measured in the United States in recent history. We didn’t just have more
problems as young people or in our 20s or in our 30s,
we now in our 50s and 60s have the highest rates
of substance abuse of any generation
ever seen before. That these changes that
go on in the brain, even when you stop using, create
risk factors that continue. If you’ve– some of you have
had experience of this with cigarettes. If you’ve been a cigarette
smoker and you quit, if you start smoking
again, you do not go back to being a
naive cigarette smoker. You go back and quickly
get back to the rate of use you were using at the beginning. Your brain remembers those
rates of– those imprints that occur when you use
and abuse these substances. This is what we’re doing today. We’re building screening
for this disease– as we have with hypertension,
as we have with obesity, as we have with smoking–
into the health care system. We’ve got codes approved
for reimbursement of people to ask simple protocols about
patterns of use and abuse. Why is this important? It’s important
because, as I said, denial is not only an
important part of this disease, it’s a pervasive
part of this disease. You see, when people
who are screened to show that those
were identified as needing treatment,
how many of them felt they needed treatment? 4.5%. How many did anything about it? 1.5%. The typical response
is one you know if you’ve been around people who
abuse– I don’t have a problem. I can handle it. Get out of my life. Leave me alone. Stop infringing on my freedom. They don’t see– it changes
the way in which they perceive their own situation,
and that’s why they can become so self-destructive. What we’ve done is try to
have screening at every point in the health care
system, whether it’s basic care, acute care,
and allow a referral to appropriate levels of care. Your generation has
a chance of making that pervasive in the system. If you’re now going to your
health center here on campus, and when you get
care if you’re not asked if you use
alcohol or drugs, you’re not getting
state of the art care. It’s that simple, because
we started– not only and built it into hospital
and shock trauma centers, but into college and
university health centers. And it’s not the guy who was
the former drug czar saying that, it’s the medical bodies
that do credential and license and certify the health
facilities around the country and around the world that
are going to change this. This shows you why people
got into treatment today, and why the criminal
justice system is not about locking people up. In fact, it’s about
taking people who are not a danger to themselves
and to others and trying to get
them into treatment, but using the fact that
they’re in the criminal justice system as a way of helping
them stick with that treatment and getting clean and sober. You see the relative
contribution to treatment entry from various
categories– individuals, from the criminal
justice system, from health care
providers, from others. It’s predominant. Today the criminal
justice system is the single
biggest reason people seek treatment in the United
States for substance abuse. This is the growth
of drug courts. Some of you work in
community health and work in community and family law. You’ll see that even
in family courts, and child custody cases–
since in some cases, 80% of child abuse
and endangerment cases have been involved with care,
a guardian or parent who’s a substance abuser– that
today, getting and staying with treatment, getting
clean and sober, getting your life back in
order, is a precondition of returning parental rights. It’s been a huge
contributor and benefit. And you see the
relative contribution that those going to
drug courts can make. Now again, they
don’t take everybody. They take people who
are not criminal, they’re not of a
type or behavior where they’re a
danger to the others and themselves in an acute way. All right. How do I turn the
machine off here? This touches on a comment you
heard earlier about everybody is in jail because of drugs. Well, not exactly. This is state prison inmates. One of the [INAUDIBLE] you heard
earlier was federal government. The federal government
doesn’t police most crimes. Yes, there’s about
50-some percent, in fact the percentage
has been going down in federal prisons that are
there because of drug offenses, but those are
generally trafficking. And the fact that some are
charged with possession is because they actually
were trafficking, and the offense was
knocked down in order to either expedite the case or
to adjust the sentence in a way that prosecutors deemed to
be beneficial to the people of the United States. But in fact, the
largest group of inmates are in state prisons. And in fact, the
largest group of inmates are not drug offenders
who are in state prisons, and those that are
there for possession– and especially
marijuana possession, which is frequently brought
up in these debates– is extremely small. No prosecutor, no
police chief, no judge, wants to send people
who don’t deserve to be in prison to prison. We do have too many
people in prison, but we have too many people
who are harming others. And remember, when you hear
the argument that, well, we ought to let more people out
of prison, for those that are violent and repeat
offenders, the people who they harm look a lot like them, if
you read victimization surveys. If you want to help people
who are in neighborhoods that don’t have services in
education and security, you’re not helping
them by not taking the people who are victimizing
them off the streets. I’ve been in those neighborhoods
for years, and the most common thing you hear from
people who live there is, why don’t you
help get these people away from my children? Why don’t you give us
the police protection that you have in
other places in town? Why isn’t our street
as safe as the streets where the better-off
people live? And there’s the relative
distribution for arrests. The other argument frequently
offered as well, it costs so much because you’re
using all this money to arrest people for drug offenses. They’re a small
minority of all arrests. In fact, we have too
many people in prison, but we have many people who are
there not entirely because they traffic in drugs, although
there is a relative– there is a contribution drugs makes–
it’s because their lives are out of control, because
of the effect drugs have on the judgment, on the
ability to control impulses, on the effects it has on the
peer group it puts them in, and the behavior
that we now know is generated within peer groups
that can be self-destructive. So what we need– what we
now understand we need to do is we need to move
