we welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. he meant to say it. he knew what he was saying. that's my take on the president's inflammatory comments on immigrants and he was again speaking to his base. what's he saying now? well just two words in to tweet "america first. " plus it's the number one best selling and coming under attack. what are missing about trump book "fire & fury." the president's health said to be excellent at his friday checkup at a time many openly attack his mental health, which i think is wrong. the former president of the american psychiatric association joins me live to discuss. plus smart phones provide us all with connectivity, but are they making our kids lonelier? apple is being asked to address

the problem. i'll talk to the pioneer researcher in this issue. and everybody agrees we're in the midst of an opioid crisis, but is the federal government doing all it should do to solve the problem? what could be done? i'll ask a former head of the fda. but first, he said it. on that, i have no doubt, and i think he knew exactly what he was doing. the profanity that the oxford dictionary defines as an extremely dirty, shabby or otherwise unpleasant place, ben zimmer who writes a language column in the "wall street journal" told "the washington post" it's a word commonly spoken among friends but rarely written down or documented. true, we've all heard it. some of us have said it, me included, but he should not have, and certainly not in this context, because regardless of whether the word enters the vocabulary of others, it's beneath the dignity of the office of the president, and when a president uses such a word, he triggers a slur being whispered down the lane.

marty barron, the the editor of "the washington post," which was first to break this story, told "the washingtonian" when the president says it, we'll use it verbatim. that's our policy. we discussed it quickly, but there was no debate." nor was there any defense in the fact other leaders use the salty language. in this case it was not a one-off. couple comments about birtherism, mexican rapists, the muslim ban. very fine people among the white supremacists and the december report of the president having said haitian immigrants have aids and nigerians who visit the united states never go back to their huts, it paints a disturbing picture. his reference to norway i think was a tell. yes he'd just even the prime minister, earnest solberg and she was top of mind. condemning the president's words, that's the easy part. the harder question to answer is why he's probably right in thinking his comment will

invigorate his base. lots of factors. bigotry among them for sure. there's a widespread perception that european immigrants do better here than haitian or african immigrants. the statistics don't match those perceptions, while the stats for haitians on income and education fall below the u.s. average, africans and europeans are on par with the overall u.s. median income is above the u.s. population, as is education, and here's the stat that really jumps out, more haitians and africans are in the workforce than europeans, by a big margin. some leaving the third world are escaping sad, horrific conditions. it's a shame he didn't say it that way. what has set us apart is our history of welcoming them. you know the inscription. "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free." some will welcome the remarks because they feel dispossessed and want to find people to blame for their lot. others wish for plain speakers,

even if we don't always agree with what they say. mistaken candor is preferred to insincere patronizing and there's the age-old impulse to be led by a fire brand, william jennings brian, huey long, george wallace. finally, some non-plussed by this manner of speech have been innoculated against being outraged because there have been so many others, all of which explains both why the president's approval rating is capped in the high 30s, and probably not at risk of further decline. now, it's flying out of book stores and into the national consciousness. in its first days, michael wolff's "fire & fury: inside the trump white house" is a publishing juggernaut of harry potter proportion. already in its 11th printing. number one on the "new york times" and amazon best seller list. its publisher has orders for 1.4 million copies. its repercussions have been far and wide, including the

departure of steve bannon from breitbart. michael wolff joins me now. hey, michael, i'm not sure what's left to ask. you have been absolutely everywhere. is there anything in the book that you thought would get more attention than it has thus far? >> well, one of my favorite lines is when trump calls h.r. mcmaster a beer salesman. he says he looks like a beer salesman. why do i have to talk to him? i always liked that line, because i have no idea what a beer salesman actually is. you know, that's -- there's a kind of thing with trump that it is as though he is from another generation, two generations ago, three generations ago. there is something peculiarly trapped in time about him, and i think this is part of the immigration debate that's been going on since yesterday.

i mean, he really does, and in many situations, i have found him talking about, you know, why aren't, why do we limit immigration from europe? why do we have these other people? he says things like, isn't anyone an american anymore? it's that kind of thing. so an odd thing is that trump, in the end, is kind of like your old grandfather. >> i've tried to keep abreast of the many interviews that you've given in connection with the book release. something that you said to savannah guthrie piqued my curiosity. roll the tape. >> your farmer "vanity fair" editor said he wasn't surprised you had written this book. he said he was surprised they let you in the door at the white house. are you surprised? >> no.

