Ethan Nadelmann's TED Talk

In a recent TED Talk, http://www.ted.com/talks/ethan_nadelmann_why_we_need_to_end_the_war_on_drugs

Ethan Nadelmann, founder of the Drug Policy Alliance, presented his case for why the United States should end the War on Drugs. Although Nadelmann could have improved his presentation in several ways, he makes a convincing case that drug policy in the U.S. should be reformed.

            Nadelmann effectively captures the attention of his audience in his introduction. He immediately demonstrates the failure of the War on Drugs by stating that while drug use continues to increase, the black markets created by the prohibition of drugs continue to contribute to the maintenance of high levels of violent crime in the U.S. and throughout the world. In addition, he points out that current drug policies play a role in the maintenance of mass incarceration in the United States.  

Nadelmann compellingly argues that “legally regulating and taxing most of the drugs that are now criminalized would radically reduce the crime, violence, corruption and black markets, and the problems of adulterated and unregulated drugs, and improve public safety, and allow taxpayer resources to be developed to more useful purposes.” He backs up his claim by discussing the success of drug policy reforms in other parts of the world. He also uses the example of cigarette smoking in the United States to demonstrate that strategies other than criminalization can be used to decrease drug use.

            Nadelmann discusses how racist fears led to the criminalization of many drugs in the United States in previous periods, but he does not talk about recent racial disparities in arrests and imprisonment for drug crimes. Recent studies completed by Michael Tonry, a University of Minnesota Law School Professor, and the ACLU show that although blacks and whites use and sell drugs at similar rates, public officials imprison blacks for drug offenses at much higher rates. Including a discussion of recent racial disparities would have greatly strengthened his case for ending the War on Drugs.

            Although Nadelmann made a compelling argument for drug policy reform and effectively used humor to connect with his audience at times, he could have delivered his speech in a more inspiring and coherent manner. He appeared to be nonchalant at times when he could have shown more emotion. For example, his speech would have been more inspiring if he had displayed more anger and sadness when he spoke about individuals who have been harmed by the War on Drugs. Additionally, Nadelmann’s presentation would have been better if he had delivered it more slowly. He spoke very quickly about a lot of complicated information. Audience members would have benefited from having more time to process this complex data.

            Nadelmann speaks generally about the people he met who have been negatively affected by the War on Drugs, but he could have strengthened his presentation by including details about specific stories of individuals who have suffered because of drug policies in the United States. For example, he could have included a story about the suffering of a mother who lost a son to drug-related violence that could have been prevented with different drug policies or stories about the pain caused to families when the emphasis on punishment over treatment led to the death of an individual due to overdose or to a 30 year prison sentence for a nonviolent crime. Including stories like these would have enabled Nadelmann to make a greater emotional connection with his audience and would have made his case even more compelling.