forward of these things. We need to get– we need
to start things earlier. We need to use more of
the combination of health care and some compulsion in
getting people to treatment, whether that’s a drug court
because their lives are so out of control that they
came into the criminal justice system in the first place. Again, the criminal
justice system does not go around
trolling for individuals. And on the issue of a
crack powder distinction, I agree entirely. This is a problem
that we should fix. In fact, I– for President
Bush– went to the Hill and talked to some
of the people who were the original
sponsors of this, and it’s just not true
that it was originally designed to be something
targeted on African-Americans. Charlie Rangel was a cosponsor
of the crack mandatory minimum. Pat Leahy was a
cosponsor, as was– and individuals who have
undoubtedly no suspicion that they are somehow
racist and trying to lock up African-Americans
were a cosponsor. Why? Because crack was being
introduced by drug cartels as the cheap version of cocaine
into our poorest neighborhoods, and particularly neighborhoods
in our inner cities that were populated
by African-Americans, and it was considered
an outrage. The original phrase
“war on drugs” was not to go
after our citizens. It was done during the
Nixon administration, who said, we ought to pay as
much attention to drugs and what they’re
doing to our society as we do when a
foreign enemy attacks. And what we have
done is we’ve learned a lot about how to do this, and
we’ve done it more effectively. That’s why the number of
arrests related to drugs are going down. That’s why– and the connection
between lower crime rates and less drug use is powerful. And that’s something
that even parts of Europe have learned the hard way,
by loosening these first and finding more problems. And for other countries,
they have much less money to spend on treatment. One of the great
problems now that Mexico and some Latin
American countries face as they face some of
these problems is these drugs are of course being
sold to their people, and they don’t have the
resources for treatment. And it’s not true–
it’s just not true– that the Mexican cartels
are there because of drugs. They’ve been there
for a long time. They do protection. They do car theft. They do bank robbery. They do extortion
and murder, and they will do this even if
you legalize drugs and use the drug profits
as their own profits as they control border areas. They’re a threat to the
rule of law and democracy, and we need to help the
Mexican government get control of that threat. But the Mexican government needs
to take the lead, as it has. I’ve sat with
President Calderon, who was a very brave man who
was trying to deal with this. But I also sat with
President Uribe in Colombia when I represented the United
States at his inauguration in the summer of 2002, where
the violence from both left and right had gotten
so bad that where we were in the congressional
hall was mortared by the FARC at the beginning of the
inauguration, killed 20-some people with a
series of mortar rounds that hit on the perimeter. There were more, but the
array that they had set up shorted out. President Uribe went from a
time when violence and terror threatened to take his
country over to a time when his country became
the fastest growing, one of the most popular. They changed the
constitution to allow him to be elected
for a second term, and today Colombia
continues to be able to be a strong and powerful
ally and a representative of what you can do
to turn this around. I think Mexico can
do the same thing. Some of our own communities
have faced some of these– some of this violence and
done the same thing. But it’s not going to help to
have more drugs, more violence, more pathology. And I know none of us wants
to see people’s choices and their lives infringed. But this is a particularly
difficult problem, because it’s something that
people choose initially, but it’s a slow poison. But it’s not unlike what
we’ve seen with cigarettes and with alcohol. And how have we tried
to control those? We’ve increasingly
criminalized them. If I lit a cigarette up in
here, it’s against the law. If I sell it to a minor,
it’s against the law. We’ve done a lot of work
on educating young people about the dangers of
smoking, but multiple studies have shown the
single biggest factor in reducing smoking in young
people is increasing the price. It’s a supply control effort. Every time you raise the
price 10%, use goes down 7%. Drugs are more costly
because they’re 100% taxed, and drugs are less used because
we tell people the truth. And I think the truth is that
they are dangerous for you, and your generation
gets a chance to help people understand that. We want people to make
the right choices, but when they make the wrong
choices on something that’s consequential enough to destroy
their lives, their family, and their community,
then society has an obligation to step in. That’s why I come back
and end with my request about Thanksgiving,
because I wasn’t kidding and I’m not being rhetorical. You have the chance,
you have the right, and you have the obligation
for those in your life and your family that you
come in contact with, or your roommate, who
are out of control. You got to help them see,
because the substance blinds them. But I’ve met more people who
have graduated from drug court treatment who have said,
the day I was arrested was the most lucky
day of my life. It saved my life
from destruction. I got treatment. I got sober, and I got my life
back, and I got my family back. That’s what institutions
do, but you got to properly understand them. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] All right. Thank you again to
both of our speakers, and now we’re going to
move to my favorite part of the evening,
which is the Q&A. So if you guys
have questions you want to ask of our
speakers, please line up at one of those two
microphones in the aisles, and we’ll try to get to
as many of you as we can. We can start over here. I’m a physician who’s worked in
chemical dependency treatment for almost the last 40
years, and have been involved in a lot of forensic cases,
both on the criminal and civil level. And I want to make
a couple comments and ask a few questions. One is the data on drug
involvement in the state prisons is grossly misleading. More than half of people
are in state prisons not on drug charges,
but on the charges of breaking and entering,
theft, and crimes to obtain their drugs. The reason the Northeast
is the epicenter of car theft in
the United States is that it is the epicenter
of heroin use in the United States. So I think that these