i'm a nice guy. i go in -- >> did you flatter your way in? >> i certainly said what was ever necessary to get the story. >> michael wolff, what did that mean? "i said whatever was necessary to get the story." >> well, i don't know. it's -- uhm, i went in and i was -- i did not say, uhm, you know, "i hate you and i'm opposed to you and good riddance to you," as much of the media has basically said. i went in and said actually what was, what i believed, which was, show me what you're doing. tell me what you want to do. let's see how this works. let's see if this can work. so i think that i projected to the white house an amount of honest openness, frankly. >> honest openness. did you ever misrepresent your objective or your feelings about

the president? >> never once, never in any way. i went into the white house, and i told them i want to write this book from your point of view. i don't want to be someone looking in. i want you to tell me what you think, and that's really what the book is. the book is not my impressions of this white house or the president. it is in the voices of the people in the white house. >> did you tell them that your objective was to humanize the president, that nobody was doing that, that you personally liked the president, that you'd be able to change perceptions about the president, that you hoped to interview him in a relaxed state? >> i probably said, yes, that i wanted to humanize the president, which i wanted to do. >> we're all of those pledges accurate, were they honest? do any of them embarrass you today?

>> not in the least. as i said, it sounds like you have something on your mind here. >> i do. i do. >> i went into this white house saying i want to write it from your point of view. tell me. i'm completely open to this? if i could write a book, which, in which i found that the president was contrary to all opinions a potential success, i would have been delighted to write that book. >> is it fair that you presented yourself as sort of the beacon to combat media bias against the president, and that that was the way in which you were seen? >> i didn't much present myself in any way, and nor did anyone particularly inquire as to my point of view, or where i was going, or what this book was going to be. to be perfectly honest, nobody was that interested.

>> what i'm really after is not so much a policy or position interview with the president, but an opportunity to humanize him, honestly, i don't think there is anybody out there who is doing this, or it seems who cares about doing this, but i think you know that i like him, and i believe i can show him in a way that might actually change perceptions of him, chatted about this yesterday with bannon, who suggested doing something in the residence. i'm open to anything. but the more relaxed, the better. i asked the question, because it sounds like you're presenting yourself as an individual who has his best interest at heart, likes him, wants to show a more humanizing side of him, and for that reason, you should be given access. it becomes relevant, because many of us who have read the book and i read the book are trying to understand where the white house denies it, what's true and what's not true, and therefore, your level of

veracity in walking in the door becomes significant. >> and i'm missing -- so what are you implying here? i mean, that's the way -- that is exactly -- >> well you were -- >> that's exactly what i had in mind to do. it was, open your kimono, let me see. i'm willing to write -- i'm willing to write any story here. give me the story. i wrote the story that i got. i mean, i wrote what i saw, what i heard. >> how much access did you have to the president? were there any interviews at all for the book? >> i have said from the beginning, i have spent about three hours in one on one conversations with the president during the campaign, the transition, and in the white house. >> okay, because from the paper trail that i've seen, and i've tried to become more knowledgeable in anticipation of having you here, it doesn't seem

like there was any interview you were afforded for the book per se. it was a hollywood reporter interview. >> i think we should, i think that we should point out that someone in the white house is obviously giving you emails that i sent, which is perfectly fine, but you know, the white house has been on a concerted attack on me since this book came out, by the way, a totally incompetent attack which has found a few typos and turned this book into the best selling book in the world, but you are now doing the job of the white house, just so everybody knows that. >> well, wait a minute. i read the book. i took the time to read the book. >> yeah, i know but you have -- no, let's go. you have somebody -- >> i have questions. >> i know this, let's get -- >> as a reader, i have questions. go ahead. >> -- giving you emails that i wrote so therefore, you're doing the work of the white house, to discredit this book, the white house wants to discredit this

book, they see now the thing that he says. >> michael -- >> so your indication is he was polite. >> the questions i've raised two subjects thus far. i have more, but i've raised two subjects thus far that i think are legitimate areas of inquiry. wait a minute. >> i don't know what are they -- shall. >> the first is -- >> tell me. >> -- did you misrepresent yourself in an effort to gain access? and the email trail that i have seen thus far i think raises that as a legitimate question. i like donald trump. i want to humanize donald trump. i'm the guy who can change perceptions. i'm the guy who can combat the liberal negative media bias about him, seems like the way in which you represented yourself to get in the door. i think that's a legitimate area of inquiry. >> let me finish. >> i promise you'll finish. >> let' itemize this. >> the second area of inquiry. >> i have liked donald trump. i was interested in humanizing him.

