welcome to al jazeera i am thomas drayton here are tonight's top stories. president obama unveiled his plan for syria this afternoon. >> after careful deliberation, i have decided that the united states should take military action against syrian regime targets. >> the president says that he wants approval from congress first. congress is expected to debate and vote on the issue when it comes back from recess. president obama says the u.s. is prepared to, quote, strike whenever we choose. russian president vladimir button is adding his voice to the debate overseer i can't for the first time since last week's chemical weapons attack. he is urging the white house not to launch a strike against

russia's ali. he says the u.s. claims about the chemical weapons tack are utter nonsense, protesters gathered out side of the white house today in support of and against a military strike again syria. peace activists chanted hands off syria now. while others call for president obama to take action. the you u.n. chemical weapons team is now in the netherlands after leaving syria early this morning. the samples they collected are expected to be sent to laboratories around europe. they will be test today for poisenespoisonous gas, the resud take a few weeks, up next consider this weekend edition. ♪ ♪ >> who is bashar al-assad. the syrian president could be starting another mideast war. consider this, how did a man who trained to be an ophthalmologist in england turn in to a tyrant accused of unspeakable crimes,

you have heard you are what you eat. so what does eating ever more common gametically modified foods make us and do they pose real dangers or are concerned overblown. 50 years after the march on washington we'll look at racial progress by the numbers and look at some of the images that came out of that historic day 50 years ago. hello, i am antoine i don't mora, welcome to consider this. we begin with syria as the obama administration weighs its option to his inning convenient in the civil war after last week's chemical weapons attacks, the white house repeated calls for bashar al-assad's removal. we take a look at the man who rules syria with an iron fist. >> reporter: after two and a half years of than turmoil, leag more than 100,000 people dead, the man ruling syria has earned the reputation of a ruthless leader. one the white house reiterate odd tuesday must go. >> it is our firm conviction that syria's future cannot include assad in power.

>> reporter: but ba czar bashard seems set on staying. the 47-year-old wasn't always interested in politics and power, his brother was groom today follow their father to the presidency. but he died in a car crash in 1994. >> the death led president bashar to return home from london. >> reporter: six years later, he died and bashar was elected unopposed as president of syria. like his father, he allowed the shi'ite muslim minority to dominate the regime. at the same time, he promised more freedom and economic reforms. but members of syria's old guard steered him toward more authoritarian policies and started in 2011 he responded with the brutal crack down when syrians demanded change. president assad has said he's not suppressing his people burk fighting militants, calling them tear teaterrorists who must be k

with a steel fist. >> terrorism can't be dealt with real politics. >> reporter: as the clashes continued, the guardian newspaper revealed a private side of assad's character. in e-mails between him and his wife obtained by the guardian the president showed a flippant attitude towards reforms he promised to diffuse the crisis. he also sent her this clip from america's got talent, while she shopped online for pricey jewelry and furniture. throughout the turmoil in syria, president assad has insisted he's had popular support. he says he's trying to protect his country and his people. but critics say he only wants to protect his own power. roxanne al jazeera new york. >> how how did he go from a westernized eye doctor to the president of syria now accused of using chemical weapon to his

massacre his only people just as his name sadam hussein just did. joining me now is ed hussein from foreign relations. and the senior associate editor at the washington post. appreciate you being here. >> i you interviewed both bashar and his father. what is your impression of the man now sort of in the middle of a very serious situation. >> yes, he is. when i -- i interviewed him very early in his term as president. and he was an unknown, whereas his father had been really ruthless and killed 20,000 people on one night. buff he was tough, ruth little, clever. and the son was an unknown quantity and thr*et thought to e enthralled by hizbollah more manipulated. >> despite his western leanings married a woman who was british-syrian. >> there was some hopes that syria could be broken off from iran at that point, that team i

cannily. >> he's not a guy that resembled saddam hussein and ca gaf qadda. >> how did he turn out? >> he inherited his legacy from his party that has been in control for 20 years. he was torn between two worlds, the britsish wife who was strong and wore the pants in the house and him being british educated english speaking and enthralled to the internet and wanting to connect them. and then he had his father's old military commanders around him, who said, no, no, no, that's not how you govern this part of the world. you need strong men. and we will look after and you your interests and your brother and your sisters, do you the economic stuff the internet, the tourism and we'll look after the country. so the security and the military operation was handed out. >> are still in the same hands as before? >> the old russian-trained military commanders, that's what we are seeing playing out now that old bond with russia.

