of the hearings we'll focus on tonight during our look at the congressional investigation into irs targeting. that special begins at 89 p.m. eastern -- 8 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span. >> c-span2, providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. and every weekend booktv, now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a lick service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> the white house deputy director for national drug control policy recently faced criticism from both sides of the aisle on the issue of marijuana policy. house oversight subcommittee chair john mica called the policy schizophrenic, a reference to president obama who recently said marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol. committee democrats, meanwhile, asked how the administration

could keep it on the dea's list of most dangerous drugs in the move to decriminalize and each legalize the drug. from earlier this year, this hearing is about an hour, 45 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. i'd like to call this subcommittee hearing of the subcommittee on government operations of the government oversight reform committee to order. welcome, everyone. sorry for our late start. we did have votes that delayed the beginning of this hearing, but we will go ahead and

proceed. and let me just cite, first, the order of business. we'll hear from statements from members as they return from votes or through unanimous consent. we will also include their statements in the record. we will have one witness today, mr. michael botticelli from the office of national drug control policy. he's joining us. we will hear from that witness, and then members will be able to question the witness. so usually the chair gets a couple of extra minutes in introductory statements from launching the hearing, and i'll go ahead and get started as we have other members join us. i see our ranking member of the to full committee has joined us, hope through mr. connolly will be here. i'd also like to a ask unanimous

concept that our colleague from -- consent that our colleague from oregon be permitted to participate, and without objection, so ordered. and our normal procedure, and i think we have several other members joining us, we'll ask unanimous consent for them to join us too. so, again, as members return, we will begin that process. mr. issa, the chair of the full committee, always likes us to remind people, have the chair remind folks why we're here, why we do what we're doing as the government oversight reform committee which is simple. taxpayers sent us here to oversee taxpayer dollars, programs, how they're expended. congress both authorizes and appropriates laws, but it's the oversight function that is extremely important, and it

keeps us focused on our responsibility making certain that programs work, that the taxpayer dollars are wisely spent in washington and the people who represent hard working americans do have, again, accountability of their government. so that's an important responsibility. today the focus of today's hearing is really going to focus on where we are on some of our federal drug laws, policy and enforcement. as most of you know, there's a growing disparity between what our laws say at the federal level now with our laws at the local and state level, complete opposites in some cases.

and various officials from the president of the united states to administration officials going in different direction on the question of legalization of marijuana. as most of you also know, 20 states, the district of columbia have taken steps to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, and in 2012 colorado and washington legalized marijuana at the state level for recreational use. the only problem with this is we do have conflicting federal statutes. i asked the staff to pull out federal statutes, and these are actually the federal statutes, title 21, and that sets up a schedule, and it classifyies

substances and sets really the highest level of narcotics that are under federal jurisdiction and the responsibility of enforcement. so this is the federal law, and that's where we are at this point. but what's taken place is, again, the states have taken action and localities -- excuse me. this washington crud is -- let me have a little drink here. there are is something that comes with the cold weather. but, again, we've heard what the law is, we've seen what states are doing. and unfortunately, there's chaos as it relates to where we're

going and what our policy is as far as what's allowed, what's legalized. and now enforcement's going to react. to compound this, in our society we all look to the president for leadership regardless of what party he is, and the current president has made some statements of late. in fact, just a few days ago president obama said, i'll quote: i don't think it's more dangerous than alcohol, referring to marijuana, and then he said it's important, it's important for it to go forward because it's important for society not to have a situation which a large portion of people have all at one time or another broken the law and only a few select people get puppished.

punished. that was the statement by the president of the united states in regard to legalization. so, again, you have the growing i call it schizophrenic approach to what's going on and where we are and where we may go. same time the president of the united states, our chief executive, is making that statement. i've got an article from the washington post and the dea operations post, the drug enforcement administration, called the legalization of marijuana at the state level reckless and irresponsible warning that the movement to decriminalize the sale of pot in the united states will have severe consequences. then it's also interesting to see the path that the administration is also heading down. this is another article i just came across, and id -- and it

said that department of justice is now looking at releasing low level, lower level drug criminals who were sentenced under tough laws. in fact, this article, and i'll quote it, it says: in an unprecedented move, the deputy attorney general, james c. cole, asked defense lawyers on thursday to help the government locate prisoners and encourage them to apply for clemency. clemency is part of the obama administration's way to deal with changes again in law. and, again, we have an approach that is very fractured between federal, state and local agencies and officials as you can hear from what i just said. the witness that we have before us is actually under the office of national drug control policy.

it was set there some years ago as part of the white house to help coordinate, again, national policy on drug use and abuse. and in spite of the federal prohibitions on marijuana, the department of justice has issued a policy memorandum that explicitly declines to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that have legal legalized it for recreational use. in fact, illegal marijuana dispensaries in colorado and washington are facing the realities of operating outside the w, and the department of justice recently announced they'll be issuing guy dance that will allow -- guidance that will allow federally-regulated banks to serve these illegal businesses. the department of justice, and let me say, too, today we're only going to hear from ondcp, but i do try to have a continuum

of dialogue on where we're going with this. and we invited the department of justice. they declined, wanted a little bit more time. we'll give them the time and then have them in. i'd like to also have dea and other agencies and then hear from some of those that have worked in the field of trying to help both the country and our citizens in youth deal with the illegal narcotics question. so we'll get representatives of some various groups. i might recall for the benefit of my colleagues, i chaired the criminal justice drug policy subcommittee from, i think it was '98 to 2001 and held the very first hearings ever held in congress on the subject of marijuana. and saying that we'dal invite -- we'd also invite some of the other folks to participate in

the discussions about where we're going. so the other, the other thing that we have to consider today is that about $25 billion was provided for drug control programs. that's $25 billion in fiscal 2012 enforcement and a whole host of other activities. $10.1 billion or about 40% was provided for prevention and treatment programs. so we have a big financial stake in some of these programs and where we're going. in fact, 15 federal agencies administer 76 programs aimed at drug abuse and prevention. despite the illicit drug use, despite all that illicit drug use is, in fact, increasing with our adolescence, and marijuana currently accounts for 80% of the listed drug use by

