Legalize All Drugs. Live With Ethan Nadelmann, Nick Gillespie, and Zach Weissmueller.

Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern for a discussion about the path to full drug legalization in America.

Zach Weissmueller and Nick Gillespie | 3.21.2023 5:30 PM

"The fact is, America really is crazy when it comes to drugs," said Ethan Nadelmann, founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, in a 2014 TED Talk.

So what would happen if America actually ended its almost 52-year-old war on drugs? What can we learn from the example of Portugal, which decriminalized all drugs in 2000? What about Oregon, which decriminalized them in 2021? What if the U.S. not only decriminalized drugs by ceasing to prosecute users but actually legalized commercial sales? Is any of this even possible amid an opioid overdose crisis fueled by fentanyl?

Join Reason's Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller this Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern as they discuss all of these questions and more. Watch and leave questions and comments on the YouTube video above or on Reason's Facebook page.

VIDEO CLIPS:

SLIDES:

NEXT: Filmmaker Tiller Russell Humanizes What Happened at Waco

Hide Comments (43)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

Diane Reynolds (Paul.) 2 years ago

Would this be legal-but-regulated drugs like Oxycontin or legalized but unregulated drugs like... this bottle might contain fentanyl, buyer beware legal?

Log in to Reply
1. Don't look at me! 2 years ago
  
  Must have many rules, regulations and taxes legal.
  
  Log in to Reply
The Glibertine Party 2 years ago

To the Koch Stenographer who wrote this article: You're really putting the "Glib" in "Glibertarian" with this drivel.

You can't complain about the needles in the streets that supposedly litter every sidewalk in the blue hellhole you think is permissive, overly liberal California AND simultaneously support blanket drug legalization, you stupid fucking wingnuts

Log in to Reply
1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.) 2 years ago (edited)
  
  I’m not sure the “Koch Stenographer who wrote this article” does complain about the needles littering every sidewalk in *checks notes* west coast Blue cities from Vancouver, Canada down to Mexico because it’s too “permissive”. I believe those are the signs that your blue hellhole is conducting a successful *checks notes* Mike Riggs-approved harm reduction campaign.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. The Glibertine Party 2 years ago (edited)
    
    take your “notes” and shove em up your ass. Fucking freak
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. mad.casual 2 years ago
      
      Whoo...
      
      Log in to Reply
    2. MT-Man 2 years ago
      
      I'm confused on why that was triggering
      
      Log in to Reply
2. Square = Circle 2 years ago
  
  You can’t complain about the needles in the streets that supposedly litter every sidewalk
  
  Indeed. You also can't complain about litter if you think food should be legal.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. The Glibertine Party 2 years ago
    
    You support regulation to deal with litter?? fuck off slaver
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Square = Circle 2 years ago
      
      Is someone confusing libertarians with anarchists again?
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. Its_Not_Inevitable 2 years ago
        
        Someone certainly has no idea what individual rights and private property are.
        
        Log in to Reply
      2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.) 2 years ago
        
        He's the new guy. He'll learn fast or get killed.
        
        Log in to Reply
3. Earnesto Concernada 2 years ago
  
  Excuse me, but don’t believe right wing propaganda about blue cities. The only reason there’s a problem in blue cities is because red states export their problems while freeloading on the backs of blue states.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.) 2 years ago
    
    As well they should. Free needles, no laws preventing you from living on the street, free healthcare, free tents... fuck yeah move to the blue cities.
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. markm23 2 years ago
    
    If you mean that the kids in rural areas that are aching to move to the big city ASAP include the worst as well as the best - yeah, that was my experience in the a small town in the 1960's and 1970's. OTOH, the one guy I _knew_ was a psychopath moved to Alaska and apparently didn't become a big city problem - the last I heard of him was when he murdered 4 people just to cover up a burglary of a campsite.
    