statistics are misleading. Secondly, the treatment
and the availability of treatment in the
prisons is minimal, and that fortunate
individual who says that was my– the time
that steered me into treatment is unfortunately a minority. Fewer than 15% of prisons
in the United States offer anything close to what a
variety of blue ribbon panels have recommended. And one of the reasons that
treatment is not available is because of the
cost of incarceration. Secondly, you showed the growth
of drug courts through 2006. Since 2006, they have
been substantially declining, because
they are costly, because of the presence
of social workers, and they have flattened and
have begun– in some areas, including Rhode
Island– to decrease. I’m sorry, can we get a
question soon, please? Thank you. Well, I’m looking
for comments on that. Again, I think the point
made by Mr. Greenwald that very little of
the rhetoric about this actually assists anyone. There are– there have been
about 20,000 deaths per year related to all illicit drugs. 150,000 deaths
related to alcohol, and a half a million
deaths related to tobacco, our legal drugs. Yet we’re aiming
the sledgehammer at drug addiction because of our
prior failure in Prohibition. Yes, we have reduced
cigarette smoking and we have reduced
alcohol use, but we have done it through education
and through public health measures, and much less
through incarceration. Sir, I’m sorry. We have a ton of people
who want to ask questions. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] Let me start with the
last part, because I would say, there’s a
way, if you think about, you should turn that around. It’s absolutely true that
the legal drugs of alcohol and cigarettes cause more
deaths, which just demonstrates that making things legal doesn’t
reduce the destructiveness of something. It can in fact increase
the destructiveness of it, because it gets more widely
used and it’s more pervasive. So that, I’m not sure, cuts
against Prohibition or cuts against the current
law, as much as it suggests that you ought
to think about what the implications are. And I think today,
if we had a choice, we would not approve
these products for sale. I mean, no less a person
than Abraham Lincoln gave speeches against
alcohol, because he saw the destructiveness in society. Now if we had a
choice, we might say we wouldn’t approve these kinds
of dangerous– these kinds of dangerous substance,
because of what they did, but we have a cultural
legacy we’re obviously having to deal with here. On the prisons,
I agree with you. There are many people who
are under the influence of these drugs– I said that–
who commit all kinds of crimes, but by making drugs more
available and more pervasive and more acceptable, that’s
not going to go down. That’s going to go up. And on the treatment side and
on the drug court side, look, I agree. Drug courts are a
slog, but I don’t think it’s about the money. It’s about the way in
which the system thinks about what it does. And there needs to be some
joining of health care dollars and treatment dollars as well
as criminal justice dollars, and places that have done
that, they get much better. And I think in addition
to prison treatment, you need reentry care,
because the point of reentry becomes a critical matter when
people return to behaviors that are self-destructive. So if I have dollars
to spend, and I don’t have enough to go around,
I would spend them on reentry. But look, I agree that we
can push these further. And look, I think there
should be more leadership. Look, I worked for a
president who had– you know, you can criticize
him all you want on a lot of things–
he was the first one to say he wanted to
close the treatment gap. He talked about his own
substance abuse problem, and said people should get to
recovery, which many people who had this problem felt was
enormously important for making this not a source of stigma. So I think there needs
to be leadership here, and it needs to be from a
variety of national leaders, and I regret that
there hasn’t been– there’s been silence on that. Yeah. I just have a few
quick points on that. You know, one of the issues
about the idea that alcohol deaths– alcohol causes so many
more deaths than drugs, which is true, is what we just heard. It’s because alcohol
has been legalized, and therefore it sends a signal
that it’s actually OK to use. And I think that one of
the points to realize is that when you dig just a
little bit into the advocacy for drug prohibition,
what you’ll always find are arguments,
implicit or explicit, about returning to alcohol
prohibition, and even prohibition on other harmful
addictive activities like junk food use or cigarettes, because
there is no way theoretically or rationally to distinguish
between why we criminalize drugs– certain kinds
of drugs, that is– and why we don’t criminalize
alcohol and cigarettes. The other aspect is you
can talk theoretically about how we all wish there
were more drug treatment programs in prison, but
the reality is prison and the criminal
justice system is not set up, it’s not
designed, to encourage people to get help for their
psychological and mental problems. Judges are trained in the law
and in sending people to prison or imposing punishment. They’re not mental
health professionals. And prisons, especially
privatized prisons, are not there to help
people or to offer them assistance with how to
deal with their disease. They’re there to incarcerate
people and to punish them. And just as a
practical matter, we– as I think we all
have noticed– are in a period where there’s
extreme budgetary constraints. And it might be nice
in an ideal world to be able to say, I’d like
to spend huge amounts of money arresting, prosecuting,
sending to prison, or putting into drug courts
a whole bunch of defendants, and at the same
time offering them all kinds of good
counseling options and methadone clinics and
other government-funded ways to get them off drugs. In the reality,
that cannot happen, because of resource constraints. The choice we have
is to continue to put people into
prison for what even advocates of prohibition
acknowledge is a health problem, or treat it
like a health problem and spend that money instead
on far more constructive uses. Those are the two
choices we have, and the choice that
we’re currently on, one that’s criminal–
which is to criminalize, is to preclude that
far better option, and I think that alone
is a reason to stop it. Thanks. We’re going to go over
here now, and can I ask please that before
you ask your question, you state your name
so our speakers know who they’re speaking to. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Felicia [? Yamen ?]