adolescents. i think these are probably the most recent statistics. usually some of these fall more than a year behind. but the 2011, the latest statistics we have, show that adolescent use of marijuana was the highest it's been in eight years. and first-time users of marijuana have, unfortunately, increased under this administration hitting also in 2011, most recent data, a ten-year high. maybe that's not a good term to use on this, but direct use of marijuana -- adolescent use of marijuana is associated with increased drug for dependence, criminal activity and even, again, the more potent marijuana that we have on the market today with affecting the iq and also possibly the genetic makeup of folks. ondcp, and we'll have a representative to speak for

themselves and that department today, has consistently worked to reduce the pref lends of marijuana use and focus on evidence-based prevention messaging. in 2013 the national drug control strategy, the president's message to congress -- and he gives us a message with that title every year -- said and let me quote from it: the importance of prevention is becoming ever more apart despite positive -- apparent. despite positive trends in other areas, we continue to see elevated rates of marijuana use among young people, likely driven by declines and perception of risk. that's what the document, the official document that was sent to us said. so given the recent statements to the media in the last couple of weeks claiming that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol, it appears, unfortunately, the president may, in fact, be a major contributor now to some of the

declines we see in the perception of risk and what we're going to see in the future. so, again, our hearing today will focus on our major agency dealing with this, the office of national drug control policy. we'll hear statements and, hopefully, some idea of where we're going. i have a number of questions, and we have a lot of -- we've had a lot of interest from members on both sides of the aisle to find out what direction the administration and our federal laws are heading in the future on the question of marijuana use and legalization. with that, i'm pleased to welcome with perfect timing our -- and we do have the full committee ranking member, but our ranking member of the subcommittee mr. connolly, the gentleman from virginia. you're recognized in whatever order you wish to proceed. >> mr. chairman, thank you. but as, certainly, a courtesy i

would testify to mr. cummings, the ranking member of the full committee, if he has a statement. >> thank you very much, mr. connolly and to you, mr. chairman, i want to thank you both for holding this hearing. and you're absolutely right, mr. chairman, this is a very complex and difficult issue. to also thank deputy director botticelli for testifying before the subcommittee. this is also a quickly changing issue. and the positions of conservatives and progressives alike are evolving as we learn from experiences of states with legalization initiatives. according to a gallup poll taken in of course, 58% of the american people favor the legalization of marijuana. over the past eight years, 20

states and the district of columbia have passed laws permitting the use of marijuana for medical conditions. and in 2012 colorado and washington chose to legalize, tax and regulate limited amounts of marijuana for recreational use. i believe the purpose of today's hearing is worthwhile. to review the position of federal agencies with respect to states that are legalizing marijuana both for me diddal -- medicinal purposes and recreational uses. the office of national drug control policy serves a very critical role in balancing our nation's drug control efforts by coordinating government-wide public health and safety initiatives that address drug use and its consequences in our communities. in addition, the department of justice is charged with enforcing the federal controlled

substances act. and at issue, guidance to prosecutors in august on marijuana enforcement. mr. chairman, i'm thank l that o -- thankful that ondcp is here today, but as you know, i believe this hearing would have been more informative with the justice department to say why our officers work together to try to find a mutually-acceptable date, and your decision to move forward with ondcp alone is not your prerogative. i hope we can continue to work together in a bipartisan way as we have in the past to get the viewpoints of the other agencies involved. personally, i share your concerns about the negative health effects of marijuana. the youth in my district and across the country. even when it is used for medicinal purposes, people should understand very clearly that smoking marijuana is

dangerous to their lungs and their hearts and results in a wide range of negative health effects. apart from health concerns, however, i also have serious questions about the desperate, disparate impact of the federal government's enforcement policies on minorities. after reviewing the fbi uniform crime reports and state databases on one article found, and i quote: police arrest blacks for marijuana possessioning at a higher -- possession at a higher rate than whites in nearly every state, city and county. despite the two races using marijuana at equal rates. my home state of maryland has similar disparities in enforcement. in october the american civil liberty union issued a report finding that, and i quote: police arrest blacks for marijuana possession at higher

rates than whites in every county in maryland, end of quote. accounting for 58% of arrests for marijuana possession. these disparities have a real impact on people's lives. an arrest for even a small amount of marijuana can disqualify a perp for public -- a perp for public housing, student financial aid or even employment for life. these are the exact opportunities that so many low income individuals need to lift themselves out of poverty. i think the president was exactly right when he said last week middle class kids don't get locked up for smoking pot. poor kids do. the african-american kids and that tee know kids -- latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and support to avoid unduly harsh penalties, and i would add to the that records, criminal records that remain with them for a lifetime.

for these reasons maryland has chosen to decrease penalties to 90 days for possession of marijuana in small amounts. it also requires a course to consider a defendant's use of medical marijuana as an affirmative defense, and it permitted research on medical marijuana. mr. chairman, i previously served as the ranking member of the subcommittee on criminal justice and drug policy, so i understand that there are various components to this debate. but one thing does concern me greatly, how in some states one can purchase marijuana, and the people in my state and in my district are getting arrested and serving sentences. and it just seems to me that something's not right about that. i'm hoping that you will address that, mr. botticelli, because these are serious consequences.

it's one thing when you, when you have equal end forcement -- enforcement, but it's another thing when some people are engaged in purchasing marijuana in the streets and other ones in suites. and so what happens is that you have up equal enforcement, and you have many african-american young men, as you well know, spending long sentences sitting in prison while others law enforcement don't even touch. so those are the kinds of concerns that i have, mr. chairman, and i'm hoping that we will get to some of that today. and with that, i yield back. >> gentleman's time has expired, but, let's see, mr. turner, you had no opening statement. we'll go back to mr. connolly. and before i do, mr. copley asked -- connolly asked

unanimous consent that gentleman from tennessee, will cohen, be allowed to participate on this panel. without objection, so ordered. and we're also joined by mr. davis who will be recognized after mr. connolly because he is on the committee but not the subcommittee, and then we'll go in alphabetical order, and we'll hear from mr. blumenauer. mr. connolly, you're up. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for holding this hearing. to examine the federal response to state marijuana laws. i want to be clear from the outset, i'm not unsympathetic to the concerns raised by skeptics on decriminalization. as a child of the '60s, i witnessed firsthand the ravages of drug abuse among so many friends and so many idols my generation had in both hollywood and in the music scene. i count myself, frankly, a skeptic. further, as a former senior