    Log in to Reply
4. Brandybuck 2 years ago
  
  I've seen more needles in streets and passed out druggies in Florida than I have have in California. Granted, SF is pretty bad, but SF is a tiny little corner of the state. Don't judge the whole state by SF when there are Red States with international reputations as meth head meccas.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. TheReEncogitationer 2 years ago
    
    "Meth head Mecca"...Isn't that a redundancy?
    😉
    
    Log in to Reply
5. TheReEncogitationer 2 years ago
  
  How so and why not? Time and resources not spent policing what substances people put in their bodies can be spent policing hazardous litter.
  
  Moreover, with legalization, perhaps some smart-apple could create drugs administered topically, orally, or by one of those high pressure air guns used for Polio shots, so no needle required.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.) 2 years ago
    
    There wouldn't be any hazardous litter if we weren't handing it to the meth heads for free and literally encouraging them to throw it on the street because we'll give you an endless supply. The needle litter problem used to take care of itself. The druggie would keep one needle because it was precious and re-use it. Eventually, they'd get some disease that would kill them, problem solved.
    
    Log in to Reply
Unicorn Abattoir 2 years ago

Live With Ethan Nadelmann, Nick Gillespie, and Zach Weissmueller

I'm sure Nick keeps a clean house and mixes a great sidecar, but I don't think living with him would work out.

Log in to Reply
1. mad.casual 2 years ago
  
  There aren't enough drugs to legalize to make that tempting.
  
  Log in to Reply
LindaVasquez 2 years ago (edited)

After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me… They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500… Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet…

Read all about it here………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com

Log in to Reply
Roberta 2 years ago

Hard to figure what pure decriminalization would look like as concerns production and sales. That would mean violations would no longer be crimes, but could still be civil infractions. That would probably have no effect on the business at high levels at all, because big businesses can't afford to be continually racking up fines and losing licenses. What pharmaceutic firm or even pharmacy could afford to service additional customers on an illegal-but-not-criminal basis? You know, like dispensing some narcotics OTC in addition to by prescription, even if there's no criminal liability, just fines for doing so — or loss of their license to do any business?

That's why pure decriminalization seems to have been pursued only at the level of possession for use.

Log in to Reply
Roberta 2 years ago (edited)

“The path to full drug legalization” is indeed something I’d like to hear discussed, but I bet they don’t discuss it seriously. What, given all that’s gone on up to now, in a democracy, could get elected officials or a plebiscite to repeal the laws? Maybe a ruthless dictator could do it. Instead the discutants just talk about how it’d be a good thing, and what relatively minuscule steps could be taken in the meantime, like legalizing possession for use.

In a democracy, I could see legalization of the business being accomplished just about only in a cynical way, wherein using narcotics recreationally would be redefined, even recommended, by experts (like the official experts on CoVID-19) as therapeutic. Then medical morphine would become like medical marijuana, i.e. available for the asking of some doctors.

Log in to Reply
1. TheReEncogitationer 2 years ago (edited)
  
  It’s quite simple: The only controls on drugs should be to insure purity (which market demand would mostly address) and to keep recreational drugs out of the hands of minors. (No minor drug couriers would be used if the drugs were shipped by truck and available at your neighborhood Walmart, Target, Walgreens, or CVS.)
  
  Oh, and what Brandybuck added below. Basically, law should only address acts of force or incapacity to consent, fraud, and misrepresentation. Simple enough.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. Roberta 2 years ago
    
    Simple, sure, but not easy. How would you get our masters (who, basically, is all of us collectively) to accede to that?
    
    Log in to Reply
Bill Falcon 2 years ago

The Globalist Zelinsky aka..the new Trotsky is on his way out. The Big Red Machine is marching...crushing the cultural marxists. Once the bolshies who control the US foreign policy get their war and corn pop asks for a draft..the end of the 30 year empire will be over.

Log in to Reply
1. TheReEncogitationer 2 years ago
  
  What are you babbling about?
  