and I’m a sophomore here at Brown. And my question is
directed at Mr. Walters. When you were addressing
incarceration rates, you said that the people who
they harm look a lot like them. And I was wondering,
who are “they,” and what do they look like? And you also said that their
number one request was safety, and how do you think
their request for safety is being fulfilled right now? Well, look, I think
if you look at a place like I live in Washington,
DC, the violence that people who, like,
my children face, white teenage children
face, is minimal. But if I’m– if I have
African-American children, African-American male children,
the risk to them is off the charts. Now why shouldn’t– and my
view is there is no difference between what African-American
parents want and what I want for my children. They want safety. They want security. They want good schools
for their kids. They want criminals not to
be on the street having– selling drugs in
an open-air drug market that is not shut down. And by making
these markets open, or by making these
substances more available, and by not punishing people
who brutalize others, we’re harming people
who have in many cases the least defenses in society. Yes, it’s hard to send
somebody to prison. But I simply think
it’s just fantasy to say that the people
predominately who go to prisons are there for drug
possession or minor offenses. They offend over and
over and over again. Most states, precisely
because of the cost, are trying not to
send people to prison. And this is a myth about the
prison industrial complex. I sat in office for
eight years and I sat in more than
one administration. I never met anybody lobbying for
the prison industrial complex. The issue here is
we want to send– we as Americans prize freedom. We are uncomfortable
with locking people up. But we also have people who
prey on individuals repeatedly, and it’s not– and some of it’s
property crime, but a lot of it is, of course,
personal violent crime. And we have to remove and
punish those individuals. Much of it is done is under
the influence of drugs, but it’s not done for the drugs
or for the purpose of selling drugs. It’s done because those people’s
lives are out of control and they need– yes,
they need treatment. But first of all, if they’re
going to be violent offenders, we have to have that
category clearly in mind, and we need to protect people
from those individuals. Hi, Alex [INAUDIBLE]. I’m a freshman here at Brown. Thank you both for coming and
for discussing this with us. This is a question
for Mr. Walters. You described several
possible solutions– increasing the price,
having more rehabilitation for nonviolent offenders,
and several other things. And what struck me as I
listened is that none of them seem mutually exclusive with
removing prison sentences just for use. None of them seemed to
conflict with that idea, and I was just wondering
why, if every solution that would lead to a decrease in drug
use and the problems of society aren’t mutually exclusive
with decriminalizing drug use, you’re against
decriminalizing drug use. Well, two things. One, how does the law apply? The law applies for
possession, and most people for what really is
personal use amounts don’t go to prison today. Most people don’t get caught. I mean, the fact
of the matter is, this is a behavior where you
both feel the consequences personally and the consequence
to societal are not there. Think about the people
you know who use drugs. Yes, they may at somewhere
in the back of their mind know this, but there
have been studies done about how many
times you make a buy or how many times you use
and how little there’s an actual consequence. In fact, if you had more
systematic consequences, you probably would have
more effect on behavior. But what society does
say is this is dangerous and we don’t want
people to sell, and we don’t want
people to make money off the addiction of others. I always find it somewhat
ironic when I come to campus, and people who are sensitive
to corporate domination of individuals will
at the same time sometimes tell
me– I’m not saying you’re saying that–
that they want people to be able to sell
drugs, addictive drugs, and make money off of it. That’s odd, and to say, well,
what about Anheuser-Busch and Seagram’s? Well, that– yeah,
that’s a problem. And that was such a problem,
America tried to stop it. But Americans decided
there were so many of them that used, they wanted
to go back and use it. OK, but keep in mind the
numbers you heard earlier. We pay a huge price for that,
not just in health care, but in the influence on families
and on violence and crime under people who were
both drunk and drugged, and drunk is a big part of it. I’m not– I had never– nothing
in my remarks said that. Now, my colleague
says, well, when you get there, that shows
that we’re all against– we’re all for prohibition. No, I think we all
have to be clear about, there are societal
barriers here, but we have to educate
people, and societal attitudes make a difference. Don’t do this. It’s bad for you. Society is not going
to tolerate it. It’s going to try to stop you. It’s not necessarily going to
throw you in jail or cages. It’s going to try to tell you
as a friend and a family member first and foremost, don’t
do this to yourself. How many of you do that? This is a campus in
the United States. I have not been to
Brown before, but I’ll bet you there’s binge drinking
that’s visible on this campus. How many of you say– [LAUGHTER] How many of you say
to somebody, you know, really, this is not the
way to live your life? I bet you don’t,
because you don’t want to be– one, you don’t
necessarily believe that, even though you
should know better. Or two, because you don’t
want to be antagonistic. Well, if you care so much about
other people in the world, how come you don’t care
for the person that’s in your dorm room with you? Because it’s not
polite to say this. The problem with
substance abuse is you have to say things
that aren’t polite, because of the way this
works on people today, and what I’m challenging you to
is– and your generation to do is tell the truth. It’s a disease. And yeah, you can flirt with
this and you may not get sick. It’s a kind of Russian roulette. It’s a kind of
slow-acting poison. Maybe you won’t be
involved enough. But if you do use it,
and you use it regularly, and you continue
to use it, you will become alcoholic or dependent. It’s not avoidable. There are a bunch
of people my age who thought, well,
I come home, I have a couple of
cocktails every night. You do that every year
for your adult life, you will become an alcoholic. You will. It’s just– you
could fool yourself, but it’s going to happen. And for a place that’s
dedicated to the life of the mind and your future,
to watch each other be self-destructive to
the degree that it changes the risk factors for
the rest your life is not OK. But don’t throw people in cages. Tell the truth to them. Have the ability, have the
guts, to stand up and say, this isn’t what we
should be doing. Yeah, and just a
couple of points just to add to the question
that you asked. I mean, once you
start with the premise that drug usage and drug
addiction is a health problem– and he cited a lot