professional staff member in the senate foreign relations committee, one of my jobs was the authorization of the international narcotics matter bureau of the state department, and i traveled the world looking at production and distribution of illicit drugs. and saw the how much the damage cost. but it must also be noted that simply ramping up criminal penalties such as ramping up sentences did not prove effective in countering the very movement and the very ravages i just talked about in the 1960s. in addition, as a member of congress it's been disappointing to visit countries such as afghanistan only to find that many of the current international narcotics control challenges are the very same ones i looked at in 1980s. further, despite my awareness of outright marijuana legalization, i am alarmed by the figures contained in a recent fbi report that found in 2011 750,000

americans were aroetted for -- arrested for marijuana law violation which amounts to one american every 42 seconds. and that rate outpaced the total number of arrests made for violent crimes that same year. in 2010 alope, even in the face of budget shortfalls, states spent an estimated $3.6 billion enforcing marijuana possession laws, a total that represents a 38% increase compared to the amount spent earlier and this in a time of extreme budget constraints at the state and local level. this drastic increase in enforcement costs raises the important question over how effective we are prioritizing limited law enforcement resources. it's troubling that despite four decades of federal everetts to enforce -- efforts to enforce the criminalization of manufacturing, distribution of marijuana, the united nations drug world drug report found

that while global cannabis consumption stays stable, marijuana use is actually increasing here in the united states. the federal government's ineffectiveness at significantly reducing marijuana becomes even starker when we contrast our nation's rising marijuana use and trades with the results of our country's anti-tobacco campaign which has actually been pretty successful. without resorting to a policy of prohibition or criminalization, our country has brought tremendous resources to bear in an effort to prevent and reduce tobacco use especially among young people. and those efforts are working. our nation cut adult smoking in half from 42.4% in 1965 to 18% in 2012. employing data-driven tactics, stateses and municipalities have continued to refinance their tobacco initiatives, enacting oils focused on -- policies focused on smoke-free environments. there was a new campaign aimed

specifically at teenage smoking to deter it. these types of policies have led to impressive results. for example, california successfully lowered its adult smoking rate from 16.3% in 2000 to 12.7% 12 years later. and with respect to reducing frequent cigarette use among youth, the cdc reports the decrease has been dramatic, falling from are 16.8% in 1999 to just 7.3% in 2009. our steady progress in reducing tobacco use serves as a valuable reminder that the best policies to prevent and reduce the use of harmful substances need not always be -- and perhaps shouldn't be -- total prohibition and criminalization. ..

>> i cannot help but view all of the status of the prism of my time local government. where we prioritize over ideology and we allow evidence to drive policy, particularly when addressing health and public safety. the citizens of states across the country, these have spoken loud and clear.

they want their local government have the opportunity to innovate and even experiment with regulatory and enforcement frameworks governing marijuana use specifically. i believe it's our national interest to let those ongoing laboratories of democracy proceed, and we learn from the. without i yield back and i thank you for your notice. >> we will your notice. >> we will turn out from the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. >> thank you very much, children. i, too, want to thank you for holding this hearing. and i think many of us approach it with mixed feelings and mixed emotions. over the weekend i've been involved in several conversations simply with friends and relatives, and i don't think any of those did we reach any conclusions. we all have different feelings, different thoughts, different ideas. i do like to be associated with

the comments relative to the disparities in the arrest of the ranking member made, as well as mr. connolly. and quite frankly i think that my state, the state of illinois, has a shameful record. there are a lot of things that i'm proud of my state about, but when it comes to this kind of disparity, it's hard to imagine that it actually does exist. and that it is continuing. mr. botticelli, i'd like to ask him questions relative to the role of ocp as we explore this issue, as we talk about and as we try and clarify what the role of your office might be relative to the perspective of the

legalization of marijuana. according to the national drug control policy reauthorization act of 1993, your office is not permitted to use any federal funds to conduct the study or contract relating to the legalization for a medical use or any other use of a substance listed in schedule one of section 202 of the controlled substance act, which includes marijuana. how does this congressional mandate restricted your ability to examine the spread and legalization of medicinal marijuana and its alleged benefits of? >> sorry. >> oh, we're doing -- well, i'm

delighted to continue in a -- >> it's a little hard to hear, mr. davis. just a little bit closer. >> yeah, that's generally very unusual. i'm usually easy to hear. on in a recent gallup poll for the first time, a majority of americans were in favor of legalized marijuana. in addition, there is a clearly growing tide of states that have moved to legalize medicinal marijuana. and i, for one, have held the position for quite a while that it could and should be used for medicinal or process -- medicinal purposes. however, i'm not sure about the whole question of promoting it

in any way, shape, or form or fashion the usage for other reasons, because i'm afraid that as i've seen with alcohol in the community where i live there are stores where individuals are lined up before 9:00 waiting for them to open. and i'm fearful that we might see the same thing with the dispensation of marijuana. so mr. chairman, i thank you for this hearing and i yield back. >> thank you and we will now hear from mr. blumenauer, the gentleman from oregon. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the committees courtesy in on me to join with you. i think it is a timely and important hearing. i agree with the chair that the federal government is not necessarily coordinated on this.