i do want to change perceptions which i might have succeeded at. yes, go on. >> in other words, when you said i might be able to change perceptions of him, you meant, you meant to the negative? >> this is what a writer does. it would be of no value if i went in to this and i did not change perceptions. i might -- >> i don't see -- i don't know. >> i was willing to change perceptions. in a positive way. >> you're a far more successful writer than i will ever be. i know that when i write emails, seeking interviews, my word choice is to say, i will treat the individual with dignity and respect. i never go so far as to say let me humanize, you know i like the person. i'm the one who can change the perceptions. i found it unusual. you get the final word.

>> this is, read my book. that's all i have. that is my final word. >> okay, and i did, and i just think it begs interesting questions, as to on what grounds were you able to pull up that sofa. >> i thought you were just giving me the final word. >> okay. >> anyway, let me have the final word. >> go ahead. >> it's just the book. i've written a book, you either like it or you don't like it. so far, it quite seems that many, many, many, many people do like it and it speaks to them. final word, thank you very much. >> michael. >> good-bye. >> i read it. >> where is my final word? >> i read it and enjoyed it. here's my point, you can both enjoy reading the book and question some of the content. that's my point. and i thank you. >> yes, please, so you got the final word. >> okay. your thoughts, tweet me @smerconish, i will read some

of the responses throughout the program. "smerconish, do you think trump did this to stop the coverage of the book "fire & fury"? layn, let me tell you something. i don't think he's seeking to stop the coverage of the book. i think that the only thing more upsetting to the present that a tell-all book about him is a tell-all book that's about somebody else. up ahead, the president deemed in excellent health by his physician friday but many are diagnosing his mental health from afar. i don't think that's fair. i'll discuss with the former head of the american psychiatric association who has his own theory. >> when you're running for president, i think you have an obligation to be healthy. i just don't think you can do the work if you're not healthy. s behind the heroes, who use their expertise to keep those businesses covered. and here's to the heroes behind the heroes behind the heroes, who brought us delicious gyros.

actually, the gyro hero owns vero's gyros, so he should have been with those first heroes. ha ha! that's better. so, to recap -- small business owners are heroes, and our heroes help heroes be heroes when they're not eating gyros delivered by -- ah, you know what i mean. like you do sometimes, grandpa? and puffed... well, when you have copd, it can be hard to breathe. it can be hard to get air out, which can make it hard to get air in. so i talked to my doctor.

she said... symbicort could help you breathe better, starting within 5 minutes. symbicort doesn't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden symptoms. symbicort helps provide significant improvement of your lung function. symbicort is for copd, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema. it should not be taken more than twice a day. symbicort contains formoterol. medicines like formoterol increase the risk of death from asthma problems. symbicort may increase your risk of lung infections, osteoporosis, and some eye problems. you should tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. symbicort could mean a day with better breathing. watch out, piggies! get symbicort free for up to one year. visit saveonsymbicort.com today to learn more. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. they appear out of nowhere. my secret visitors. hallucinations and delusions. the unknown parts of living with parkinson's. what plots they unfold, but only in my mind. over 50% of people with parkinson's

will experience hallucinations or delusions during the course of their disease. if your loved one is experiencing these symptoms, talk to your parkinson's specialist. there are treatment options that can help. my visitors should be the ones i want to see.