of studies with which I agree that suggest that it
is– then it becomes not only a non sequitur, but
actually quite cruel to start criminalizing
that activity. I mean, a basic component
of Western justice is that we don’t imprison
people for things that are a byproduct of health problems. Even if you murder someone, and
can demonstrate that you did it because you had a mental illness
that caused you to do it, we as a society
won’t imprison you. So once you start
saying– and this is the premise of why many
countries in Europe and South America have stopped
using a criminalization scheme– that it’s
a health problem, then the only logical
solution becomes let’s treat it like
a health problem and not like a criminal problem. And then there’s the comment
that, well, look, don’t worry, because even though we
criminalize possession, it’s OK, because
most people who use and who possess
don’t get caught. Well, if it’s true that this
law is not being enforced, and that most people who possess
and use don’t get caught, then what is the point of having
the criminal law prohibited? I mean, for one thing,
it makes a total joke out of the criminal law that we
all know that millions of us are doing exactly that which
the criminal law prohibits. I mean, the purpose
of criminal law is not to moralize and educate. It’s to punish people
for infractions. And there’s lots of
ways to communicate that things are wrong
besides criminalizing them. We taught the society
that cigarette smoking is very harmful, even
though it wasn’t criminal. But the last point is
that it’s not really true that if you simply possess
and use, you won’t get caught. That’s true if– for most
of the people in this room. That’s true if
you’re white, and you live in a middle class or upper
middle class neighborhood. But because of extremely
aggressive police actions in neighborhoods that
are minorities, or poor, it’s constant stop and frisk,
constant use of search– the right to search
cars and the like. Tons of people in
those neighborhoods quite frequently do get
caught for possession. So you don’t get caught
for possession or usage if you’re of a
certain race and have a certain socioeconomic
background, but you constantly get brought
into the criminal justice system if you are black
or Latino or poor, and even though you may not go
to prison– although many do– the mere fact of being
put into handcuffs, charged with a crime,
made to go to court, brings shame to people. It turns them into
criminals, and the fact that it’s so disparate
makes that far worse. So to the extent it’s a health
problem and to the extent we acknowledge that most people
don’t get caught, we simply ought to stop doing
it, because it brings huge costs and
virtually no benefits. [APPLAUSE] Can I follow up with
one point, because I think this gets to a distinction
that you may not agree with, but is– but I
think is important. The system does
not go after users, because it considers both the
more urgent threat and the more justifiable target
to be the person who sells these substances
to hurt others. It considers the action of
trafficking a greater crime. Many of the people who are in
prison under the formal charge of possession originally
were there for trafficking and the sentence
was knocked down. It is true that
there also are people who are involved in
other crimes who end up being charged with possession. For example, if you’re
involved in assaulting someone, and you’re arrested, and there’s
a complication with the people you were assaulting getting
testimony and so forth, but because you were
also a drug user– which is one of the reasons why
your behavior is what it is– you had the drugs on
you, you’re frequently just charged with the drug
crime and adjudicated that way, because maybe witnesses
are intimidated. Maybe it’s more involved. Maybe it’s more complicated. But the reason that you’re
there is because you committed a violent crime. The drug crime is a fallback
from the severe crime which you actually committed. It’s not that you’re
not a criminal. And to try to argue
that the issue here is, well, we ought to just let
everybody go ahead and use, that’s not what the
system is trying to do. It’s trying to protect
people as best they can while proportionally
understanding the difference between
people who are users and not. And I think the argument–
again, I would say, I recognize there’s a debate
on this in certain areas, but the argument for wanting
safety in minority communities is as strong as the argument
for wanting care about how law enforcement is done here. And I agree that we
should be careful about the disparate
effect of these things, but the way to do that is
to provide safety, security, education, and the same
kind of environment for the citizens that
are in poor neighborhoods that we have for
the citizens that are in affluent neighborhoods. That’s our failing, and
that’s what we need to fix. All right. I can see that our lines
are just getting longer, so if I could ask that we try
to move through these as quickly as possible, and hold our
applause, that would be great. Thank you. Sam [INAUDIBLE]. I’m a sophomore here. My question is
for Mr. Greenwald. So if we consider–
sorry, let me start again. To what extent would you
consider the impediment to a sensible drug
policy to be rooted in the nature of
the political right in America, as a remnant
of the Reagan Revolution? So by that I mean that
it’s kind of a collection of very disparate rightist
ideologies, libertarian ideology, moral
majority, et cetera. I had a little trouble. Can you– Sorry. So– Can you just get a little
closer to the microphone? Yeah. Yeah. There we go. Sorry. I’m bad with microphones. I’ll start again. So, to what extent do you
see an impediment to the– to a sensible drug policy
lying in the nature of the political
right in America, as a remnant of the
Reagan Revolution that seemed to take
libertarian ideals and moral majority, which seem
to be at odds in a lot of ways, and put them together? Right. It’s a really good question. I mean, one of the oddities
of the debate over drug policy is that it actually scrambles
the political spectrum a bit. Of course, some of the longest
and most vocal advocates of legalization or
decriminalization have been found on the right. William Buckley, for
years, for example, was one of the leading
proponents for it. The organization that
commissioned my study on Portugal was the Cato
Institute, which is obviously a libertarian group. And then there’s a
lot of people who are sort of more
traditionally on the left who believe in decriminalizing
or legalizing as well, because this is
the policy that by far puts more minorities and poor people
into prison than any other. But I do think that,
to your question, that the real reason why
it’s so difficult to have the debate in an
empirical and rational way is because we’ve had this
sort of moralizing politics that did come out of that
era, in which all anyone needs to know is that drugs are bad,
even though tons of people they know and love
in their families and themselves often use
or have used in the past, but they know that
drugs are bad, and they also know that