i agree that the committee has a responsibility to do with the use of federal dollars, and i think you referenced $25 billion spent on drug enforcement overall. and i certainly agree wholeheartedly with the dangers of adolescent use of marijuana. i think the question before us that we might be able to export today, and i hope we are able under your leadership to move further, is just the best are we going to address those issues? we have been engaged in an experiment of over 40 years of prohibition of marijuana, which has failed spectacularly. 50 million people use it annually. about half the american public, adult population, has used it. as a couple of my colleagues have referenced, a majority of americans now think it should be legal. and if you ask that question differently, if you say, should the federal government respect

the decisions of the states like we do with alcohol, that percentage goes up even higher. mr. chairman, i know that last week in your state almost 700,000 signatures were delivered that will require a vote in the fall on florida becoming the first seven state to approve medical marijuana. and recent surveys indicate about two-thirds of the population now says they support it. i've seen one survey that's much higher than that. we've talked about the costs. i think if we shift from a prohibition enforcement incarcerate and instead deal to tax and regulate, it's going to mean probably conservatively $100 billion of public dollars available over the next 10

years. it is outrageous that 8 billion people have been arrested in the last decade, and that several of my colleagues have mentioned, it is outrageous that african-american youth, primarily young man, are almost four times as likely to be arrested as white youth, even though in fact there's evidence that the white youth use marijuana as much, or more, and african-americans. and i think it was mr. cummings who referenced some of the disparities in different regions. there's some areas in louisiana where the disparity is 11 times greater for african-american youth. and i do think the administration needs to think through what a comprehensive approach should be. the president has acknowledged

what most americans know. marijuana is, well, frankly, not as dangerous to your health as tobacco. it's not as addictive. congress is also out of touch, i would suggest, because congress established the schedules that you referenced in your opening statement. according to what we have in statute, marijuana is schedule one, which puts it on par with lsd and heroin, has no medicinal properties, and is more dangerous than coke and methamphetamines. and i don't think you'll find any sheriff, any district attorney, or any health expert who would remotely suggest that that is true. we are in a situation now where there is nobody who checks the identification of an adolescent. they are not asked to prove

their age. there's no license that a drug dealer loses. mr. connolly comments about the progress that we have made with tobacco, which is highly addictive, and still kills hundreds of thousands of people a year, is significant. and i am hopeful that with the committees leadership with a look at maybe how we rationalize this, that we don't interfere with the states where 146 million people live where it's perfectly legal to buy marijuana under state laws. most of it according to votes of the people. and there are little things we can do to fix anomalies. federal law forces legitimate marijuana businesses to be entirely cash. they can get a bank account, and delivering their tax payments with shopping bags full of cash, if you care about money laundering, if you care about tax evasion and theft, is crazy.

it's just crazy. and we tax these legally authorized under state and local law businesses two and three times more heavily than we treat other businesses. i note mr. norick was, grover norquist join me in a press conference on legislation i had to fix the. mr. chairman, i appreciate you're dealing with this issue. i appreciate your courtesy and allowing me to be with you and i hope you can help shine a light and we can have this important conversation. >> thank you for joining us. just one thing i'll point out. when i showed the schedule today, and i heard the president say that congress was, had to resolve this matter, the staff in their briefings to me said that actually that we had the authority to change that without congress. that's something i want to get into with mr. botticelli and with intend to go on this, but

some good points. let me yield now to the gentleman -- also not part of the panel that came to the and, thank you, mr. cohen, from tennessee. >> thank you. for someone to thank you for allowing me to participate. i enjoyed serving you on the transportation committee, and secondly i'd like to incorpora incorporate, reference all of the things i've been said that are politically correct on this issue as if i said them. and basically i agree with most of them. and i want to thank the president. i don't think the president has been schizophrenic. the president has gone nearly as far as i like to see him go on this issue because it's a freedom issue. but the president has gone somewhat in enlightening the public as to priorities, and has to who we ran ties into laboratories of democracy. and we're on the right path --

brandeis. i would submit with all due respect to my fellows on the other side that schizophrenia, which my father was a psychiatrist and taught me something about, could be described as a party that talks about saving money all the time and being concerned with deficits and being totally driven by that, but not being concerned in saving money when people are in jail for marijuana and mandatory minimums that judges have said were awful, and for nonviolent first time offenders who are serving lifetime sentences in jail costing 30,000 a year of the populace of jails has gone up 800% in the last 30 years. that schizophrenia. your concern about costs and cutting costs but not when it is jailing a publisher i think it's schizophrenia when your state -- give power back to the states but no, it comes to them having passing laws concerning marijuana. then you not first dates initiatives and states priorities. and i think there's a certain

schizophrenia for a party that talks about civil liberties but not when it comes to personal liberties on this subject. so sometimes politics makes strange bedfellows, and whether they're in the same bed as mcmurphy or not is another issue to be discussed. mr. botticelli, your hands are tied on schedule one, but it is ludicrous, absurd, crazy to have marijuana in the same level as heroin. asked the late philip seymour hoffman, if you could. nobody dies from marijuana. people die from heroin. and every second that we spend in this country trying to enforce marijuana laws is a second that we're not enforcing heroin laws.

and heroin and meth are the two drugs that are ravaging our country. and every death, including mr. hoffman's, is partly the responsibility of the federal government's drug priorities for not putting the emphasis on the drugs that kill, the cause people to be addictive and have to steal to support their habit, and heroin and meth is where all of your priority should be. and it's not just mr. hoffman, ma a brilliant actor at 46 years of age the first winter prescription drugs and then came back to heroin. that's our two major issues i guess. i had a young friend, son of a girl i dated, who died of a heroin overdose about two years ago. i went to a party in memphis recently. not for mod with the governor spent his entire state of the state our address talking about the ravages of heroin in the state, memphis, tennessee, where for women, give or take, my age, well, maybe 15 years younger,

sometimes other's perspective, talked about heroin being a great problem among their children. and in a memphis community, and about another young man would died of heroin. heroine is getting into the arms of young people. and when we put marijuana on the same level of heroin and lsd and meth and crack and cocaine come we're telling young people not to listen to the does about the ravages and the problems, and they don't listen because they know you are wrong. because as mr. mica said, we know a lot of young people smoke marijuana. they shouldn't. young people should be being young. the most precious commodity in the world is time. young people have got lots of time. mr. mica and i don't have that much more time. that's just the realities. and when you are young, enjoy being young. playing ball, taking it easy, doing kid things and learning. you shouldn't be doing drugs, but they are.