friday was the 71-year-old's first known medical exam since taking office. in a statement released by the white house physician ronnie jackson said it went "exceptional well" and pronounced him to be in "excellent health." we all remember the doctor who vouched for him during the campaign as the "most fit person ever to run for president." friday's exam came amid a national debate over the president's mental capacity, fueled in part by michael

wolff's recent book and his ongoing behaviors. last week i took the position it's not a good idea to break the 40-year-old goldwater rule that prevents people from diagnosing public figures without personally examining them and setting such a precedent could have catastrophic long-term consequences. one who reached out to me about my commentary was dr. jeffrey lieberman, the chair of psychiatry at columbia university and new york presbyterian hospital, past president of the american psychiatric association and wrote this piece for the "new york times," "maybe trump is not mentally ill. maybe he's just a jerk." dr. lieberman, thanks for being here. how do you see this issue? >> it's an issue of concern because president trump is unconventional at the very least, and his unconventional sometimes erratic out of the box offensive, vulgar behavior has sort of invited speculation as

to what could be causing it. is this just the way he is, coming from his background and his business world, or is it possibly a sign of something else, including some medical condition of a neuropsychiatric nature, and the point that i think i've been making and has been debated is that, even if you have rarified expertise as a doctor or a psychiatrist, if you're viewing it from the public's perspective, which is what's in the media, what's in the public domain historically, that's not a basis for making a definitive diagnosis and if you want to express an opinion that's fine but if you want to say it's more than that and should be used for a basis of enacting some type of action to remove him or constrain him from office, that's inappropriate. >> you wrote a letter to the "new england journal of medicine," pretty much saying what you just said here. "although moral and civic imperatives justify citizens speaking out against injustices of government and its leaders, that does not mean that psychiatrists can use their medical credentials to brand

elected officials with neuropsychiatric diagnoses without sufficient evidence and appropriate circumstances. to do so undermines the profession's integrity and credibility." by the way, for what it's worth, i agree with that. i think it sets a dangerous precedent, if all of a sudden not only professionals but laypeople become armchair psychiatrists. here's what puzzles me, though. as a "thought experiment" with seven colleagues, you kind of did exactly that for vice and for tonic, didn't you? you know what i'm referring to. "the diagnosis that seemed most plausible was incipient dementia." what's the difference between the two positions that i've just put forth that are both yours. >> well, look, i'm not a political scientist. i'm not anybody who is familiar with government policy. i'm not a journalist who has expertise in this area. i'm a pointy-headed scientist and clinician. but i saw this coming, you know, back in the primaries, and

certainly after the election, that here's a guy who is going to do things in a very unconventional way. it's going to invite all kinds of questions about what motive, is he crazy like a fox or just coming out of the rough and tumble world of new york city real estate, or is there some real underlying psychopathology and i was wondering what is the logical kind of remedy or process this will follow? and just listening and reading a little bit, it became clear that there are constitutional mechanisms for constraining wayward or reckless or incompetent leaders, and they're called elections. they're called impeachment and there's the 25th amendment, and it turns out that the section of the 25th amendment that applies here, the fourth one, when a president is incapable of fulfilling the responsibilities of office, that would apply here, but it's never been invoked.

so given the fact that our government has not seen fit to map out what these steps would be, what is the process, what is the criteria, i took the initiative of trying to do a simulation. now, the simulation in no way was intended to, and i apologize, it was perceived as that, as branding the president, but if you have a 70-year-old man who is 6'3", 240 pounds, has a history of no serious medical illness, doesn't use any substances, recreational intoxicants, what are the possibilities at his age? we simply went through this as an exercise. but look, let me just say one other thing. if this was, you know, jack welch or bill gates or steven jobs or the head of a major corporation, and he began acting in a way that invited concern, the board of directors would convene, they'd make a decision of how to proceed. they'd possibly get a medical evaluation, but because it's politically charged, we don't do that. apart from invoking some constitutional mechanism, the way to do it would be the

physical that occurred yesterday, but i would bet dollars to doughnuts that a neuro -- a thorough neuropsychiatric evaluation is not part of that routine evaluation. >> maybe it should be at the outset of all campaigns, which would be my preferred manner of doing so, so that everybody gets both a mental and physical clean bill of health. i just don't like doing it mid stream because i think it becomes very arbitrary. dr. lieberman, thank you so much for your time. we appreciate it. >> my pleasure. let's see what you're thinking on my smerconish twitter and facebook pages. katherine, what do we have? "smerconish, why do you think attacking the president's mental health is wrong? anybody defending this man at this point needs a checkup as well, and i like you." see, that's the whole point. we deserve better 18. why not pass judgment on my mental fitness and capacity? by the way, after the opening block of the program, many of you already are. how about a policeman, how about a high school principal? i just think it's unhealthy,