we should take bad people and punish them. So it’s very difficult to work
out of those two premises. That’s why, for example,
it’s very difficult to argue against war
once you’ve demonized the head of a particular country
that we want to go to war with. This is an evil
person, therefore we should bomb them and
kill them and take them out of power. It’s a very similar kind
of Manichean mindset, that it’s evil and therefore
we should put them in prison. And that’s why when I have these
debates, I focus on two things that I do think
can subvert that, that simplistic and
misleading framework. One is that the policy
of criminalization itself is what is evil. That’s what causes the violence. The reason why there’s
so much violence in minority neighborhoods as
opposed to white neighborhoods is because that is where the
police are going and bringing violence and driving the crime
underground and allowing people from middle class neighborhoods
to go and buy there without consequence. It’s the policy
itself that’s evil. And then the other
aspect of it is that empirically,
you know, we’ve been hearing for four decades
everything we’re hearing today, about, oh, we’re on the
verge of solving the problem, and things are getting
better, and just let us criminalize
a little bit more. And it simply is false. So even if you believe
that drug usage is bad, even though you’re willing to
vote as president people who have done it, or revere
people like Steve Jobs who said that it was one of the
most important experiences in their life to do it, even
if you believe it’s bad, this process of criminalization
does not solve the problem, and in many cases
it makes it worse. And I think that’s what can
begin to sort of undermine those premises. Definitely agree. Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Matthew. I’m a graduate student. So my question has to do with
the roots and motivations of the drug war. So specifically, so just in
general, any government program or policy or action certainly
has multiple ulterior motives. There’s more reasons to do
it than the stated reason. I think that’s– it would be
very naive to say that the drug war or anything else was just
about drugs and it had nothing else to do with it, so I would
like to point out the following coincidence and have both
speakers state a comment on it. So prior to the fall
of the Soviet Union, the US military aid in terms
of guns and helicopters and also monetary
aid to buy weapons to countries like Colombia
and the Philippines was stated to– we need to
do– to provide this aid to defend against communism. And then after the fall
of the Soviet Union, it became, you know, we need
to supply these paramilitaries that commit horrendous crimes
for the sake of stopping narcotics, stopping
drug traffic. And then after
9/11, it became we have to continue
to give Colombia and the Philippines and
everywhere else all this aid to continue to murder their
own citizens to stop terrorism. And then once that
pretext collapsed it became narcoterrorism, and
now we’re back at the drug war, right? So I just wanted to ask– so
particularly to Mr. Walters, since it says that
you were– helped build critical programs
to counter narcoterrorism in Colombia, Mexico,
and Afghanistan, I wanted to ask how you could be
sure that there was no ulterior motive to the state? I’m sure you thought that it had
everything to do with the drug war, but how do you know
it didn’t serve a higher political purpose of,
say, counterinsurgency? I’d also like Mr.
Greenwald to comment on, for the same reasons,
if permitting our government and
our Congress to give military aid to these dictators
that murder their own citizens and to aid the paramilitaries
in murdering their own citizens has any effect on
our civil liberties at home in the same way that–
in a similar way that allowing drone strikes, for
example, erodes our own civil liberties at
home, if there’s any relation or connection. Well, look. I recognize in the discussion
of motives this may not be inadequate answer,
but the reason I have my views on the basis
for the policies in Afghanistan and Colombia is because
I was there when they were made and implemented. I was there with the President
and the National Security Council and the presidents
of those countries, and I went through the
process of the decision about how we do this and how we
spend treasure and risk lives, and how we try to
structure things that will allow greater
security for our allies and for our own people. I recognize there can be
a lot of cynicism on this. I would say that if
you can get a chance to serve in government, do it. If you want to
change things, fine. But you’ll also find out that
your government is actually something you can be
much prouder of than you may think from
what you have come to believe about the world. People work very hard to do the
right thing, and a lot of times they get it right in a
complicated situation. Where they don’t
get it right, it’s not because they
had ulterior motives or they weren’t
straightforward about it. They may have made some mistakes
sometimes, but we all do. And when there’s a lot
at stake and there’s a lot of potential
damage for the mistakes, the consequences can be costly. But the fact of the matter
is, Colombia, I believe, is a success story. I think Mexico can move
forward in a way that will be very important for them
and for us and for the world. I think Afghanistan’s
obviously at a critical point, and as is Iraq. I mean, look, I
recognize there’s a lot of debate over
the war, but one of the things I would
ask you to think about is there are 30
million people in Iraq, and another 30 million
people in Afghanistan, who have a chance of democracy
they never had before. They may not get it. It may fail. But that’s a very,
very important thing that your brothers and
sisters allowed to happen. It wouldn’t have
happened without them. And whatever you may
think– and I recognize the war is not
popular, and especially with college students,
and especially with college students
probably at Brown– but you know, I’ll tell you,
when you look back on this, and you think about
what was possible and what was accomplished, and
when you talk about the people, when you go to these
countries as I have, and been with the people out– at
the point of the spear and at the point of the
suffering, it’s amazing. And it’s something that I
think you should be proud of, and I recognize that’s more
than you’re willing to go, most– some of you,
but I’ll tell you, it’s worth thinking about. If you want to talk
about your education, you want to really think
about the big issues that confront you, think about that. Yes, just quickly on that, and
it’s a pretty broad question. But one of the things that– one
of the difficulties in getting reforms in drug policy is
that it empowers huge numbers of influential factions. So as I described earlier,
it vests the government with incredible power. The drug war has– it’s
resulted in countless court decisions that have expanded
the authority of government. It has created lots of profits
that are growing greatly for privatized industry. The government is constantly
developing and purchasing new technologies,
drone technologies, police technologies in
