What has the War on Drugs done to the world? Look at the murder and mayhem in Mexico, Central America, so many other parts of the planet, the global black market estimated at 300 billion dollars a year, prisons packed in the United States and elsewhere, police and military drawn into an unwinnable war that violates basic rights, and ordinary citizens just hope they don't get caught in the crossfire, and meanwhile, more people using more drugs than ever. It's my country's history with alcohol prohibition and Al Capone, times 50.
禁毒戰爭對世界帶來了什麼影響? 看看在墨西哥、中美州和 世界各地的謀殺和打鬥; 看看全球每年總值 約三千億的黑市; 看看美國和其他地方那些人滿為患的監獄; 警察和軍隊被牽扯進入一場打不贏、 並且侵犯基本人權的戰爭, 還有一班無辜的平民 祈求著不要被捲入搏火中。 但與此同時, 吸毒的人 卻是前所未有的多。 這像是我的國家的禁酒令 和打黑的五十倍。
Which is why it's particularly galling to me as an American that we've been the driving force behind this global drug war. Ask why so many countries criminalize drugs they'd never heard of, why the U.N. drug treaties emphasize criminalization over health, even why most of the money worldwide for dealing with drug abuse goes not to helping agencies but those that punish, and you'll find the good old U.S. of A.
令我感到很難堪的是, 我們美國人正正就是這個 環球反毒戰背後的推手。 問問那些國家為什麼把 他們連聽都沒聽過的藥物列為違法? 為什麼聯合國的藥物條約會注重 刑事定罪多於人民的健康? 甚至為什麼全世界大部分對付濫用藥物的資金 都去了懲治濫藥的機構而不是 幫助改善濫藥的機構? 你會發現美利堅大國就是背後的答案。
Why did we do this? Some people, especially in Latin America, think it's not really about drugs. It's just a subterfuge for advancing the realpolitik interests of the U.S. But by and large, that's not it. We don't want gangsters and guerrillas funded with illegal drug money terrorizing and taking over other nations. No, the fact is, America really is crazy when it comes to drugs. I mean, don't forget, we're the ones who thought that we could prohibit alcohol. So think about our global drug war not as any sort of rational policy, but as the international projection of a domestic psychosis. (Applause)
我們為什麼要這樣做? 有些人,特別是在拉丁美洲的人, 認為這並非真正關乎毒品 事實上, 這只不過是一個推進 美國政治利益的托詞。 但總的來說,又不僅如此。 我們不想黑幫和游擊隊 有來自非法毒品的資金支持 去恐嚇和接管其他國家。 不,事實是,當涉及到毒品, 美國真是瘋的。 我的意思是,不要忘了, 我們就是那些認為自己 可以禁酒的人。 所以,不要把全球反毒品戰爭想成 任何一種理性的政策, 要把它想成一個國家精神病 延伸到了國際。 (掌聲)
But here's the good news. Now it's the Russians leading the Drug War and not us. Most politicians in my country want to roll back the Drug War now, put fewer people behind bars, not more, and I'm proud to say as an American that we now lead the world in reforming marijuana policies. It's now legal for medical purposes in almost half our 50 states, millions of people can purchase their marijuana, their medicine, in government- licensed dispensaries, and over half my fellow citizens now say it's time to legally regulate and tax marijuana more or less like alcohol. That's what Colorado and Washington are doing, and Uruguay, and others are sure to follow.
但這裡有個好消息。 現在是俄羅斯在領導反毒戰爭,而不是我們。 大多數在我國政治家現在 想在反毒戰爭上退一步, 判更少的人入獄,而不是更多, 我可以很自豪地說,作為一個美國人 我們現在正領導世界 改革大麻政策。 現在,只要是在合法的醫療目的下, 幾在乎美國50個州中的一半, 數以百萬計的人都可以從政府許可的藥店購買 他們的大麻──他們的藥物, 還有超過一半的同胞們說,現在是時候 立法規範大麻和收取稅項, 就跟酒精一樣。 這就是科羅拉多州和華盛頓正在做的, 還有烏拉圭,其他地方也肯定會跟隨。
So that's what I do: work to end the Drug War. I think it all started growing up in a fairly religious, moral family, eldest son of a rabbi, going off to university where I smoked some marijuana and I liked it. (Laughter) And I liked drinking too, but it was obvious that alcohol was really the more dangerous of the two, but my friends and I could get busted for smoking a joint.