because it's unfair to those who are dealing with mental health maladies when we start tossing around diagnoses as a pejorative, when frankly we don't know if they apply to the person and i would say this. think of an answer without regard to the current occupant of the oval office. whatever standard we set is going to apply to president elizabeth warren or a president, you know, whomever, fill in the blank, when it's a democrat. you get the point that i'm trying to make, i hope. up ahead, a major investor in apple is appealing to the company to address the impact smartphone technology is having on an entire generation. i will talk to the researcher whose work they cite and the president declared the fight against opioids to be a national emergency, but is anything actually being done? ♪ ly together to deliver truly personalized cancer care. expert medicine works here. learn more at cancercenter.com

vof hundreds of families, he'se hmost proud of the one the heads he's kept over his own. brand vo: get paid twice as fast with quickbooks smart invoicing. quickbooks. backing you.

when it comes to using iphones, the kids might not be all right. an activist hedge fund and teachers pension that together are among apple's biggest investors are now demanding that apple investigate the effects of digital technology on young people, saying it's a public health crisis. letter was sent to apple's board of directors by janan partners of the california state teachers retirement system which have $ billion combined invested in apple. it demands the company take active steps the same way it prides itself on inclusiveness, quality education, environmental protection and supplier responsibility. the letter cites data from "igen," a book that i have said i found the most impactful of anything that i've read recently. author dr. jean twenge's research found in 2012 the proportion of americans with

smartphones exceeded 50%, there were abrupt negative changes in teen behavior and emotional states. dr. twenge is a professor in personality psychology at san diego state university. she has studied generational differences for 25 years, and she helped draft that letter. dr. twenge, welcome back. help me provide the cliff notes version of your book to my audience why. >> "igen" is the generation born 1995 and later. they are the first generation to spend their entire adolescence with smartphones, and that's had ripple effects across many areas of their lives, so they spend of course a lot more time on their phones, and online and they spend less time with their friends in person, and that's really not a great combination for mental health. >> the graphs from your book tell quite a story and i'm going to flip through them in rapid succession.

less dating. less driving. less hanging out. less sex, which in and itself might seem like a good thing from a parent's perspective, but i would argue, not in this context. less sleep, and here's the kicker, dr. twenge, more lonely. so despite the constant connectivity, and the belief that, hey, you're in touch with your friends, the way that people my age are reconnecting with people they went to high school with, in reality, they're feeling more lonely. explain that. >> yes, so that's the interesting thing. you'd think maybe that would be the exception, that even if we have some of these mental health issues that perhaps social media would help make us feel more connected to each other but at least among teens, right around 2012 when smartphones became common their levels of loneliness just spiked upward

very suddenly, and that followed the same pattern as clinical level, very serious depression, as feeling like you couldn't do anything right, feeling left out, feeling lonely, all of these things spiked right around 2012. >> you say that we are on the brink of the worst mental health crisis in decades. i was really happy to see that jana and calsters letter and a paragraph that comes at the end where they say what they want is an expert committee. i won't read it but they want you on the expert committee. i like that, but i get nervous that we can't trust apple to tell us the truth about what they know of the impact of smart technology, smartphones on american youth. what do you hope to do? >> well, i'm really hoping that apple takes this opportunity to help parents help regulate kids and teens, smartphone and device use, because being on these devices for hours and hours a day, a lot of teens now, that's

almost all of their leisure time is spent with screens, is not a healthy way to live, and we know this from some -- many, many studies, so it's just one example. teens who spend five or more hours a day on electronic devices are 71% more likely to have at least one risk factor for suicide than teens who spend less than an hour a day, and that's just one example. so i'm hoping that we'll get more studies on this, more experimental studies, better data, and that maybe apple can help us find out more about the mental health and other effects of spending five, six hours or more a day on these devices. >> a final question. when i was younger, people would say the same sort of thing about television. oh, the boob tube, how much time are you spending watching the boob tube. does that 1970s era argument

have any merit when we're talking about smartphone technology? what's the difference? >> yes. well, there is a key difference, which is that smartphones are portable, so you can carry them with you everywhere you go. even when you are seeing friends in person, for a lot of teens, they're still on their phones. they can be carried into the bedroom. one reason why teens are now sleeping a lot less than they should. but with that said, we can't completely let tv off the hook. it is also correlated with mental health issues, but at least at this moment, teens are watching tv, yep, that is linked to more depression, but the effect for electronic devices is a lot bigger and a lot stronger. >> i love apple products. i'm a huge fan of the company. i like what i think they represent. this is an important step, and i hope that they will allow you to continue your work from the inside, looking out, and parents ought to read your book "igen." thank you, dr. twenge, i really

