Explore the vast range of titles available.

Harm reduction policies and attitudes in the United States have advanced substantially in recent years but still lag behind more advanced jurisdictions in Europe and elsewhere. The Obama administration, particularly in its last years, embraced some harm reduction policies that had been rejected by previous administrations but shied away from more cutting edge interventions like supervised consumption sites and heroin-assisted treatment. The Trump administration will undermine some of the progress made to date but significant state and local control over drug policies in the US, as well as growing Republican support for pragmatic drug policies, motivated in part by the opioid crisis, ensures continuing progress for harm reduction.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must take care that its research priorities, public communications, and product bans do not cause more harm than good. [...]abundant evidence from the illicit drug education field suggests that deceiving and even lying to young people about the relative risks and dangers of particular drugs may produce promising results in the short term but backfires over the long term.6 The guidance also demonstrates naivete regarding potential harms and growth of a dynamic illicit market. Talented researchers are deterred and excluded and obliged to choose among three options-refraining from seeking funding, skewing their research agendas to satisfy funders' biases, or seeking funding from sources associated with the tobacco industry-with all the downsides of professional and social ostracism and skepticism that follow.7 The FDA cannot possibly accomplish its balancing objectives so long as its research funding priorities and decision-making remain so unbalanced.

The dynamics by which norms emerge and spread in international society have been the subject of strikingly little study. This article focuses on norms that prohibit, both in international law and in the domestic criminal laws of states, the involvement of state and nonstate actors in activities such as piracy, slavery, counterfeiting, drug trafficking, the hijacking of aircraft, and the killing of endangered animal species. It analyzes the manner in which these norms have evolved into and been institutionalized by global prohibition regimes and argues that there are two principal inducements to the formation and promotion of such regimes. The first is the inadequacy of unilateral and bilateral law enforcement measures in the face of criminal activities that transcend national borders. The second is the role of moral and emotional factors related to neither political nor economic advantage but instead involving religious beliefs, humanitarian sentiments, fears, prejudices, paternalism, faith in universalism, the individual conscience, and the compulsion to proselytize. The ultimate success or failure of an international regime in effectively suppressing a particular activity depends, however, not only on the degree of commitment to its norms or the extent of resources devoted to carrying out its goals but also on the vulnerability of the activity to its enforcement measures.

``Drug legalization'' increasingly merits serious consideration as both an analytical model and a policy option for addressing the ``drug problem.'' Criminal justice approaches to the drug problem have proven limited in their capacity to curtail drug abuse. They also have proven increasingly costly and counterproductive. Drug legalization policies that are wisely implemented can minimize the risks of legalization, dramatically reduce the costs of current policies, and directly address the problems of drug abuse.

Described by Rolling Stone as the point man for drug policy reform efforts and \"the real drug czar, Ethan Nadelmann has played a leading role in drug policy reform efforts in the United States and globally since the late 1980s. His advocacy began while teaching politics and public affairs at Princeton University (1987-1994). He founded the drug policy institute, The Lindesmith Center, and later the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), which he directed from 2000 until 2017. He also co-founded the Open Society Institute's International Harm Reduction Development (IHRD) program.

In this illuminating history that spans past campaigns against piracy and slavery to contemporary campaigns against drug trafficking and transnational terrorism, Peter Andreas and Ethan Nadelmann explain how and why prohibitions and policing practices increasingly extend across borders. The internationalization of crime control is too often described as simply a natural and predictable response to the growth of transnational crime in an age of globalization. The internationalization of policing, they demonstrate, primarily reflects ambitious efforts by generations of western powers to export their own definitions of \"crime,\" not just for political and economic gain but also in an attempt to promote their own morals to other parts of the world. A thought-provoking analysis of the historical expansion and recent dramatic acceleration of international crime control, Policing the Globe provides a much-needed bridge between criminal justice and international relations on a topic of crucial public importance.

Nadelmann strenuously argues against the current prohibitionist strategy in favor of what he refers to as the 'harm reduction calculus.\" Although he explains what he means by harm reduction, there has always been a problem with the term, because it is neither a policy nor a program. He calls upon criminologists to help ameliorate the harshness of current policies.

An attempt to: (1) identify & examine the essential differences that separate those in the reasonable middle ground of the debate over drug prohibition & legalization; (2) offer new ways of thinking about radical alternatives to current drug prohibition policies; (3) provide evidence in support of the proposition that even a radical decriminalization of drug prohibition will not result in the dramatic increases in substance abuse that critics of drug legalization fear; & (4) propose a drug regulatory model that eliminates many of the worst consequences of drug prohibition without reproducing the unfortunate consequences of the US's alcohol & tobacco control policies. Modified AA

[...]the language of \"altered states of consciousness\" has disappeared from public discourse yet remains crucial to the development of that discourse. [...]these papers provide more than just a historical and practical perspective on drug use. Founded by former Johnson &Johnson C.E.O. James Burke and funded substantially by pharmaceutical companies, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America condemns \"bad\" drug use while being supported by \"good\" drug use.

Ethan Nadelmann: Though Ohio's Issue 3 is progressive and may help end marijuana prohibition nationwide, it has its downside Nadelmann: A major problem with the initiative is that it sets up an oligopoly, with commercial production limited to 10 sites owned by its backers