>> to your point, the author of the fall of the house of assad, points points out that which assad first became president, things were thought to be different. let's listen to what he had to say. >> he was seen to be hope, he was called the hope in syria. that he would bring reform and change the system. and he was very popular for a good amount of time in syria. and it was pretty genuine. >> how did he change? you still have a guy who had the power and could have made different choices? >> that's true. but i think what really has happened now, is that russia has really stepped in to the game and iran, the two major players in this game. i think they are far more important than assad, although assad wants to cling onto power. and our a is certainly playing against is united states. and when our secretary of state went to meet with the russians, he proposed a geneva conference where assad would hand overpower, five minutes later the russians were were sending in -- or promising to sends in

long-range missiles iranians sendsing in more troops and hezbollah came in from lebanon and all of the sudden the balance of power, when the rebels, the opposition forces had been gaining against president assad, all of the sudden when russia stepped in and iran stepped in more heavily, the balance of power swung to back to assad. who whom everybody in the u.s. thought was just a matter of time. they said a matter of weeks before he went. >> was that a mistake from the u.s.? did they under estimate the strene that this assad had and his determination to stay in power? >> not only the determination, but also his appeal among syrians. when i lived in syria, just between 2003 and 2006, assad was popular and he continues to remain popular inside syria and that's difficult for us to digest in that mart of the world. >> -- part of the world. and a dictate that they know who has with all these difficulties have delivered stability i up until the recent arab up rising.

however difficult it is for us he has popularity the young leader. >> because of the december graphics therdemographicsthere d with him and lose if he lost people. >> a great number of people are dieing against him, many people have died in opposition. >> 100,000. >> yes. he has the strength and military and now has stepped over the plate and used as secretary kerry said he used chemical weapons. >> the difference, though, and i'll let you have your word to disagree, is that other dictators were not able to hold onto power despite similar circumstances. >> they weren't. but the major difference here is, unlike libya, unlike yemen,-y jim. in syria we've not seen huge up rises in the major cities. and outside the major mosques on fridays in the way that we saw in just in inky just a minute.

for whatever reason, if he's paying them or the paging it is tim still functions. he still goes around for his walk abouts. >> the only 11% of the population. >> that's his relike us secretary? >> osecretary. >> of course they range with h him. it's a serious opposition and i don't agree. people are dieing and they have very poor arms. qatar and saudi arabia have sent in arms. obama promise today send arms but apparently according to news accounts they haven't been delivered. >> more strongly armed rebels are allied with al qaeda. >> and the syrian opposition is disunited unfortunately. >> let's look at his own words in the spring he talked about

using any means necessary to win. >> if what is required is an exit from a national crisis effects most and destroys the country, there are no exception to his any means that may help us exit this crisis. >> clearly he was signaling that he was willing to do pretty mitch anything. but are you surprised that he has gone this far to use chemical weapons and effect massacre his people given the circumstances and the red line that has been constantly repeated by president obama? >> i am a contemporarian on the question of him using chemical weapons. he has killed 70,000 people from the civilian population, slaughtered 30,000 of his own soldiers on this cause, why would he resort to using chemical weapons at this stage. >> so you don't think he did? >> i think he's winning. i am not convinced that he has, because the motivation says don't seem clear. in suburban area of damascus which he controls at this late stage in the conflict where he's not losing. >> why would he risk the u.s. and international wrath by using

chemical weapons. >> valid question, why would he do it, he was winning the war by all accounts? >> i think that's a slight overstatement. i think syria has broken up in to three parts, one controlled by the opposition, and one controlled by the russians, the iranians and is sawed. it's already disintegrate and i had think in the end you will have a broken upstate. that's what you will end up with. assad will not control syria as he once did, ever again. and i think that the u.s. will strike and i think he did use chemical weapons. i don't think david cameron is making it up. i don't think john kersey making it up. i don't think the u.s. intelligence is making it up. and medicine saw frontier says they treated 3600 people. >> you are not arguing that chemical weapons were used you are arguing whether he used them himself in. >> we are not sure who used th them. >> some rogue element, his brother? >> his brother may have used them.