所以,這就是我做的事: 致力結束反毒品戰爭。 我想這一切始於成長在 一個比較篤信宗教的和注重道德的家庭, 和作為一個猶太教教士的長子, 我去上大學時, 抽了一些大麻 而且很喜歡。 (笑聲) 我也很喜歡喝酒,但很明顯 酒精在兩者中真的比較危險, 可是我和我的朋友是有可能會 因為吸大麻而被抓的。
Now, that hypocrisy kept bugging me, so I wrote my Ph.D dissertation on international drug control. I talked my way into the State Department. I got a security clearance. I interviewed hundreds of DEA and other law enforcement agents all around Europe and the Americas, and I'd ask them, "What do you think the answer is?" Well, in Latin America, they'd say to me, "You can't really cut off the supply. The answer lies back in the U.S., in cutting off the demand." So then I go back home and I talk to people involved in anti-drug efforts there, and they'd say, "You know, Ethan, you can't really cut off the demand. The answer lies over there. You've got to cut off the supply." Then I'd go and talk to the guys in customs trying to stop drugs at the borders, and they'd say, "You're not going to stop it here. The answer lies over there, in cutting off supply and demand." And it hit me: Everybody involved in this thought the answer lay in that area about which they knew the least.
這個表裡不一的概念不停地纏著我, 所以我寫了有關國際藥物管制的博士論文。 我找方法進入了國務院。 我得到了安全許可。 我採訪了數百名在歐洲和美洲等地的 藥品管制局(DEA)以及執法人員, 我會問他們, “你認為答案是什麼?” 好吧,在拉丁美洲,他們會跟我說, "你真的沒法切斷供應。 答案在於美國, 在於切斷需求。" 於是我回到家鄉,我問在那裡 參與禁毒工作的人,他們卻說, "你知道嗎,伊森,您真的無法切斷需求。 答案在那邊。你一定要切斷供應。" 然後,我去跟海關那邊的傢伙聊, 試圖在邊境阻止毒品進入。 他們說,“你不可能在這裡把它停止堵住的。 答案在於在那邊, 在於切斷供給和需求。 在那一刻,我終於明白了。 每個參與的人 都認為答案在另一個領域, 一個他們了解得最少的領域。
So that's when I started reading everything I could about psychoactive drugs: the history, the science, the politics, all of it, and the more one read, the more it hit you how a thoughtful, enlightened, intelligent approach took you over here, whereas the politics and laws of my country were taking you over here. And that disparity struck me as this incredible intellectual and moral puzzle.
於是我開始閱讀一切關於 精神藥品的資料: 它的歷史、科學、 政治,所有的一切。 而讀得越多, 你就會越明白到,一個周到、 開明、聰明的方法會把你帶到這裡, 而我國的政治和法律 則會帶你到這裡。 這個差異讓我很吃驚, 這實在是個令人難以置信的 智力和道德難題。
There's probably never been a drug-free society. Virtually every society has ingested psychoactive substances to deal with pain, increase our energy, socialize, even commune with God. Our desire to alter our consciousness may be as fundamental as our desires for food, companionship and sex. So our true challenge is to learn how to live with drugs so they cause the least possible harm and in some cases the greatest possible benefit.