appreciate it. >> thank you. let me check in on your tweets and facebook comments. katherine, what have we got? one tweet? "smerconish, tv was bad for our health, rock music was bad for our health, video games were bad for our health and yet i'm a perfectly healthy 40-year-old man living in his parents basement." [ laughs ] more seriously i did just address that with her in the end. because back in the day we heard similar complaints. this is different. dr. twenge addressed it at the end. she said you may have been in the rec room watching the boob tube, but today that technology is with you everywhere, and she speaks in terms of correlation, but as a layperson, it's hard not to look at her data and say there's got to be causation in this. so thank you. still to come, how president trump's battle is going against the opioid epidemic. that's next. he said this week that he had the answer. well, what is it? and why not name the head of the dea or nominate a drug czar?

tens of millions of people have switched to unlimited on america's most awarded network. verizon? uh, woah, woah, woah, vince. it was ranked highest in network quality performance nationwide by j.d. power. and rated number 1 in the nation by rootmetrics 8 times running. it's totally verizon. vince! we can see the sign. the v's sticking out. anyway, the most awarded network is... verizon! vince! you didn't know what it was... you did? okay. vo: when we win, you win. switch to the best unlimited, and now get up to $450 off our best android phones.

sometimes you need an expert. i got it. and sometimes those experts need experts. on it. [ crash ] and sometimes the expert the expert needed needs insurance expertise. it's all good. steve, you're covered for general liability. and, paul, we got your back with workers' comp. wow, it's like a party in here. where are the hors d'oeuvres, right? [ clanking ] tartlets? we cover commercial vehicles, too. i think there's something wrong with your sink.

weyou can feel safe vehicles, too. for only $49.00. that includes security panel, keypad, key fob, entry and motion sensors and for a limited time, get a camera included and installed at no additional cost. which means everyone has access to our real reviews that we actually verify. and we can also verify that what goes down, [ splash, toilet flush ] doesn't always come back up. find a great plumber at angie's list. join today for free.

it is the federal government doing all it can to combat america's opioid epidemic? a former commissioner of the food and drug administration says no. in october, president trump declared a 90-day public health emergency, saying he was mobilizing the government to liberate americans from the scourge of addiction. those 90 days are up january 23rd, and much remains to be done. there's no permanent head of the drug enforcement administration, and the president's nominee for drug czar to run the white house office of national drug control policy withdrew in october and no replacement has been named. meanwhile, overdose deaths continue to rise faster than ever, killing some 64,000 people last year. what can be done? my next guest lays out a course

of action in this "new york times" piece "how to fight the opioid crisis." david kessler was the commissioner of the food and drug administration from 1990 to 19 the 7 under presidents george herbert walker bush and president bill clinton. dr. kessler, what should the federal government be doing that it's not doing? >> well, there's a state of the union speech that's coming up, and the president has an opportunity. right now, the federal agencies that are involved in substance abuse are spread across 16, 17 different organizations. we don't have, as you said, a head of the, permanent head of the dea. we don't have a director of the office of national drug control policy. the president has a real opportunity. i think he should say in that speech, he should say he's going to organize all the substance

abuse agencies under one head. look, it's not -- this is a complex problem, needs a comprehensive solution, but there's a real opportunity for leadership. >> are you satisfied that the medical community -- physicians, the front line, are sufficiently knowledgeable now about the crisis that we face, and are not falling into a trap of overprescribing? >> it's an excellent point, michael. we still have more to do, when it comes to education. some of that education comes from our medical schools. it comes from the cdc. it comes from the fda, but if you have one central organization within the federal government, it can make sure that we do a better job not only to our physicians, but also to our schools, our parents, to all of us. look, we need to see opioids in

a completely different light. these are very powerful, addictive drugs. you'll remember certainly in our parents and our grandparents generations, and it's a different kind of drug, but nicotine. we used to view nicotine as something that was pleasurable and enjoyable, but we really have one of the great public health successes, and part of the problem when it comes to addiction is that substance my friend or is it going to do me harm. we have to change our national perception. >> dr. kessler, final point. it has to do with the issue of supply. i pulled something of significance from your essay in "the times." i'll read it aloud. "we need to rethink how the federal government carries out this mission. the food and drug administration in approving new opioid drugs puts more opioids in the