and we need them to make sure that we keep them alive. we need to educate them, but our efforts ought to be towards meth and heroin. that's where efforts should be. edit should be scheduled to anyone who goes to jail for marijuana is a crime. when people for possession are taking their liberties away. it's a waste of money, a waste of resources. it's a crime committed by our government. there is a cultural lag in this country come in this congress and its leader. my time is expired. i think the committee for allowing me to express my so. i will participate in questioning. yield back with nonexistent the remainder of my time. >> thank the gentleman, and think each of the members for the opening statements. we will now turn to our witness at this hearing, and the witness is mr. michael botticelli, he is the deputy director of the office of national drug control policy. mr. botticelli, it is the custom and practice of our committee

and subcommittee as an investigative oversight panel incomes to swear in a witness. so if you'll stand, please, raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this subcommittee of congress is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? the witness answered in the affirmative, and we let the record reflect that. mr. botticelli, you are the only witness today so we won't hold you to much to the five, but we'll try to keep you within the. if you have additional information you would like to have submitted to the committee, the subcommittee, we would welcome that through request of the chair. and again, we thank you for your participation and we will recognize you now for your opening statement. >> chairman mica, ranking member connolly, invest in which women of the subcommittee, thank you

for this opportunity to address the public health and safety issues surrounding marijuana in the united states. my name is michael botticelli, the deputy director of the white house office of national drug control policy. before i was sworn into this position in november 2012, i was the director of the fear of substance abuse services in a massachusetts department of public health. i have over 20 years expense working in public health. i also served in a variety of leadership positions and roles for the national association of state alcohol and drug abuse directors. in addition i am proud to say one of 23 million americans who is also in long-term recovery come addictive disorders. the office of national drug control policy was established by congress in 1988 with a principal purpose of reducing illicit drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking drug related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences. we produce the national drug control strategy which is the

administration's primary blueprint for drug policy. this strategy is a 21st century plan that is based on science and research. i'm here today to testify specifically about marijuana, the considerable public health consequences associated with the drug, and ondcp's ongoing efforts to reduce and prevent its use and related consequences throughout the nation. in 2012 alone nearly 32 million americans age 12 and older reported using the drug within the past year, making it the most commonly used illicit drug in the united states. unfortunately, although overall marijuana use rates in the united states are well below what they were in the late 1970s, they have increased in recent years. since 2007 current marijuana use among americans 12 or older has increased from 520% to 7.3% in 2012, a difference of over 4 million people. while national survey indicate

that marijuana use rates among young people aged 12 to 17 has decreased from 8% in 2002 to 7% in 2012, this trend master recent increases in use among young people, particularly between 2008-2011. science tells us that his perception of marijuana, as youth perceptions of marijuana decline, their use of marijuana goes up. in data from the 2013 monitoring the future survey reveal that the perceived harm of using marijuana regularly among eighth and 10th graders is at its lowest point since the survey began collecting this information in 1991, and among high school seniors it's that the lowest since 1978. we also know that marijuana has considerable health and safety implications for users themselves, their families and our community. in 2012 approximately for .3 million americans met the diagnostic criteria for abuse or dependence on marijuana.

more than any other drug. marijuana use can have implications for learning and memory and and long-term use of marijuana begun during adolescence associate with an average eight points lower iq later in life. we are concerned about major increases in marijuana potency which is tripled over the past 30 years. the consequences of marijuana use are particularly a cute and our health care and substance abuse disorder treatment system. in 2011 marijuana was involved in nearly 456,000 emergency department visits nationwide, and a 2012 approximately 314,000 americans reported receiving treatment or marijuana use in the past year, more than any other illicit drug, and trailing only alcohol and pain relievers. these figures represent a sobering picture of this very real answers consequence. this submission has been

consistent in its opposition to attempt to legalize marijuana and other drugs. this opposition is driven by what medical science and research tells us about the drugs. we know that calls for legalization often paint an inaccurate and incomplete picture of marijuana's significant health consequences. while voters in colorado and washington voted to legalize the sale anticipation of marijuana in their state, the vote does not change the negative public health consequences of marijuana. even advocates of the law in the states acknowledge the negative public health effects and maintain that underage use should not be permitted. as you indicated, chairman come in establishing the controlled substances act, congress determined that marijuana is a harmful drug and may the illegal distribution to the sale of marijuana a serious crime. recent state laws have not change the federal status of marijuana as a schedule one controlled substance, and the department of justice responsibly to enforce the csa remains unchanged.

as the department of justice has noted, federal drug enforcement priorities, resources, prioritize and target serious crimes dealing violent crime and trafficking. the department of justice has not historically devoted resources to prosecuting individuals as condit is limited to possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use on private property. recent department of justice guidance is consistent with his position and focuses on protecting public health and safety in states and communities, a goal shared by the entire administration. office of national drug control policy strategy has were a white writer of programs to prevent illicit drug use from occurring, to treat those with substance abuse disorders and/or to avoid involvement with the criminal justice system, not to encourage criminal justices, encourages promote justice system reform to more humanely and more effectively treat those with substance abuse disorders through health interventions. to this end we supported a

variety of community prevention efforts come one such powerful tool is a drug-free committee support program, a program funded by the office of national drug control policy. coalitions across the country identified marijuana as a significant problem in their committee. recent evaluation data indicate that where dfc dollars are invested and coalitions operate, substance abuse is lower. we're working with our congressional partners on reauthorization of this vital program. our above the influence media campaign which is being transitioned to the partnership at drug-free.org is another important national tool for informing and inspiring young people to reject illicit drugs, including marijuana. we also know that there is significant to the gap in the united states. only one in 10 people to meet diagnostic criteria for success abuse disorder get care for their disorder. often that is because of lack of insurance data.