可能從來就沒有過 一個沒有毒品的社會。 幾乎每一個社會 都有在用精神藥物, 有的用來對付疼痛,增加精力,社交應酬, 有的甚至是用來與神溝通。 我們追求改變自我意識的慾望, 可能是就追求温飽、 陪伴和性一樣基本。 因此,我們真正的挑戰 是學習如何和藥物共存, 使它引起盡可能少的危害, 並且在某些情況下帶來最大的益處。
I'll tell you something else I learned, that the reason some drugs are legal and others not has almost nothing to do with science or health or the relative risk of drugs, and almost everything to do with who uses and who is perceived to use particular drugs. In the late 19th century, when most of the drugs that are now illegal were legal, the principal consumers of opiates in my country and others were middle-aged white women, using them to alleviate aches and pains when few other analgesics were available. And nobody thought about criminalizing it back then because nobody wanted to put Grandma behind bars. But when hundreds of thousands of Chinese started showing up in my country, working hard on the railroads and the mines and then kicking back in the evening just like they had in the old country with a few puffs on that opium pipe, that's when you saw the first drug prohibition laws in California and Nevada, driven by racist fears of Chinese transforming white women into opium-addicted sex slaves. The first cocaine prohibition laws, similarly prompted by racist fears of black men sniffing that white powder and forgetting their proper place in Southern society. And the first marijuana prohibition laws, all about fears of Mexican migrants in the West and the Southwest. And what was true in my country, is true in so many others as well, with both the origins of these laws and their implementation. Put it this way, and I exaggerate only slightly: If the principal smokers of cocaine were affluent older white men and the principal consumers of Viagra were poor young black men, then smokable cocaine would be easy to get with a prescription from your doctor and selling Viagra would get you five to 10 years behind bars. (Applause)
讓我告訴你們我所學到的另一件事, 之所以有些藥物是合法,有些則不是的原因, 跟科學、健康或藥物的相對風險 幾乎沒有任何關係; 而是跟誰在使用, 或是誰被認為在使用某種藥物有關。 在19世紀後期, 當大多數現在是非法藥物還是合法的時候, 在我國和其他國家的鴉片的主要消費者 是中年的白人婦女, 她們用鴉片來緩解疼痛, 當時很少有其他的止痛藥可用。 當時沒有人想過把它定為刑事犯罪, 因為沒有人希望把奶奶關在監牢裡。 但是,當成千上萬的中國人 開始出現在我的國家, 在鐵路和礦山上打拼, 然後晚上放鬆一下, 就像他們在故鄉時那樣 吸上幾口大煙的時候, 你看到在加利福尼亞州和內華達州的 第一條禁毒法出現了。 因為那些有種族歧視的人擔心 中國人會把白人婦女變成 鴉片成癮的性奴隸。 而第一條禁止可卡因的法律, 也是由那些有種族歧視 的人所提倡的, 他們怕黑人嗅了那白色粉末以後, 會忘記自己在南方社會的 適當位置。 還有第一條禁止大麻的法律, 同樣是和在西部和西南地區 對墨西哥移民的恐懼有關。 而這些在我的國家的真相, 在別的地方也如是, 那些法律的起源和 執行都是這樣的。 這樣說好了, 我就誇張一點說, 如果可卡因的主要吸食者, 都是一些有錢的白人老頭, 而偉哥的主要消費者, 都是貧窮的年輕黑人男子, 那麼, 拿到煙用可卡因將會比 得到你醫生的處方更容易 而出售偉哥將會讓你坐5到10年的牢。 (掌聲)
I used to be a professor teaching about this. Now I'm an activist, a human rights activist, and what drives me is my shame at living in an otherwise great nation that has less than five percent of the world's population but almost 25 percent of the world's incarcerated population. It's the people I meet who have lost someone they love to drug-related violence or prison or overdose or AIDS because our drug policies emphasize criminalization over health. It's good people who have lost their jobs, their homes, their freedom, even their children to the state, not because they hurt anyone but solely because they chose to use one drug instead of another.
我曾經是一個教這方面的教授。 現在,我是一個積極分子, 一名人權運動積極分子, 而背後驅使我的動力是慚愧, 我生活在一個原本很偉大的國家, 我國家的人口占不到世界人口的5%, 被關押的人口卻幾乎是 全球被監禁人口的25%。 我所遇到的人, 曾因為 與毒品有關的暴力事件、 監禁、吸食過量或愛滋病 而失去了他們的所愛, 這都歸咎於我們那重視刑責 多於健康的藥物政策。 他們是好人, 他們失去工作、 房子、自由,甚至於孩子的原因, 不是因為他們傷害了誰, 而僅僅是因為他們選擇了某一種藥物, 而不是另一種。
So is legalization the answer? On that, I'm torn: three days a week I think yes, three days a week I think no, and on Sundays I'm agnostic. But since today is Tuesday, let me just say 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. I mean, look, the markets in marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine are global commodities markets just like the global markets in alcohol, tobacco, coffee, sugar, and so many other things. Where there is a demand, there will be a supply. Knock out one source and another inevitably emerges. People tend to think of prohibition as the ultimate form of regulation when in fact it represents the abdication of regulation with criminals filling the void. Which is why putting criminal laws and police front and center in trying to control a dynamic global commodities market is a recipe for disaster. And what we really need to do is to bring the underground drug markets as much as possible aboveground and regulate them as intelligently as we can to minimize both the harms of drugs and the harms of prohibitionist policies.