the name of the drug war. And when you have these
incredibly powerful vested interests, you don’t need
to be conspiratorial in order to realize that those
interests are going to be working against any
kind of repeal or dilution of this war that is generating
lots of power and profit for them. At the same time, justifying
the assertion of American influence in numerous
countries around the world. And what I would
say about this idea about you should be proud
of your government because of the attack on Iraq and
the occupation of Afghanistan that’s going on 10 years
and the like is, you know, I think that one of the things
that’s sometimes government critics do is sort of
villainize or demonize people in government, and expect people
responsible for bad policies to sort of come with
horns and kind of be Lex Luthor, like in underground
lairs kind of cackling at their Machiavellian
policies, and that’s not really how it happens. It’s sort of, you know,
what Hannah Arendt described as it’s a banality of evil. So it’s sort of done by
committee and officials who are wearing nice clothes,
meeting and speaking in very moderated tones. But to speak about, for example,
the Iraq War as something we should all be proud
of, when it left at least 100,000 innocent dead people
and displaced millions more, and to not even recognize that
enormous, horrific human cost in suffering when talking
about this aggressive attack that we launched in violation
of every principle we’ve ever engaged in, without
even acknowledging that and to talk about that as
something being– something we should be proud of, is
sort of that kind of banality. And I think that’s
something that’s so important to realize about
how our government functions. It’s not overt villainry,
it’s that the system itself is sort of perpetuated
by this mindset. And I think that’s a lot of
what is responsible for the drug war, is it just creates power
factions that don’t want their power to be taken away. That’s just basic human nature. [APPLAUSE] So one thing. It does create power. [APPLAUSE] It does create power,
but if you want to really think about
this seriously, think about the powers it
probably spawned in Syria and in Libya and in Egypt. It gave people in those
regions of the world, who were thought not to be
able to govern themselves, the desire to say, the people
are going to rule here. Now we’ll see how it plays
out, because democracy is a bit messy, but
the fact of the matter is, not only did it
liberate those countries from horrible dictatorships–
and I think we all regret the cost, and
not– no one more than the people who
fought on the front lines, I can assure you, because
I’ve been with them and their families and
those who have also been hurt– but the opportunity
here to really change the world and bring democracy to
countries who for decades, if not hundreds
of years, have not been able to have
free government is an enormous achievement,
which is not just your president from
one case or another, but was a lot of
dedicated people who put their lives on
the line on the front line and are still trying to do that
to give– make this possible. And people in those
countries most of all who put their lives
on the front line in Syria and Libya and Egypt. So remember, when you
think about these things with the kind of
glib cartoon version, there’s a real
version out there. It’s more interesting. It’s more useful to work in. And it’s very
important that you, as young people who are going
to take over these jobs, understand it. So just very briefly,
the United States spent several decades, including
in the prior administration and the current one, not working
to bring democracy and freedom to Egypt, but pouring huge
amounts of money and arms into the Mubarak regime,
as well as in Bahrain and in numerous other
tyrannies in that region, including Saudi Arabia. So to be a part of a
government that funded and armed one of the worst
tyrannies on the planet, and then stand up
and take credit for the democracy
that was brought there by the people against
our government, is really a bit
difficult to take. [APPLAUSE] We’re going to need to
get back on topic here. I’m sorry. We have time for two brief
questions from each microphone. Thank you. And if you’d like to speak to
the speakers about the topic of the evening or
anything else afterwards, there will be a brief
reception in the lobby. Thank you. Ben [INAUDIBLE]. I’m a sophomore. Mr. Greenwald, I’d like
to bring your attention to a quote from Ethan Nadelmann,
the head of the Drug Policy Alliance. I’m sorry, again, could you
just get a little closer? Certainly. I’d like to bring your
attention to a quote from Ethan Nadelmann, the head
of the Drug Policy Alliance, who said, “We won’t reverse
these disastrous policies until we make parents believe
the drug war is harming their children more
than criminalization.” And I want to push
back on something that you said, that we
need to assess policy by virtue of rationality and
have an empirical debate. But every policy
at some point has to be hashed out, fought, and
won in the political arena. Now a recent Gallup
poll in early October shows that for the
first time this, momentous thing, a majority–
a plurality of Americans support legalization. But new emerging data that very
few people are paying attention to increasingly shows that
the key, pivotal, marginal demographic on this
issue, people just waiting to believe in your
ideas, are white, suburban, middle-class
mothers who vote in the mid-Atlantic region. Now prohibition is
like your opponent. Cater to this
demographic masterfully by manipulating
child-oriented rhetoric, by protecting the children. Look at it on YouTube,
Time magazine, all these media spectrums. Today it was surreal. You mentioned children once. Your opponent
mentioned it 34 times. And so the point that
I’m making is, aside from mentioning that I’ll
be leading a research team in the spring
examining this, and the idea is laid
out in a front page article in Post magazine
today if you get your hands on it, my question– [LAUGHTER] My question to you
is do you buy that? Do you acknowledge the
discrepancy between a policy argument and a
political argument, one that can gain
political traction? And what other
political challenges do you see and
anticipate as this gets hashed out in the next,
you know, 20, 30 years? Of course. No, it’s a great
question, and you’re absolutely right that you
can’t just confine yourself to these abstract, clinical
debates, because even if you’re right, you won’t
persuade people, and it’s just sort of a
self-indulgence if you do that. And that was why
I found the study that I did on Portugal to
be so interesting, because I began with literally no
conception about what I would find. I went over there and did field
research for several weeks. A lot of policy experts
were even unaware that Portugal had
even done this. It was sort of so quiet,
had received no attention. And what I said when I made–
when I presented the paper was essentially exactly
what you just suggested, which is that as long as people
believe two things– one, that drugs are really bad and
bring all sorts of problems, and number two,
criminalization decreases usage and legalization