al qaeda. in may of this year syrian rebels used chemical weapons, the u.n. inspection has not confirmed whether it was assad or opposition. chemmal cal weapons were used we are not sure who used them. it's important not to override the fact and get couldn't by the -- >> you say his brother used them -- >> i think it's ridiculous, i think the regime used them and i don't think there is any doubt about it. and the u.s. is going to strike -- >> but why would they use them when they were not losing. >> i think they are an coy con . >> they killed 100,000 people. >> are they confident that the russians will support them. >> i think they think obama weak to tell you the truth, our president, and so far they have been proven right, correct. >> i think there is not a doubt in the world , when u.n. inspection fors get there they won't find anything they bombed the places where the weapons

were used. >> the arab league has called for him to step down. >> everybody has called for him to step down, but he's not about to step down. it's at fact that russia will keep him there and iran and his regime is very important to iran so they can sends arm to his lebanon to hizbollah. it's crucial to iran. strategically. >> again, iran doesn't have i in allies. >> and they need that access. >> we'll see what the next few days come. i am sure there will be many more develops, we breath you both being here. >> thank you so much. >> thank you for having us. >> "consider this" will be right back. ♪ ♪ right back.

♪ ♪ >> there is a fight raging in the marketplace and in all branches of government over what you eat. you probably have heard a lot of talk about gametically modified

organisms or g.m. os, they are offense used in foods and defined as dna that's altered in a way that doesn't occur naturally. as the use of gametically-modified food as increased over the past few decades, so has questions and skepticism. but is the criticism justified in the fight is well funds. california's prop 37 would have forced retailers to label products named with g.m.o. $44 million was spent to win the vote. the bill's supporters raised about $7 million. prop 37 was defeated by a little less than 3% at the polls and similar bills are popping up across the country, so questions about both the industry and its critics are not going away. john joins us from cincinnati, he is the executive director of the gentleman met i can literacy product at george mason university. patty is in d.c., the assistant director of food and water watch i thank you both for joining us

tonight. patty let's start with you. by some estimates 70% of food on supermarkets she feels have some sort of g.m. o. in them. given that it's so common why there is is there a reason to be concerned about gametically modified food. >> this feud foo i food is diffe crops are different. because it's in a large amount of properties it's a manageable number of crops and we could label them and that's the most efficient way to do this so it's in corn -- we have a lot of gametically modified corn, soy, sugar beats, things like that, and those crops end up in lots of foods so that's why we get to this big number, people don't realize they are eating them. we think the a right to know. they are patented and charge farmers more to grow seeds, if it's that different it's different enough that consumers have the right know it's in the food that they are buying. >> john you said there is no

scientific studs i saying they are bad. why are they resisting the labeling of what's in the products? >> there are a lot of issueses in play here, i want to underscore every major international science organization, united states, our, china, australia, france, germany, brazil, everyone where, has come up with statements saying that gametically today md foods are saf safe, either as safer as do conventional and organic foods and far more healthy than even organic foods. we have a whole new generation of vitamin enhanced genetically modified products bench i think there is a bit of disingenuousness in the argument that it's a right to know. there is no interest by activists, anti-biotech organizations for right to know. if we wanted i right to know,

there are labelings, genetically modified corn is modified to prevent micro toxins, carcinogen micro cock tinses wit toxins we. genetically modified golden ricin creases betacarotene which could save a million lives a year, that's information. what these groups wants is a skull and cross bones which will sen shall i demonize these products, that's what happened is europe. she wants to cut out choice, if we label we will not have any choice on these things because scare organizations are trying to demonize perfectly safe products that the science community has overwhelmingly already evaluated. >> patty, aren't those two important points? the scientific literature overwhelmingly favorable to the safety of g.m. os and put account baseballs on might it not scare people awa

away. >> those are two different issues. much of the signs come from the companies want to go sale the crops into the marketplace, so our regulatory system isn't offering consumers an independent value of safe it and i there are a lot of issues that should be looked at. in the meantime he mentioned other countries there is some scientific authority that says it's fine, many of those country as how their consumers allow the choice and require labeling. many states, over half the states this year had a bill in their state legislature to require labeling, none of them mentioneddal skull and cross bones and they said they would have required basic things like saying this contains genetically modified ingredients or something like that. if the industry can prove to consumers that is -- >> isn't the argument. [speaking at the same time] >> warning out there? if you put any kind of warning out there that the immediate reaction i am sure john was he can am rating with the skull and cross bones, you see a warning the reaction is i shouldn't eat it because there is a warn on

