Featuring Dorothy Robyn, Senior Policy Expert, Clinton and Obama Administrations; Stephen Van Beek, Vice President of Aviation Consulting, ICF International; and Chris Edwards, Editor, DownsizingGovernment.org, Cato Institute; moderated by Peter Russo, Director of Congressional Affairs, Cato Institute.
Of all the rights the U.S. Constitution protects, courts are probably most vigilant about protecting free speech. Freedom of expression is not only a cornerstone of democratic government, but also central to the more ordinary choices citizens make in their daily lives. Yet one class of speech has been almost entirely ignored by the courts: speech by professionals engaged in their business. In the new issue of Regulation, Cato scholar Timothy Sandefur argues that the Supreme Court should make it clear that censoring professionals is intolerable.
Published in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Kelo v. New London, Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America made a powerful contribution to the firestorm of interest in protecting property rights. Now in its second edition, Cornerstone of Liberty has been fully updated by authors Timothy and Christina Sandefur, and examines how dozens of new developments in courtrooms and legislatures across the country have shifted the landscape of private property rights since 2005.
The Cato Institute has released its 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom,” Cato’s David Boaz writes in his book, The Libertarian Mind. “It is the indispensable framework for the future.” And as the new report demonstrates, the Cato Institute, thanks largely to the generosity of our Sponsors, is leading the charge to apply this framework across the policy spectrum.
Featuring Donald Abrams, M.D., Director of Clinical Programs, Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, University of California; Robert DuPont, M.D., President, Institute for Behavior and Health; Rob Kampia, Executive Director, Marijuana Policy Project; Moderated by Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
Ten years ago, on March 17, 1999, an important government study was released regarding certain patients’ use of marijuana as prescribed by their doctors. The Institute of Medicine, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, issued what was then the most comprehensive analysis of the scientific and medical literature about marijuana. The report stated, “The accumulated data indicate a potential therapeutic value for cannabinoid drugs, particularly for symptoms such as pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation.”Many medical experts continue to caution about harms that may result from smoking marijuana, though those harms need to be weighed against other harms that particular patients may be facing. In the political realm, the debate over the legal status of medical marijuana continues to rage. Since 1996, 12 states have legalized marijuana for medical use. What have medical scientists learned about marijuana over the past 10 years? And how have the politics on this contentious issue shifted at the federal and state level? Join us for a lively discussion of the science and politics of medical marijuana.