we recognize we need to provide treatment to those are dealing with the consequences of drug use. the affordable care act will expand coverage for substance-abuse disorder treatment. an estimated 27 million people previously uninsured americans will have coverage that includes substance abuse disorder benefit. in addition ondcp has identified reducing drug driving as a national priority. data from the department of transportation show that in 2009, an applicant use was reported among 25% of fatally injured drivers were tested for the presence of drugs. drugs. -- can happen. ondcp continues to work with our partners to reduce the public health effects of subsidies including marijuana. we know that there are ways to prevent and reduce substance abuse in america and we look forward to working with congress on this object. thank you. >> thank you him and will turn to questions and i'm going to yield first two mr. turner was

another obligation. >> i do have another obligation. mr. botticelli come in your statement i was ar there taken y the sentence that says the administration needs to opposed attempts to legalize marijuana and other drugs. a natural question to you is, as the office of national drug control policy been asked to weigh in on marijuana position battles that are going on in the states? yes what if i said the given and you plan to practical way in the future legislative initiatives? if you continue to oppose it, what have you done? >> our role in terms of legalization efforts has been to provide constituents at both the national state level and community level with accurate information as it relates particularly to the health be -- how do you do that? what constituents? do you put on your website or to get in touch with the decision-makers? do you engage in the dialogue that's occurring during these

debates? >> we do it through our website by putting information on swedish website. going to my next question that despite the obligation of legal dispensaries, despite the implication of what allegedly our legal dispensaries, the dea has found illegal operations and has raided several marijuana dispensers in colorado. how confident are you that 100% of the drug trade in colorado is free from the influence of drug cartel? >> sir, you know, for sure i'm the only representative at this hearing today and i would ask that you defer those questioned to either department of justice or dea. >> the only reason i ask you this question is because when you stated in your written testimony what your role was, you said it was -- let's see we are established by congress, the principal purpose of reducing, and they see the line here, drug-related crime and violence and health consequences, trafficking. so i thought you would have a

statement with respect to drug cartels. third question from what are you doing to ensure that marijuana will not be exported from legal states to illegal states? ..

>> well, begin looking back to what you described as your own charter, there was an obligation for the active role you will play and we will look forward to the conclusions. thank you. >> mr. conley? >> i would yield to the distinguished gentlemen. >> i want to discuss what a conviction for marijuana

possession means. with a conviction, you lose the right to vote, federal and financial aid and public housing assistance, future earning potential. and i live in a neighborhood where the wire was filmed. i see a lot of young men who have basically been sentenced to a life-term of not being able to move as a normal citizen would in this society. direct, let me ask you this, isn't it true that convictions for even minor non-violent drug possession have a significant negative affect on an individual, their family and nation? would you agree with that? >> i would and by way of

context, the former police chief in buffalo and seattle took this position. he made it clear that we cannot arrest our way out of the problem. we need to have a robust strategy, reflect on it, prevention, intervention and a series of treatment to divert people away from this problem. i was in massachusetts as a director. we are shifting away from the war on drugs approach and looking at this like a public health issue particularly as it relates to the health issue and drug use. part of the role of the office is looking at what is the impairment mean in terms of their ability to have a vibrant

life in the community and seek meaningful employment and housing. so we have been focusing on actions to tear down those barriers. you will find them reflected in our strategy and making sure we are not dealing just with this as a public safety issue but treatment and recovery support and looking at smart criminal justice reforms to make sure we are not incarcerating people for low-level non-violent offenders. the department of justice has been supporting many states around justice reinvestment and are understanding from an economic and humane perspective we cannot continue to incarcerate our way out of this. >> how do you interact with the justice department? and with regard to when you got

some states saying recreational drugs you can purchase them and most states saying you go to jail. how do you -- and i think that is what this hearing was trying to get to. where are we going with that because it just seems so unfair that you would have a situation like this. i see people that are affected by these laws every day. i am concerned very much so on the other hand. and mr. michael remembers this from the subcommittee we were on and we are both concerned about the effects of marijuana. how do you strike that balance? >> i would say representative that is the entire position of

our strategy. it isn't war on drugs, arrest people and send them to jail and legalize is the silver bullet. we believe in a balanced approach that deals with this as a public health issue. the primary way doing that would be setting the national drug strategy and that is translated to congress and a big part is about smart criminal justice and not incarcerating or arresting people for low level use but making sure folks have access to a wide variety of public interest intervention. >> when a person gets a record, they are doomed for life. so it isn't just the

incarceration. i see my time is up. >> if the distinguished ranking member would yield? >> of course. >> you and i worked another on the problems of people being able to cast a vote. is it not true among the things that affect them for life it will affect them voting as well? >> yes. >> you are the deputy director of the national drug control policy and that office is under the whitehouse, right? when the president said -- where is the statement. referring to marijuana as more dangerous than alcohol -- what was your reaction? >> i think the administration's policy is consistent. >> but he is the chief executive and the office that you are in

was setup under the whitehouse to report to the president and he just got through saying it is dangerous and we continue to spend resources to try to stop children and others. you always said since the beginning of 2007 to most recent statistics we have seen an increase in ad les -- abuse -- and the president said it is forward to go forward because it is important for society not to have a situation where a large portion of people have broken the law and only a few are punished. this is in conflict with what you were doing; using taxpayer dollars avoid. you also testified 314,000 -- is that in treatment for marijuana?

which is only surpassed by alcohol abuse. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> we have more use. is there anybody here that wants to legalize this for adolescents? i don't think so. but we are getting more hooked and the president comes out with this statement and i am afraid, too, we have gone from just say no and then we had i didn't inhale and now it is just say maybe or go ahead. our youth where the most impressionable. i remember turning to political consultant, one of the best in the business, dick morris, and i worked on campaigns with him. and i said dick morris lost his brother to substance abuse, i believe. and dick was convinced that the

way to change public opinion was with ads. you can change public opinion in that regard and that is where we launched some ads and were originally trying to get the media, which is as slack as you can get, in putting up ads even though we control the airways. but the deal with clinton was half paid and half donated time. are we still doing those ads to influence public opinion? and now we have e-mails and twitter and texting. are we paying taxpayers' money to use those techniques that are supposed to be the most effe

effective to try to curtail adolescents? >> our office uses a wide variety of largely social media techniques. >> have we dropped going after marijuana? do we have any ads on marijuana? we have done a great job on tobacco particularly in the last few years. but what about marijuana? >> i have been doing prevention work for a long time in a variety of areas. in massachusetts, tobacco control and substance abuse is under my authority. and what we know in terms of prevention signs is we have to focus on resistance skills. >> you are not answering my question. is the united states of america, under the office of national drug control policy, or any