  Log in to Reply
Earth-based Human Skeptic 2 years ago

Yes, all drugs should be legal. And maybe even free, if provided in centers isolated from most other people. I bet the out-of-control user problem would take care of itself in 6 months.

Log in to Reply
1. Its_Not_Inevitable 2 years ago
  
  I don't get the free part. There is no free lunch. Or drugs. Go ahead and decriminalize them, but I'm not paying for anyone's habit. You can if you want to. I won't try to stop you.
  
  Log in to Reply
TJJ2000 2 years ago

Nationally it should be. There is no Constitutional authority for Food and Drug Administration.

Log in to Reply
Brandybuck 2 years ago

Yes. Legalize all drugs.

But. At the same time hold manufacturers and sellers liable for damages. If a user misuses that's one thing, but can't be promoting crystal meth as a erectile dysfunction aid. Can't be selling heroin as a health supplement. etc. Plain old fashioned common law should apply. No misrepesentation, no false advertising, no knowingly sell to someone known to likely misuse (the bartender rule), no selling to kindergartners, etc.

Basically, legalize drugs but they still have to follow the same system every other consumable product has to follow. No free passes because libertopia. It's not Clorox's fault of someone decides to freebase Clorox, but sellers should not be promoting Clorox as a cure all.

Log in to Reply
1. NOYB2 2 years ago (edited)
  
  But. At the same time hold manufacturers and sellers liable for damages.
  
  The consequence of that is that drugs will continued to be supplied by cartels, criminals, and Chinese fly-by-night operations, since no legal manufacturer will want to take that risk and sell to consumers. Look at what happened to opioid manufacturers.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. ReneeC,ohio 2 years ago
    
    Whatever happened to personal RESPONSIBILITY? If you put anything drug-wise into your body then you are responsible for the results.
    BAN narcan! That sounds like a problem solver to me.
    Using toxic drugs constantly to "function" makes you an addict, just admit it people. And if you can't stop it will kill you. End of story.
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. markm23 2 years ago (edited)
    
    Look at what _did not_ happen to alcohol manufacturers. By your theory, I'd have to meet someone in a parking lot at midnight to buy a carton of beer. Instead, they don't misrepresent their product, and the only part of the business that has legal problems are the retailers that sell to those who are underage or obviously drunk.
    
    Cigarette makers, who DID misrepresent their product in many ways, have to pay a settlement, but it's collected uniformly just like a tax and it's not killing their business. The state AG's make sure of that, they need the revenue. What hurts big tobacco is when people wise up and either break their addiction or never get addicted in the first place.
    
    Log in to Reply
2. TheReEncogitationer 2 years ago
  
  You are correct, though if pharmaceutical innovation can use Genetic or Chemical Engineering to make these drugs safe and effective for ED or health supplements or other medical uses, that would be fine by me too.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. gadebiv 2 years ago (edited)
    
    I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart......
    
    Click the link↠ http://www.pay.jiosalary.com
    
    Log in to Reply
NOYB2 2 years ago

So what would happen if America actually ended its almost 52-year-old war on drugs? What can we learn from the example of Portugal, which decriminalized all drugs in 2000? What about Oregon, which decriminalized them in 2021?

Drug use is effectively decriminalized across the US, same way as it is in Portugal. But not only that, the US has also effectively legalized living on the street and even subsidizes that, and even subsidizes people who choose not to work massively.

And what we can learn from the example of Portugal is that its drug decriminalization didn't do anything: people continued to take drugs at roughly the same rates as companies that didn't decriminalize.

But, hey, I'm all for liberty: let's actually legalize all drugs and at the same time strictly enforce laws against living on the street, retail theft, robbery, etc. Also, people who take drugs should become ineligible for any form of disability payments, unemployment insurance, and welfare, enforced by weekly drug testing for anybody who receives benefits from these government programs.

Log in to Reply
1. Quicktown Brix 2 years ago
  
  "enforced by weekly drug testing for anybody who receives benefits from these government programs."
  