the ground this there? >> i don't think disclosing an important fact of how it's raise second degree a warning. we already tell them ingredients, facts about knew trips, our organization has fought for years along with farming groups to disclose what country food comes from. we think consumers if given this information will make the right choice for his them. it's not squashing choice it's given consumers an informed choice, withholding information is not providing consumers choice it's asking them to make decision without everything they need to know. >> john, the use of g.m.o.s has greatly increased over the past couple of decades, during that time there has been a rise in food allergies and autism in children, and opponents of g.m.o.s have tried to link those. if these products have only been around for a fairly short period of time, how do we know that the science and in the long run won't so maybe there was some problem to them? >> first of all, i want to loop back to something that she said

which will help inform the answer to your question that you just asked. she makes a claim that the research has been done by industry, it hasn't been going on very long. that's what research organizations have based their judgments on. that's absolutely false. patently false, there has been about a thousand studies of g.m.o.s, about 350 of them are totally independent another 300 are independent, but financed by industry, required by the government to make sure that the public does not pick up the cost. so about a third of the studies are industry-based studies. when talk big the world health organization, the national academy of sciences, the european food safety authority, the european -- i mean, the german academy of sciences. the french academy. they are not depending on monsanto they are doing their own evaluations, g.m.o.s are safe. >> let me ask patty no studies have found any serious problem

with the g.m.o. >> there have been. >> no study has shown serious. >> serious study pea peer revie. >> we can sit here and bick are about studies i disagree with almost everything he said about that. what we do know is when our regulatory agencies in this country decide to approve it it's based on proving approval very often and saying it's in a different form we'll approve it. and that many of those are based on studies and information that come in from the company that wants to get the crop approved. and i think that most average consumers with a common sense approach don't think that's independent enough. we have seen the effects that have in the drug industry. we have the same problem with precipitation drugs where the studies are coming in, done by folks who want to sale something and unlike drugs we don't have the ability to track any negative health effects because we don't tell people what they are eating we don't label which foods have it and which don't. we talk the fda if there was a problem we'll figure it outpost market. we would do post market

surveillance, we can't do that because we don't label the foods. >> we have viewer questions coming in. let's go to our social media produce fore that. >> thanks antonio. john, referring to what you might say is the generally public's anything at this miss con investigation of g.m.o.s, we have a question do you see this being a part of a larger problem with science journalism or something that's unique to g.m.o.s? >> i think actually, groups like food and water watch, these are really anti-technology companies, these are groups that are fear of the of innovation, they take pretty much a position that all chemicals are bad. pesticides are bad. these are -- we have a green revolution that started in the '50s, the reason we have a green revolution is because of gentleman met i can modification genetic modification, some through al culture, some technology and the use of pesticides. these organizations want to stop technology and the saddest situation we have an example

that happened just a few weeks ago in the philippines, where sands littlvandals, desecrated,d rice crops of golden rice that produced betacarotene that could save about a million lives a year developed by nonprofits, foundations with no corporate involve. and it was destroyed by these vandals and support bide green peace and organizatio organizate certainty for food safety and others who really want to stop the technology because if this technology is are on leased and approved, it's a death blow to the carping by these groups that these g.m.o.s are unsafe. they really have an anti science message, i think that's what is really driving the currents situation. kind of a right wing view of innovation buys these groups. >> patsy, to that point, aren't there lots of benefits to g.m.o.s especially i for people in poor countrys? >> we have yet to to see that

actually happen. we have heard the promises and the p.r. about the benefits of the cons. u.s. is the biggest a develop ter of the crops what we have seen over the 15 years or so that they have been widely induced in corn, soybean and do the unwe have seen increase in herb side use, specifically roundup the weeds are resisting it so now we are escalate to go tougher more toxic chemicals like 24d. so a lot of -- and we are not seeing the yield increases promises and we are talked to farmers all over the place saying that that is true. we have a lot of marketin marked p.r. and not a lot of actual proof at that will do the things that the proponents claim and there is a reason that small farmers, family farmers around the world protest these crops. they do not want to farm in the model that's being promote bide this technology which has radically changed a lost the things about the food system in the united states and farmers around the world who don't want to get caught in that same cycle are objecting to this.