marketplace because these drugs meet the standards for safety and efficacy in treating certain forms of pain but the more opioids there are in the marketplace, the greater the opportunity there is for abuse." what should be done about that? >> well, we certainly need to be sure that there are only the amount of opioids that are necessary to treat acute pain, and cancer pain. so the fact is, more drug that is produced, the more -- the more drug that is in the marketplace, the more abuse there will be. it's not that it's perfectly linear, but that's the reality, and the dea has a responsibility to set production quotas, but it's the fda that's putting the drug, approving the drugs, so we need -- the white house is trying. good people are really trying to coordinate these efforts, but there's a real opportunity for

leadership and centralization. this is a public health emergency. the president can i think go the next step. >> thank you so much, david kessler. i appreciate your expertise. >> thank you very much. still to come, i'll look at some of your tweets and facebook comments. give me another one, katherine. what do we have? "smerconish, for your consideration, my twitter has become a clearinghouse for the -- this is eric bolling from fox. this is eric bolling who tragically lost his son. hang on. slow down, guys. "for your consideration, my twitter has become a clearinghouse for #opioidcrisis helping parents and troubled teens. we have thousands adding stories and ideas. we lost our only son to the epidemic." i know you did my heart breaks for you, eric. "i am trying to turn the profound grief into helping

others and we will help you. #opioidcrisis." i'm so glad that you reached out. i'm back in just a moment.

hey, follow me on twitter. hit my facebook page and check out smerconish.com. what have we got? smerconish, i think michael wolff just showed his true colors and if nobody sees it, they're not paying attention.

i'm not sure what that might be. another one. the only thing missing from that incredible showdown was hair. i wasn't a showdown? i'm just, i read the book. i tore through the book. i was left with questions. and i went in search of answers. for those questions. like. how did this best-selling author get such access? i'd never heard that significantly discussed in all the interviiews i've watched an i wondered how much access did he get to the president and the questions that results were the result f my curiosity. another one, please. michael wolff, when you give the last word twice, it ceases to be b the last word. that is true. but i treated him and all my guests with dignity and respect and i think he had plenty of opportunity to say the sort of things he wanted to say and i did likewise. one more if i have time for it. thank you smerconish. there are ways to describe the poor performance of the

president without insulting americans who live with mental illness. hash tag end the stigma. that's moipt. i have written on this subject and delivered a commentary last week. i don't articulate that view to carry the water of the president of the united states. that's not my objective. i'm thinking of those who have been diagnosed with maladies. who deserve better than to have their diagnosis become political fodder. banttied about by armchair psychiatrists and real psychiatrists who have never seen, much less treated, this individual that we're talking about. stick around. there is another great hour coming up on cnn. -looks great, honey. -right?

sometimes you need an expert. i got it. and sometimes those experts need experts. on it. [ crash ] and sometimes the expert the expert needed needs insurance expertise. it's all good. steve, you're covered for general liability. and, paul, we got your back with workers' comp. wow, it's like a party in here. where are the hors d'oeuvres, right? [ clanking ] tartlets? we cover commercial vehicles, too. i think there's something wrong with your sink.

to to me he's, well, dad.son, pro golfer. so when his joint pain from psoriatic arthritis got really bad, it scared me. and what could that pain mean? joint pain could mean joint damage. enbrel helps relieve joint pain, and helps stop further damage enbrel may lower your ability to fight infections. serious sometimes fatal events including infections, tuberculosis, lymphoma other cancers, nervous system and blood disorders and allergic reactions have occurred. tell your doctor if you've been someplace where fungal infections are common. or if you're prone to infections, have cuts or sores, have had hepatitis b, have been treated for heart failure or if you have persistent fever, bruising, bleeding or paleness. don't start enbrel if you have an infection like the flu. since enbrel, dad's back to being dad. visit enbrel.com... and use the joint damage simulator to see how your joint damage could be progressing. ask about enbrel. enbrel. fda approved for over 14 years.

even when nothing else is. keep her receipts tidy, brand vo: snap and sort your expenses with quickbooks and find, on average, $4,340 in tax savings. quickbooks. backing you.

so good to be with you.