will increase usage, then it’s almost impossible
for the debate to be won. I mean, I think you see
changes in marijuana simply because people have
concluded that marijuana is relatively harmless,
not because they’ve changed their mind about
whether criminalization will decrease usage. And that was why the
Portugal study to me was so vitally important. And you can look at the data
and decide for yourself. It’s online, search
my name and Portugal. You’ll find the full report. And as I said, the Portuguese
themselves after 10 years have concluded that
it’s a stunning success, and the reason for it is
because it actually is easier to convince the population
to stop using drugs and to help them– the
addicts- get off drugs when you decriminalize,
because when you criminalize, you turn them into
hardened criminals, and you have all
these impediments that prevent you from reaching
them and helping them. What Portugal shows is
that decriminalization is the optimal approach, if
legalization isn’t, to getting people off drugs. And I think once you can
make that case compellingly, and the evidence for
it is overwhelming, then I think the political
argument makes itself. And I agree that’s the
principal challenge. Thank you. Over here. Hi, my name’s Phil [INAUDIBLE]. I’m an adjunct teacher at RISD. I’m kind of amazed we’ve
gotten this far without talking about prescription drugs. I felt like somebody in
the line was going to ask, so I guess it’s me. You turn on the TV and when you
hear news stories about drugs, you don’t hear about marijuana. You don’t– well,
you do sometimes, but you hear more often
about prescription drugs, and that in some places in
the United States and maybe in the whole country,
prescription drug overdoses have overtaken
traffic accidents, and in certain places one in 10
or one in five babies is born with a prescription
drug addiction. And my question to
you is, these drugs– and I’m talking about
controlled substances, painkillers, like
OxyContin, exist in this kind of middle area
between legal and illegal. And I’m wondering if–
is the current policy toward prescription
drugs working? And if it isn’t, what
can we do to change it, and how do prescription
drugs fit into both arguments that you presented today? Well, you’re right to
bring up prescription drugs as a serious problem. It’s grown, largely led
by synthetic opioids like OxyContin, Vicodin,
some of those products that have become more
widely available. There was a period where
they were prescribed with less care– I think the
medical community has decided– than they should have been. But one of the things
we have– again, it’s a little complicated
for the last question, but we have two different
kinds of problems. One, we have a problem
with young people using. That typical initiate–
that initiation is typically from taking these from
home medicine cabinets initially and trying them. Now, once somebody
becomes dependent, that’s not an adequate
supply, and you end up trying to find either street
sources, or pill mills and so forth. We also have an
adult care problem, which is less clearly
documented at this point yet, but is people who’ve got
legitimate medical care become dependent. Nobody actually paid
attention to that going on in the medical system,
and so they then start to become drug-seeking
in various ways, including pill mills and
multiple doctor shopping. We have systems that
are built in some states to look at prescription
drug monitoring, so that the health care–
so if you’re a doctor and you’re prescribing, somebody
is coming and drug seeking from you, you can put their
name into a confidential system and you can tell
whether they’ve also gotten the same prescription
from five other doctors. You can begin to find
a way to get them help. But what we’re
doing also, what we initiated was an effort to
try to help in continuing medical education,
help physicians who’ve not had this experience and
don’t realize what’s happening, that they need to be a little
more circumspect in how they dispense some of
these substances, maybe send somebody to a
pain clinic or a specialist in order to make sure that
they don’t inadvertently create a secondary problem
of dependency that’s self-destructive. Three, of trying to make sure
that we are sharing information appropriately in
the medical realm. And four, looking
at– because once you get– once you
have a large group of independent
individuals, usually normal medical distribution
is not adequate. Quick question, are you using
dependence and addiction synonymously? Because I’ve spoken with
doctors who have said there is absolutely a medical
difference between the two. Well, there is a distinction,
a technical distinction between the degree and severity
of the compulsiveness of use between these,
which is not usually an issue for a lay audience. But yes, there is some
difference between the two. And again, there
are also the ways that they’re supplied
in different venues that makes a difference. But to state it
simply, if there is a nonmedical self-destructive
pattern of use here, we need to control it. But I do think there’s also
a lesson here for the topic that we were discussing. Many times the argument
about legalization, well, we need to kind
of legalize and control. We’re not going to just hand
out heroin like wine coolers at the 7-Eleven. We’re going– we’ve got some
kind of control mechanism. It’s difficult to imagine
a more rigorous control method than some of these
synthetic opioids like Vicodin, OxyContin, and others. Yet we have a very serious
problem of abuse here. So when you say, well,
we could control it and it would be more fair,
I think that should give us some caution about that. Mr. Greenwald? Yeah, I would
just– a quick point on that is I think it
kind of underscores what’s really at play here. You have all kinds of
legalized substances that are infinitely more
addictive and harmful than, for example, some of
the prohibited substances like marijuana. And one of the reasons for that
is because marijuana doesn’t really have a strong
lobby in Washington, and of course the
pharmaceutical industry does. And so when we talk about the
war on drugs, lots of people refer to it as the
war on some drugs, and that’s essentially
what it is. It’s a list of substances that
the government has decided that adults can consume
legally and ones that they’ve decided you’ll be
prosecuted or at least arrested and put into the criminal
justice system for consuming. And I think a lot of this really
is about government control, about who has power
in Washington, and which of these substances
end up being legalized and which ones don’t. It’s really a coercive
measure on the part of the government and the
people who exercise influence within it to promote
their own interests, more than it is anything
in the general welfare. With my apologies to
our last two questions, we really are out of time. So if you’re interested in
speaking to our two guests, they’ll be out in the lobby
for a brief reception. Can we get another
hand for them, please? They’ve been fantastic. [APPLAUSE] And thank you all
for coming out. Have a good evening.

Leave a Reply

(*) Required, Your email will not be published