The GMU Econ Society wants me to debate the drug war in the spring, but I can’t think of any decent debating partners. The ideal opponent is a smart, civil, high-status prohibitionist who lives in the DC area.
Your suggestions?
Nov 10 2010
Out of the mouths of babes oft times come gems. In "Obama Visits a Nation that Knew Him as Barry," November 8, the New York Times, uncharacteristically given the subject, has a revealing story about an interaction between Barry Obama (as he was then known) and his Indonesian playmates. One time, recalled the elder s...
Nov 10 2010
from Steve Randy Waldman: To DeLong, Robert Rubin remains a pontiff of the "bipartisan technocrats". To the rest of us, Rubin has become an icon of self-delusion, corruption, and arrogance. There is more, in what Tyler Cowen calls "The best post I've read in some time." The general topic is fiscal policy, and the sp...
Nov 10 2010
The GMU Econ Society wants me to debate the drug war in the spring, but I can't think of any decent debating partners. The ideal opponent is a smart, civil, high-status prohibitionist who lives in the DC area.Your suggestions?
READER COMMENTS
josh
Nov 9 2010 at 11:47pm
B. H. Obama.
Bill Kruse
Nov 10 2010 at 12:44am
How about former drug czar (under Clinton), Barry McCaffrey? There’s a good chance he lives in the DC area.
Jacob
Nov 10 2010 at 1:47am
Ethan nadelmann is based in ny, but maybe he’d make the trip
Joe
Nov 10 2010 at 3:15am
maybe bill bennett
Duane Moore
Nov 10 2010 at 3:21am
I was also going to suggest Bill Bennett.
Commenter guy
Nov 10 2010 at 5:06am
Be careful – I once heard Bill Bennet on the radio. The guy has a perfect radio voice that’s even better than Arnold Kling’s. You might be outmatched.
Kalim Kassam
Nov 10 2010 at 5:25am
Ed Meese
Tom West
Nov 10 2010 at 6:51am
The ideal opponent is a smart, civil, high-status prohibitionist
I’d go with smart rather than high-profile.
I have seen two of these academics vs. high-profile debates and neither worked well.
High-status (usually politicians) means that your success holding your position is based on how persuasive you are to the general electorate rather than building a solid, logical argument.
Also, people’s whose jobs depend on maintaining those positions *cannot* be seen as acknowledging any weakness in any aspect of their position. It would be a “career-limiting move”.
You end up with two sides essentially having two completely separate debates against non-existent opponents judged by two entirely different criteria.
Both weren’t much fun to watch.
Greego
Nov 10 2010 at 8:23am
Stephen Baldwin?
rhhardin
Nov 10 2010 at 8:44am
Lis Wiehl, former prosecutor, is convinced at the top of her voice that marijuana is a gateway drug.
chipotle
Nov 10 2010 at 10:39am
This is the “meat’ of the post:
Kevin Sabet
Alex Nowrasteh
Nov 10 2010 at 12:33pm
Cully Stimson or Ray Walser of the Heritage Foundation. They are the policy analysts for the drug war there.
http://www.heritage.org/issues/legal/crime/war-on-drugs
Andrew B.
Nov 10 2010 at 5:22pm
How about Nancy Reagan? Though i suppose she will just say no…
thank you, thank you. ill be here till may 2012.
Stephen Smith
Nov 11 2010 at 1:23am
“smart […] prohibitionist”
…oxymoron?
Noah Yetter
Nov 11 2010 at 2:54pm
Stephen Smith beat me to the punch with the optimal comment
ionides
Nov 11 2010 at 3:25pm
Check the speaker’s bureau of one of the major drug cartels.
Rick Stewart
Nov 11 2010 at 8:51pm
I suggest recruiting the devil …
Comments are closed.