>> go ahead, jon. >> could i interject something here. >> please. >> g.m.o. crops was introduce id by corporations 15, 20 years ago, as of 2012. 90% of the apartments that use this are developing world, more than half of the crops being grown in the developing world. farmers are not about to choose growing a crop that yields them less money, that is a bad crop forcing them in to a system that somehow en slaves them. the very growth of this in the developing world which is the en i thinengine, what she is sayins pure hoke up, the requests that it doesn't increase yields i implore the audience to go to sign testifying america look at their september issue it has an article about why they oppose mandatory labeling. the reason is because it's an unscientific view.

it's increased yield as much as 20 fever%. if we ban g.m.o.s it will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars every year there billings. these gripes are being very disingenuous they know a labeling initiative will scare consumers and food companies that don't wants he want to be sued bice the groups that woman represents. [speaking at the same time] >> this is a figure leaf this right to know. >> if g.m.o.s are are so good for us and everybody is eating them every day, why do polls show that most americans are still concerned about them? a recent new york times poll showed that three-quarters of americans are concerned about the number of gametically modified foods and 93% support labeling. is it the initial technology,

calling them frank en foods. >> 67% of the population don't believe in evolution. how many people don't believe in climate change, a fair majority of the population doesn't believe it. i don't think science is open to poles, we havpolls. we have to stick to groups. the american medical association. the groups, the third world groupings, every major organization says we have evaluates this, there are hundreds of independent studies. it's safer. they all have come out against labeling because they know that labeling as this woman is suggesting it, we have it, will in some way scare people and lead to the kind of disinformation campaigns, these women are perfectly willing to

hype to scare people and the science is somehow undecided. if you don't believe the national academy of sciences and the american medical association and the world health organization. then you are anti science there is no other way to describe your position. >> patty i have to give you the last word. we don't have much time. please go ahead. >> there is so much there i am not sure where to start. we are not anti-science. we think that the science has been politicized in this case and i think that there are thousands of example where his that happens ranging as far back as people saying smoking was good for you for how many years, the signs is not pure. the politics can influence that we into he it time and time again. which the comes down to the food industry, it is fascinating i think it's one of the few industries that regularly calls its customers stupid and says that they are not able to handle information about what they are buying. you know, the industry is happy to put labels on food telling us it's new and improved. when they change fancy ingredient and give it a new name but they are no willing to tell us this basic fact.

if it's so great and there are all these advantages then they should put it on the label and make their case there is basic information that they should stop hiding from the people that have to eat the food. >> thank you for the important debate and for you joining us tonight. "consider this" will be right back. the young folks. >> what are the laws going to begin to take effect? >> reporter: the laws do not go [[voiceover]] no doubt about it, innovation changes our lives. opening doors ...

opening possibilities. taking the impossible from lab ... to life. on techknow, our scientists bring you a sneak-peak of the future, and take you behind the scenes at our evolving world. techknow - ideas, invention, life. tonight 10:00 eastern on al jazeera america. >> i'm kim bondy, growing up in news was always important. you have this great product that you are ready to share with the country. i'm a part of a team that is moving in the same direction.

>> marijuana is a schedule one drug, a dangerous substance in the same category as lsd. pcp and crack cocaine is. federal government sending mixed messages and what are the legal implications of this new policy. joining me the ex-he can it i have director of normal the organization for marijuana reform laws and mark ostler professional of law at the university of saint thomas, thank you both for being with us. mark, the justice deem said today it will not sue states, including washington and colorado to try to overturn their marijuana legalizations. that means residents are not going to be prosecuted for using small amounts of marijuana recreationally, but, again, federal law still criminalizes marijuana and treats it as a dangerous drug equivalent to haren. how does that make sense? >> the most important part of

memorandum. they are going to step back their efforts at the street level on marijuana, they are going to respect what the states have decided in those two states to allow marijuana to be legal. there are two separate issues. the second is they restricting actions directly against people who possess marijuana. >> alan, i imagine your organization is happy about the justice department's announce think. what do you think about the mixed messages. the federal government having a law on the books that says one thing and states having another? >> there is no doubt. since 1996 this conflict has been in its most starkest form when california, nation state unto itself, passed a medical marijuana law. today 20 states in the district of columbia have medical marijuana laws, 16 states have