programs you are with, that are advertising the change the behavior of adolescents in regard to marijuana today? >> we are. >> maybe you could provide us with copies. i would like to see what we are doing because the law is going in a different way in some of the states. we have not even gotten into the conflict of using law enfor enforcement resources and raiding states where it is not federally legal. i am concerned with the trend with young people. i am not sure where we will go with this whole thing. mr. connelly has his reasons and there is the medical marijuana, the recreational, and the legalation use. but we have the most schizophrenic policy i have ever

seen as far as dealing with a social issue. and again with laws that are in conflict with public spending which is in great conflict. >> one thing i can say in terms of the public information and the drug-free communities programs that have evaluations in their success independently. through the coalition and the independent evaluation we have been able to make significant progress. we have evidence of effecti effectiveness of a wide variety of prevention programs. our work -- >> we have had some successes. but i don't know how much money we have been spending. we will find that out for the record. doesn't sound like we had much success. you testified an increase in some categories, large numbers

in treatment, and the icing on the cake is by the way our new health care covers it. once you get to treatment you are pretty bad off. let me ask you a question mr. cummings and i chaired the subcommittee and everyone coming before us said marijuana is a gateway drug. most people who go to the harder drugs start up with marijuana. is that still the case? or did that change? are they going straight to other drugs now? >> let me respond to a number of questions you raised. first for foremost we have made progress in many areas. reduction in youth use of alcohol, reductions in cocaine and prescription drug use. so where we -- and those are

direct areas of focus for our national drug control policy. >> i met with my local police officers for breakfast last week and they said it isn't getting any better. looks like some of the deaths have dropped but that is only because they have better treatment. but the incidences are up. and because there is not much risk, it is socially acceptable to go to marijuana, but the kids are also shifting -- the adult population is shifting bangladebanck to methamphetamines and prescription drugs are spiraling out of control. >> your point in terms of the increase in marijuana use is particular important. if you talk to the director the

national institute on drug abuse, we support most of the world's major research as it relates to drug and drug-related issues. she will tell you prevention signs tell us when people see thinks as less risky, that you are more likely to do it. one reason we had success with tobacco is kids see it as risky and unfortunately kids no longer see the -- the vast majority -- of kids don't see it as risky. >> and the president statement's didn't help saying it is no different than alcohol. again, we have the -- i am only reciting what others have said the dea chief said last wednesday it was called the legalization of marijuana at the

state level reckless and irresponsible warning the movement to decriminalize pot in the united states will have serious consequences. do you agree on that? >> our administration hasn't changed the position. >> you agree? >> the president indicated this is a public health challenge and that is how we should deal with it. >> again, the president -- i didn't start this. the president made his comments and now you have agencies including yourself under the president saying something different than what we are hearing. so with that, let me go -- mr. connelly because you yielded. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome.ny because you yielded. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome.y because you yielded. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome.

to this point about the president's statement, besides if he should or shouldn't have made it, how many people die from marijuana overdoses over year? >> i don't know. i know it is very rare. >> just contrast that. prescription drugs, unintentional deaths from prescription deaths, one american dies every 19 minutes. nothing close to marijuana. alcohol has hundreds of thousands of people dying from

automobile accidents, liver disease, blood poisoning; is that correct? >> i think the way that you have to look at this is that the totality of harm associated with a substance. and saying because marijuana doesn't have the lethal and overdose potential that heroin or alcohol does takes away the significant health consequences associated with the drug. >> i guess i am sticking with the president, the head of your administration, who was making a different point. he was making a point that is true. it isn't a statement marijuana is good or bad but was contrasting it with and he is correct. >> the administration's point hasn't changed. >> i am not asking that question. >> when you look at alcohol and

substance abuse or marijuana we have to look at this as a public health related issue. i have to say this morning -- >> no, i am asking the questions. i am directing you to answer them. if you want to add your opinion, fine. but is it not a scientific fact that there is nothing even close to marijuana, and i am not saying good or bad, but when we look at deaths and illnesses, alcohol and other hard drugs even prescription drugs are a threat in a way that is isolated and marijuana is not. isn't that a scientific fact? or do you dispute that? >> no, i don't dispute. but may i continue? >> i hear bricks being thrown at the president like he did something reckless and my view was he was trying to put this in

prospective because some states have decided to go down a different path. my friends on the other side of the aisle are all for state rights when it comes to guns or gay marriage but they have no business in the drug issue? i look at the war on drugs and it looks like public opinion has shifted. 20 states allow medical marijuana and two states just voted to legalize, regulate and tax the recreational use of marijuana. that is almost half the country. it seems to me -- and if you look at poland. in 1969, when the war on drugs began, 12% of the population supported legalizing marijuana. that same percentage today is

52%. that is a huge change in public opinion given the just say no efforts and the psa's on television and radio and newspaper and trying to make sure we highlighted how dangerous drug use is, why do you think public opinion shifted on the issue of marijuana? >> i am not sure the public is getting a fair and accurate view particularly as it relates to the public health consequences of marijuana. i think it has been portrayed as a benign substance and i don't think they have information to understand the magnitude of the issue. so i think that is part of the issue. when clearly and we have seen this with other substances with prescription drug abuse that when people see something that

is legal, when they see it is often prescribed by a physician, they see it as benign and not harmful. it isn't a surprise to see the change in public perception. >> let me pick up on that point. this issue of is it a gateway drug. is there empirical evidence this is a use of moving on to harder substances? >> we know the earlier, and particular adolescents, who use marijuana the more likely they are to develop a dependence and go on to have significant issue. if you look at the folks with the opiate disorder or heroin they will tell you and you will see they started with early

tobacco, early alcohol and early marijuana use. >> but wait a minute. that is a logical fallacy. yes, that is true. but that begs the question and fact that millions of americans have used marijuana and didn't go to all of those other drugs. so we have to separate the addictive personality from the recreational use. i am a child from the '60s and i am leery of legalizing drugs. but the war on drugs doesn't look like it worked in public opinion and in demand. whereas other campaigns like the tobacco one worked. so maybe we could learn from that as opposed to

incarcerating, especially minority populations in the country, and that doesn't seem to work as well. >> representative connolly, i think focusing on marijuana as a gateway drugs takes away the harmful substance. many people use alcohol and don't get addicted but doesn't mean there is not harm. we know 1-9 people who use marijuana go on to develop a dependency but we know there are health consequences with marijuana use in general and particularly with adolescents and young adults. the national institute of development shows the youth brain develops until 25 and marijuana use has significant effects. we are talking about marijuana

use in general. i think you have to look at not just the people developing addictive disorders but look at the totality of harm. think about the number of people that use marijuana and get in fatal car accidents. they may not have an addictive disorder but their marijuana use has significant health concerns. >> the problem with that logic is it takes us where we are today. fills up the prisons even when it is really a small amount of possession and where the affect is we treat someone no different than if they treated a violent crime and those in equities on the consequence of treating marijuana the way you described. >> we have tried to move away from the war on drugs and arresting and incarcerating.