所以合法化是我們要找的答案嗎? 關於這一點, 我實在左右為難; 一個星期中有三天我認為是這樣的, 有三天我又認為不是, 然後在週日我是個不可知論者。 由於今天是星期二, 就讓我說:合法地管制和徵稅 大多數現在被列為非法的藥物 會大大減少犯罪、暴力、 貪污、黑市、 以及摻假和不受管制藥物的問題, 並提高公眾的安全, 允許納稅人的資源 用來開發更有用的目的。 我的意思是,你看,大麻、可卡因、 海洛因和甲基苯丙胺的市場, 是全球性的商品市場, 就像跟全球的酒精、煙草、 咖啡、糖和許多其他的市場一樣。 哪裡有需求, 哪裡就有供應。 趕絕了一個源頭, 另一個源頭 還是會不可避免地出現。 人們往往認為,禁止 是最終極的規管方法, 而事實上,它代表的是規管退位, 並由罪犯去填補這個空缺。 這就是為什麼把刑法和警察 放在前線和中心來試圖控制 一個瞬息萬變的全球性商品市場 是一個災難。 而我們真正需要做的 是把地下的毒品交易市場 盡可能帶上地面, 盡我們所能明智地規範它, 以減少藥物以及 禁制政策帶來的危害。
Now, with marijuana, that obviously means legally regulating and taxing it like alcohol. The benefits of doing so are enormous, the risks minimal. Will more people use marijuana? Maybe, but it's not going to be young people, because it's not going to be legalized for them, and quite frankly, they already have the best access to marijuana. I think it's going to be older people. It's going to be people in their 40s and 60s and 80s who find they prefer a little marijuana to that drink in the evening or the sleeping pill or that it helps with their arthritis or diabetes or maybe helps spice up a long-term marriage. (Laughter) And that just might be a net public health benefit.
現在,大麻顯然意味著 像酒精般依法規範和徵稅。 這樣做的好處很大,風險極小。 會有更多的人使用大麻嗎? 也許吧,但不會是年輕人, 因為對他們來說大麻不會被合法化, 而且坦白的說,他們已經有 拿到大麻的最佳途徑了。 我認為這將會是上了年紀的人。 會是40多歲、60多歲 和80多歲的人發現自己寧願吸點大麻 來代替在晚上喝一杯或吃安眠藥, 或者是用它來舒緩他們的關節炎或糖尿病, 又或者用來為老夫老妻的 婚姻生活增添點情趣。 (笑聲) 這對公眾健康也將會有莫大的益處。
As for the other drugs, look at Portugal, where nobody goes to jail for possessing drugs, and the government's made a serious commitment to treating addiction as a health issue. Look at Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, England, where people who have been addicted to heroin for many years and repeatedly tried to quit and failed can get pharmaceutical heroin and helping services in medical clinics, and the results are in: Illegal drug abuse and disease and overdoses and crime and arrests all go down, health and well-being improve, taxpayers benefit, and many drug users even put their addictions behind them.
至於其他藥物, 看葡萄牙,在那裡,沒有人會因為 藏有毒品被抓去坐牢, 政府作出了鄭重承諾, 會把上癮是看作一個健康問題來治療。 再看看瑞士、德國、荷蘭、 丹麥和英國,在這些地方, 那些對海洛因上癮多年, 多次試圖戒毒但失敗的人, 可以在醫療診所獲得藥用海洛因和緩助, 而成果是: 非法濫用藥物、疾病、 藥物過量、犯罪和拘捕統統下降, 健康和福祉有所提高, 納稅人受益, 許多吸毒者甚至放下了毒癮。
Look at New Zealand, which recently enacted a law allowing certain recreational drugs to be sold legally provided their safety had been established. Look here in Brazil, and some other countries, where a remarkable psychoactive substance, ayahuasca, can be legally bought and consumed provided it's done so within a religious context. Look in Bolivia and Peru, where all sorts of products made from the coca leaf, the source of cocaine, are sold legally over the counter with no apparent harm to people's public health. I mean, don't forget, Coca-Cola had cocaine in it until 1900, and so far as we know was no more addictive than Coca-Cola is today.