decriminalized marijuana and of course, most significantly, two states have legalized it. so what we are really seeing is up ward political pressure on d.c. to change its 75 year cannibus prohibition. >> let's talk more about the law, first, before we talk about the consequences, mark, you are the law professor, shortly after california ask washington vote today legalize it it. the president said he doesn't support it being legalized but won't go after recreational icer says he said, quote, we have bigger fish to try and it would no abe pry tower going after recreational users in states determine that go it's legal. at the same time, last week they said that they would keep the law on the books and not changing the policy, the drug czar, made some very aggressive comments in the spring. is this not some sort of constitutional conflict here. where a law pass booe passed bys is not being enforced by

executive power and states are also ignore it passing laws that contradict the federal law? >> well, the thing that's happening here is fascinating and this is happening beyond just the memorandum on marijuana. it also goes back to eric holder's speech and the direct tiffs he gave on august 12th. this administration is using pros true tprosecutorial discrep back from the o war on drugs meaning they will not enforce some of the controlled substances acted. but that's traditionally been any prosecutors prerogative. i was an assistant united states attorney in detroit. i did drug cases ask we very often declined cases, decided not to go after them. the directive is going out to step back from the street-level cases. alan, did h did he detractor sae

beginning i've slippery slope. especially once states see all the monning coming in from tax is marijuana sales what stops them from wanting to legalize other drugs? >> well, a lot of things. pharmacology, culture. surveys indicate 50 to 55% of americans wants marijuana legalizes barely five persons of americans want lsd or methamphetamines legal or heroin, so culture means a lot. we don't have a heroin times magazine or cocaine, but we have lots of glossy marijuana magazines all around the world. >> but couldn't one lead to the other? is the argument. >> one could but after 75 years of pro ditches, considerin prohy marijuana has emerged as a viable subculture now getting legalized i don't see the other drugs having any hope. we should have harm reduction for those drugs but i don't

think there will be legalization any time soon. >> we have viewer questions coming in. >> thank antonio. mark, now that the d o.j. won't block the laws, what about the thousands of people in prisons for drug possession charges? >> that's a goods question. most of those people are in state prisons so the state has to deal with that question, not the federal government. however you have people doing time in washington and colorado who were brought on federal charges that would seem that now the federal government is stepping back from. the history as been that the department of justice won't go back and visit those cases and that raises an additional question, president obama has not use the pardon power, 33 times i think, he's commuted one sentence in his entire time in

office that's the power that he has is towing back and make that right. there are thousands of those cases pending right now. >> let's look at the justice department memo that was distributed on thursday. and it talks about what states, including colorado and washington need to do in order to keep the government out of their hair on this issue you. among other things, marijuana cannot be distribute today minors, revenue from the sale of marijuana can't go to criminal enterprises, marijuana can't be transported from states where it's legal to other states. state authorized marijuana activity cannot be used as a cover for other illegal drugs or activity. states must prevent violence and the use of firearms and the consult indication and distribution of marijuana. states must work to prevent drug driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with the use of marijuana. and there are a few other things that were in this new policy. alan, the question is, are states ready to handle all of that in order to be able to

avoid federal --ed feds getting involved? >> for the last eight months since colorado and washington vote today legalize marijuana, in pretty wide margins there have been intention negotiations here in washington and seattle and denver, on effectively waivers, is what just described. and so the states are supposed to be the lands of democracy. in effect, that's what the federal government is allowing them to do. and, yes, we absolutely believe there is a number of other states, particularly in the western united states, like anywhere where the saltwater touches the land and all of new england will move in this direction very quickly. but like alcohol prohibition, it will take decades to in fill the middle country and southeast united states, can sen didn't end alcohol pro ditches until the 1950s. >> what about drug driving. drunk driving a very big problem, what tests are there,

noticeit's not like there are breathalyzer tests for someone a police officer stops on the highway. >> excellent point. for the last 40 years it hasn't stopped the government from arresting and prosecuting many 10s of thousands of people for supposedly being engaged in drug driving. let's acknowledge that right now there are no real good tests outside of blood tests and nobody wants to turn police in to surgeon on his the side of the road. so in time there will be testing in fact, in washington the tax creates a program at the university of washington and incentivizes the state police to work together to come up with a kind of technology. and i have complete faith they will. >> we are getting more of a response from social media let's go to hermela. >> the d.o.j. won't sue over the use of marijuana in colorado and washington. is it just opening the door for the rest of the country? >> it certainly does tell other states that if they want to