  Nice! But I have to ask: if you need to analyze someone's urine to find a problem, what is the problem? Nothing screams big brother like "we need to analyze your excretions to see what you've been consuming". And who pays for the drug tests?
  
  Also, none of those should be government programs. And private insurance providers or charities can insist on drug tests or vaccine passports to take clients/make payments as they choose.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. gadebiv 2 years ago (edited)
    
    I am making a real GOOD MONEY ($550 to $750 / hr) online from my laptop. Last month I GOT chek of nearly 85000$, this online work is simple and straightforward, don't have to go OFFICE, Its home online job. You become independent after joining this JOB. I really thanks to my FRIEND who refer me this SITE. I hope you also got what I...go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart......
    
    Click the link↠ http://www.pay.jiosalary.com
    
    Log in to Reply
  2. NOYB2 2 years ago
    
    Nice! But I have to ask: if you need to analyze someone’s urine to find a problem, what is the problem?
    
    The problem is that if government forces working people to pay you to sit around on your butt at home taking drugs, people will increasingly make the choice not to work and sit around at home taking drugs.
    
    Nothing screams big brother like “we need to analyze your excretions to see what you’ve been consuming”.
    
    "We take half your income at gunpoint and give it to drug addicts so that they can shoot up 24/7." screams Big Brother a lot more.
    
    And who pays for the drug tests?
    
    The same people who are forced to pay for these government programs. It's a good investment.
    
    Also, none of those should be government programs.
    
    Correct. But currently they are government programs. And people who propose drug legalization aren't planning on changing that.
    
    And private insurance providers or charities can insist on drug tests or vaccine passports to take clients/make payments as they choose.
    
    Indeed they can. But as long as the state runs programs that private companies ought to run, the state at least ought to make an effort to run them as efficiently and rationally as those private companies would run those programs. And that means that if you are a drug addict, you get dropped from those programs. That's even more important for mandatory government programs.
    
    The position "I'm for libertarian-style drug legalization, but I want the welfare state to keep supporting drug addicts who don't work or who become disabled" is not a libertarian position.
    
    Log in to Reply
markm23 2 years ago

Once again, where is this "52-year-old war on drugs" bullshit coming from? Recreational use of cocaine and heroin was regulated to death beginning with the Pure Food and Drug Act over a century ago. One of President Hoover's priorities 90 years ago was negotiating international treaties to ban these drugs around the world. Marijuana was banned after a campaign based on lies and blatant racism in the 1930's about 85 years ago. By the 1950's, penalties for all known recreational drugs (except the deadliest 2, tobacco and alcohol) were quite harsh and heavily enforced.

But someone wants to blame the war on some drugs on Nixon in the 1970's. Nixon threw out a federal study of marijuana that clearly showed it should be treated like alcohol - but that only means he CHANGED NOTHING substantial. The only significant change I can recall in the 1970's was not a law but a court interpretation - the courts began allowing no-knock raids on the dubious preposition that a drug dealer big enough to justify a big police raid could get rid of his entire stash in one flush.

Log in to Reply
SiennaKehlani 2 years ago (edited)

I’ve profited $17,000 in just four weeks by working from home comfortably part-time. I was devastated when I lost my previous business dec right away, but happily, I found this project, which has allowed me to get thousands of dollars from the comfort cfs06 of my home. Each person may definitely complete this simple task and earn extra money online by

visiting the next article———>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com

Log in to Reply

Please log in to post comments

Legalize All Drugs. Live With Ethan Nadelmann, Nick Gillespie, and Zach Weissmueller.

Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern for a discussion about the path to full drug legalization in America.

Latest

Yanking the Funds

15 Years of Super PACs

Alaska Poised To Beg for Relief From Crippling Federal Shipping Restrictions

Brickbat: Lawn Sign Litigation

Texas A&M's Drag Ban Shows the Threat to Campus Free Speech Is Bipartisan

Login Form