新西蘭最近頒布了一項法律, 允許某些軟性毒品被合法銷售, 前提是已確認其安全性。 看看巴西這裡和一些其他國家, "死藤水"這個值得注意的精神藥物, 可以合法購買和服用。 只要是在宗教背景下使用。 再看在玻利維亞和秘魯, 各種由古柯葉製成產品, 可卡因的來源, 都可在無需處方的商店合法銷售, 而這樣做並沒有對人民的 公眾健康帶來明顯的危害。 我的意思是,不要忘記, 可口可樂直到1900年都還含有可卡因, 但到目前為止,沒有人覺得它比今時今日的 可口可樂更容易令人上癮。
Conversely, think about cigarettes: Nothing can both hook you and kill you like cigarettes. When researchers ask heroin addicts what's the toughest drug to quit, most say cigarettes. Yet in my country and many others, half of all the people who were ever addicted to cigarettes have quit without anyone being arrested or put in jail or sent to a "treatment program" by a prosecutor or a judge. What did it were higher taxes and time and place restrictions on sale and use and effective anti-smoking campaigns. Now, could we reduce smoking even more by making it totally illegal? Probably. But just imagine the drug war nightmare that would result.
相反地,想想香煙: 沒有東西比香煙更能令你上癮 和將你置諸死地的了。 當研究人員問海洛因成癮者 什麼是最難戒掉的藥物時, 大多數人說是香煙。 然而,在我的國家和許多其他國家, 半數曾對香煙上癮 後來成功戒菸的人, 都沒有被逮捕或入獄, 或被檢察官或法官 送到“治療計劃”中。 使戒菸成功的原因是高稅收, 還有對銷售和使用的時間地點作出限制, 以及有效的反吸煙運動。 現在,我們可以通過把吸煙列為非法 來進一步減少吸煙嗎? 或許吧。 但試想將會導致的 禁毒戰爭噩夢。
So the challenges we face today are twofold. The first is the policy challenge of designing and implementing alternatives to ineffective prohibitionist policies, even as we need to get better at regulating and living with the drugs that are now legal. But the second challenge is tougher, because it's about us. The obstacles to reform lie not just out there in the power of the prison industrial complex or other vested interests that want to keep things the way they are, but within each and every one of us. It's our fears and our lack of knowledge and imagination that stands in the way of real reform. And ultimately, I think that boils down to the kids, and to every parent's desire to put our baby in a bubble, and the fear that somehow drugs will pierce that bubble and put our young ones at risk. In fact, sometimes it seems like the entire War on Drugs gets justified as one great big child protection act, which any young person can tell you it's not.
因此,我們今天面臨的挑戰 是有兩方面的。 首先是政策上的挑戰, 我們要制定和實施有效的替代方案 來取代禁止政策, 我們還要對這些現在合法的藥物 作出更好的規範以及學會和它們共存。 第二個挑戰更是艱難, 因為它是關於我們的。 改革的障礙不只在於 監獄的工業的力量, 或其他想保住自己既得利益的人希望 一切保留本來的樣子, 而是在於我們每一個人。 我們的恐懼、缺乏了解、 還有我們的想像力 才是真正改革之路上的障礙。 我認為這歸根究底都是因為孩子, 因為每一位家長都希望把我們的寶貝 放在一個泡泡裏受保護, 我們對毒品有種莫明的恐懼, 害怕它會刺破這個泡泡, 把我們的年輕的一輩置身在危險之中。 其實,有時候看來 整個反毒戰爭好像很合理, 因為它是個偉大的兒童保護法案, 但任何年輕的人都可以告訴你, 事實並非如此。
So here's what I say to teenagers. First, don't do drugs. Second, don't do drugs. Third, if you do do drugs, there's some things I want you to know, because my bottom line as your parent is, come home safely at the end of the night and grow up and lead a healthy and good adulthood. That's my drug education mantra: Safety first.
因此,這是我對青少年說的。 第一,不要吸毒。 第二,不要吸毒。 第三,如果你要吸毒, 有一些事情,我想讓你知道, 因為,我作為你父母的底線是, 晚上平平安安回到家, 好好長大,過一個健康、美好的成年。 這是我對藥物教育的口頭禪:安全第一。
So this is what I've dedicated my life to, to building an organization and a movement of people who believe we need to turn our backs on the failed prohibitions of the past and embrace new drug policies grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights, where people who come from across the political spectrum and every other spectrum as well, where people who love our drugs, people who hate drugs, and people who don't give a damn about drugs, but every one of us believes that this War on Drugs, this backward, heartless, disastrous War on Drugs, has got to end.