legalize marijuana, they won't be sued by the federal government. and that is significant. now, it's questionable what that suit would have meant if it would have been successful. it would have been a novel effort by the federal government. but people thought that there was a good chance that that would happen. now, the other thing to keep in mind is that this administration is stating its intentions that doesn't necessarily bind future administrations that may have a different view the marijuana. >> now, alan, a lot of support for legalization of marijuana, if you look at the numbers, 60% of americans favor it for medical purposes, but there is also 52 to 45% support in general. the question is, if this does become a coast to coast situation, do the not worry on the other side of it, before it goes coast to coast, trafficking, that there will be a whole new criminal element

within the united states trying to get marijuana from one state where it's legal to one where it's not. >> the only reason why that happens now is because of the inning sen at this viinning senf pro ditches, on the west coast a good ounce of marijuana costs $40, here on the east coast. 200 to $300. that's already happening under prohibition today, the only thing that will happen is the complete collapse of the price, it will be a pennies on the pound commodity. tobacco is a pennies on the point commodity. marijuana will be the same. >> do you think that will be a good thing? >> i think it will be a good thing for consumers like myself who would like trike pay less for their marijuana yes. >> we called the seattle police department to get a law enforcement perspective on this and this is what the seattle police chief considering the interim police chief said about the justice department's announcement. he said he was pleased that attorney general eric holder has provided clarity about the future of initiative 502 of

washington state our department will continues our mission of publicist safety, harm reduction, public education en calling safer and lawful behavior with regard to the good lines of marijuana established by washington voters. mark, a last word. will it make law enforcement easier? it does. it tells them what to regulate and focus on. going forward the danger is this. what eric holder has announced is largely in the interest of federalism. that is letting states do what they will within the realm that their best to handle and the federal government is stepping back, and that's a good thing, i think. problem is that the trigger issues that he has identified such as drugged driving and children having access to marijuana are at the street level at the opposite realm where the federal government has to say late and step in and directly address that. and so if we get to that, that's going to be a much her

difficultish. >> you thank you for joining us tonight he. we'll be back with more of "consider this." blam

>> tonight's data dive looks at just how far america has come since the march on washington in 1963. we looked a it the through numbers provided by the u.s. census, let's start with population, in 1963, the total estimated number of blacks in america was 20,200,000, by 2012, that more than doubled to about 44.5 million. on to the economy. these numbers are adjust today for inflation, the median income for black families in 1963, was i at more than $23,300 in, 20 tone it jumped for 40,005 up dollars, for ofly rate foo blacks miles an hour fresh nerds

1966 was watt 4 41.8%, to today down to 27.6%, still a big problem. education has improved. 230 now thousand black under college garage stat taoupt in n american, now more than 10 ties. more good news, age 25 and over who completed four years of high school more than tripled from 25.7 in 1964 to 85% in 2012. as for politics, we all know program ibarack obama is the fit african-american president, back in 1963 only five members of congress and no senators, in 2013, 43 black members of congress and 11 senator a lot of room left for improvement in the upper chamber. you can look to the movies for encourage. flipper was the number one in 1963, august 28 it's the butler, which just happens to be about

america's civil rights movement. "consider this" will be right back. our children and to get 7.35 raise up to 12.35 or 15. but should you be made aware if you are consuming them. that's next on "consider this." components of the aljazz mission.

>> the footage of dr. king that day 50 years ago is something we all know well and rightly so. but are many little scene images

that paint a fuller picture of what happened on that historic day, they are out there and deserve to be examined. now joining to us share some of the most powerful immaterial questions from the march on washington please welcome bob the collector of a beautiful book. we are joined from washington, by lynn french, university of virginia ahead junction profess for who teaches the history of civil rights and also by annie a wash post distributor. you chose on your own to cover the civil rights movement? you were a free-lance photographer and had covered it before the march on washington. was that one of the most special days of your life? >> yes, of course. but i was a volunteer and try to go break in to magazines at that time. but i had no assignment, i just came there as a volunteer and because, well, the -- it's hard to remember this, but the

movement at that time was a few hundred, maybe a few thousand people. doing very specific and very often very dangerous things. the movement was confronting segregation, which sounds like the separation of the races, but it was really enforced by terror, and it was very dangerous work. and i was -- i came there, we had a saying in the movement, when the spirit says move, you move. this was the day we were protesting the fact that only weeks before. president kennedy had announced legislation and he was the first president to ever say that segregation, which, you know, demeaned and was a violent system, was wrong. no president, in 100 years -- >> i want to move on and see some pictures they are beautiful and powerful immaterial jess. let's start with the first one in which we see martin luther

king as he's beginning his speech and he's looking down at the papers this was because started reading from a pre -- a preordained script and then we saw a picture of mahalia jackson, lynn i want to get to you. what's the story behind mahalia's importance to that speech that day? >> speeches evolve as a leader or speaker goes around from place to place speaking. and dr. king had been talking about this dream for a while. and i guess people had advised him to make this speech entirely different and not talk about the dream. and he had written a different into even and he was in to that speech and mahalia jackson, his favorite singer, turned to him and said, martin, tell them about the dream. and that's when he cut loose and started talking about it. >> i want to go back to those pictures if we can. you can see the transition, you can see exactly what happened. you see him very serious looking at his paper there, but then in

just a moment after she called out to him, and he started improvising and using that speech that he had used before, you see him almost with a different level of energy and then you see him ending triumphantly. annie, what was going through your mind as you watched this unfold? >> well, remember i was insofar back, as this was unfolding, that a small gesture, leaning forward saying martin remember the dream, was zoloft on me. but whatever the spirit was that moved him, it was just really an electrifying moment. it was just quite extraordinary. >> and, bob, here is the picture you took of the congressional delegation that was there. and that was significant because you had people like adam clayton-powell, jake yo jacob se leaders important to the civil rights movement in congress and it was very important that they be there. >> yes. well, of course the whole purpose of the march was to get

congress for pass legislation and these congressmen were on our side. but we also knew when so many people showed up, we were only a small band of people comparatively. hundreds of thousands of people showed up, we all knew something was in the air and something might happen. >> let's look at another picture of a very important figure who was there. bob, you photographed rosa parks that day, you had photographed her before. what was your impression of here? >> well, rosa parks was a great heroin and, by the way, contemporary to earlier information, both she and i think miss height spoke at the rally at the washington monument. so there were women speaking there. but rosa parks appeared in every one of doc's events and i

photographed her at the -- at his funeral and i must have taken maybe two or three rolls of film, that would be 60 or 80 photographs and she was crying in every one of them. >> beautiful picture of her. now we have a picture of the one man who spoke in 1963, and spoke today, there is john lewis looking very, very young. lynn, you said that john lewis' speech was railroad important to you. >> it was. he was not much older than i and just hearing him speak out in the spirit tha that i believed f really stepping forward and agitated and making sure that what was needed would happen. he -- i think he spoke to the young people that day. >> we have some hour questions let's go to her mel a for those. >> anna this question is directed specifically to you. do you feel different about yourself as an american for having.

participated in the march and what still needs to change in the united states? >> i do feel different. i had a serves optimism. the news clips and headlines those days were horrendous when i went to the march then and today the takeaway is we have made progress but not close to being where they wei need to be. half a dozen people said to me over and over, we are still fighting the voting rights act battle. how can that be? so i think we have to work harder at it. i think we have made progress but we are not home. >> i want to leave you with one last picture. there is a big celebrity contingent today at the march. and there was also one back then, there we can see ozzie davis who was one of the masters of ceremonies of the he defense.

joan baez who sang back in 1963. marlon brando was there. there were a number of celebrities, surprised me, charleton heston was there. sammy davis, jr., pete are, paul and mary. they had an important part of that day. jails baldwin the author, we had a very strong presence of very famous people there that day. i wanted to show some of mottes picture, bob thank you very much. the book is now available. and i would like thank lynn and annie for joining us tonight for this interesting discussion and celebration of the 50th anniversary of a very important day in american history. thank you. the show may be over but the conversation continues on our website. or on our facebook or google plus pages or on twitter at a.j. consider this, we'll see you for our next show. ♪ ♪

hello and welcome to al jazeera. i am thomas in new york. our top stories at this hour. >> i will seek authorization for the use of force from the american people's representatives in congress. >> the president says he will seek approval on capitol hill before taking any military action against syria. looking for evidence of the chemical attack. u.n. inspectors have now left syria, we'll tell what you they focused on with & when their final analysis will be completed. also checking in as the jersey shore wraps up its first big tourist season minutes hurricane sandy tore it apart. ♪