所以,這就是我一生致力做的事: 建立一個組織和推動一個運動, 我們相信要放下 過去失敗的禁令, 接受以科學、愛心、健康 和人權為本的新藥物政策, 我們的人來自不同政治派別 和擁有各種不同的背景, 有喜歡毒品的人, 痛恨毒品的人, 還有也不在乎毒品問題的人, 但我們每個人都認為,這個落後的、 無情的、災難性的禁毒戰爭 必須結束。
Thank you.
謝謝!
(Applause)
(掌聲)
Thank you. Thank you.
謝謝。謝謝。
Chris Anderson: Ethan, congrats — quite the reaction. That was a powerful talk. Not quite a complete standing O, though, and I'm guessing that some people here and maybe a few watching online, maybe someone knows a teenager or a friend or whatever who got sick, maybe died from some drug overdose. I'm sure you've had these people approach you before. What do you say to them?
克里斯·安德森:伊森, 恭喜 - 反應相當的熱烈。 真是一個震撼的演講, 快要都起立鼓掌了, 我猜在座的觀眾中 還有可能在線觀看的人裏, 會有人認識身邊的青少年或朋友 或其他人因為毒品而生病 甚至於因為濫藥而去世的。 我敢肯定,之前有這些人找過你。 你怎樣對他們說呢?
Ethan Nadelmann: Chris, the most amazing thing that's happened of late is that I've met a growing number of people who have actually lost a sibling or a child to a drug overdose, and 10 years ago, those people just wanted to say, let's line up all the drug dealers and shoot them and that will solve it. And what they've come to understand is that the Drug War did nothing to protect their kids. If anything, it made it more likely that those kids were put at risk. And so they're now becoming part of this drug policy reform movement. There's other people who have kids, one's addicted to alcohol, the other one's addicted to cocaine or heroin, and they ask themselves the question: Why does this kid get to take one step at a time and try to get better and that one's got to deal with jail and police and criminals all the time? So everybody's understanding, the Drug War's not protecting anybody.
伊森. Nadelmann:克里斯, 最近所發生最讓人驚喜的事 就是我碰到越來越多的的人, 那些有兄弟姐妹或子女 因為濫藥而死的人, 在10年前的話,那些人會告訴你, 把毒販們排成一排拉去槍斃, 這就是解決問題的辦法。 而他們漸漸明白的是 禁毒戰爭並沒有保護到他們的孩子。 如果有做什麼的話,它所做的是使 這些孩子們更容易處於危險之中。 因此,他們現在成為了這個 藥物政策改革運動的一份子。 有一些其他的家長, 一個孩子嗜酒, 另一個可卡因或海洛因上癮, 他們問自己這樣一個問題: 為什麼一個孩子可以一步一步 努力變得更好, 而另一個則總要去面對入獄、 警察和罪犯呢? 因此大家理解了, 禁毒戰爭其實沒有在保護任何人。
CA: Certainly in the U.S., you've got political gridlock on most issues. Is there any realistic chance of anything actually shifting on this issue in the next five years?
CA:無疑在美國,在大多數問題上 都有著政治僵局。 這議題在未來五年內有所進展 的實際機會大嗎?
EN: I'd say it's quite remarkable. I'm getting all these calls from journalists now who are saying to me, "Ethan, it seems like the only two issues advancing politically in America right now are marijuana law reform and gay marriage. What are you doing right?" And then you're looking at bipartisanship breaking out with, actually, Republicans in the Congress and state legislatures allowing bills to be enacted with majority Democratic support, so we've gone from being sort of the third rail, the most fearful issue of American politics, to becoming one of the most successful.
EN:我會說這是十分顯著的。我總會接一些電話, 記者會跟我說: "伊森, 似乎在美國政治上 唯一在前進的兩個議題 就是大麻政策改革和同性戀婚姻了。 你在做什麼嗎?" 然後你看到兩黨打破隔閡合作, 事實上,是共和黨在國會 和各州議會讓法案頒布, 然後大多數民主黨都支持, 毒品這個議題, 由一個不能踩的雷區, 美國政治中最可怕的問題, 變為了最成功的一項。
CA: Ethan, thank you so much for coming to TEDGlobal. EN: Chris, thanks so much.
CA:伊森,非常感謝你前來TEDGlobal。 EN:克里斯,非常感謝。
CA: Thank you. EN: Thank you. (Applause)