we believe there is a balanced approach here. not legalization that has intended consequences and not a war on drugs but dealing with this as a public health related issue and using criminal justice reforms to make sure we are not arresting and incarcerating. our position focuses on the middle ground in terms of innovative justice reforms and dealing with this as a public health issue. >> let me yield to the gentlemen from illinois mr. davis. >> thank you very much. i think you partially answered the question because as we continue this discussion could you refresh for me just what the purpose and mission of the

office on drug control policy is? >> sure. we were established by congress in 1988 with the authority of really setting the administrations national drug control strategy. we produced that strategy and send it to congress every year. it is a blue print for how the administration is going to handle drug-related issues and looking at the government approach of how we are dealing. each agency has a role to play and looking at the budget and making sure they are aligning that with the strategy. it sets the drug control policy, looks at priorities and looks at interaction as it relates to how they are going to implement those drug control strategy. >> do you make recommendations

to agencies and to congress and to the public in general? >> the express purpose is looking at how the federal government is going to respond and how our policy is related and how other agencies align their work with those policies. >> we heard a great deal of discussion relative to disparities among population groups relative to arrest and the judicial process. would the agency have any position on any of that? or will it have any recommendations based upon what we just heard about disparities and arrest and the judicial

process? >> when you look at the 2009 strategy it focuses on a wide variety of justice reforms and looking at how we are diverting people from the criminal justice system. we have been promoting the expansion of drug courts in the united states. so we have 2700 drug courts in the united states that are diverting people away from incarceration and giving them treatment along with accountability of those issues. we have been focusing on things like taking down the barriers for people to get jobs and smart probation efforts. we have been trying to implement a wide variety of criminal justice programs that look at moving people away from the criminal justice system.

i think the other piece is looking at the early health strategy and the goal is not intervene early and minimize the chances that people are going to int intersect with the criminal justice system. we have not dealt with these issues earlier so we want to prevent them from happening. so that is part of our policy position in terms of coming up with alternatives for incarceration. >> would you see legalization perhaps as an asset in terms of the reduction of need for drug courts? >> again, you know, i don't see that. we don't see that as an affect when we look at legalization.

our concerns about legalization is we will see an increase in problematic use and might need more drug courts. i don't think it takes away the need for those kinds of services and might have an opposite effect in terms of greater impact and need. >> thank you very much. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate this and found the conversation to be useful and i think you are highlighting the wide range of issues on people's mind. how many marijuana overdose deaths were there in the most recent year you have available? >> to my knowledge i don't know if there have been instances of

specific overdoses. >> you talked about marijuana death. i am not trying to trap you. how many marijuana deaths have there been in the last five years? >> i am not sure of overdoses. >> stop then. i would like to have you supply us with how many overdose deaths there were. because i heard from experts whose judgment i respect that they don't know any. and that would be important for you to provide. what is more dangerous and addictive? methamphetamines and cocaine or marijuana? >> so, you know, i don't think anyone would dispute the fact there is relative toxicity related to those drugs. >> i asked what is more dangerous and what is more

addictive cocaine and meth or marijuana? pretty simple. >> i think that conversation minimizes the harm -- >> i am not trying to minimize the harm. i want to know which is more dangerous and addictive. >> again, i go back -- >> you don't know? >> as a public health person, one of the things we look at isn't what is the relative risk of one drug. >> let me tell you, i think being unable to answer something clearly and definitively when there is unquestioned evidence to the contrary is why young people don't believe the propaganda and think it is benign. if a professional like you can't answer clearly that meth is more dangerous than marijuana, which every kid on the street knows, and every paint knows, if you

cannot answer that maybe that is why we are failing to educate people about the dangers? i don't want kids smoking marijuana. i agree with the chairman. but if the deputy director of the office of drug policy can't answer that question how do you expect high school kids to take your seriously? >> representative, i didn't mean to be disrespective or indicate there is not different degrees of toxicity. >> you, sir, represent what is part of the problem. >> that is not what i'm saying. >> what kills more people -- tobacco or marijuana? >> there has been a fair amount of tobacco-associated deaths.

the reason i am hesitating to answer the questions about relative risk is i think the conversation gets distorted that there is no risk. >> let me suggest that your inability to answer me, whether tobacco or marijuana is more dangerous, again is part of the problem. mr. connolly documented that we have been able to drop dramatically tobacco use. and it kills more people than marijuana if you don't know that. but we have been able to drop that without locking people up or arresting. this administration has seen 3-4 million people arrested for marijuana since it has been in

office. and yet we have been able to drop tobacco use without being pushy. we have been using fact-based advertising and focused on things that matter rather than things that don't work. and i respectfully suggest you and the department take a step back. if you are concerned you think people think marijuana is benign and part of the reason is drug associates can't communicate the same way. i am not trying to trap you but i am discouraged by your ability to answer. >> i spend the bulk of my morning with a number of parents from across the country who are

doing everything they can to prevent drug use. many of them have kids who died of an overdose and idea them what can the federal government be doing in terms of preventing substance abuse and tragedy. and they told me they cannot understand why states are moving to medical marijuana and legal marijuana. they cannot understand it. because they understand from an acute level the message that legalization sends them. and these are -- this isn't from a bureaucrat in washington. this is parents who struggle on a daily bases and have been devastated by addiction in their kids and understand in a very dramatic and real way that legalizing marijuana sends the absolute wrong message to our youth. >> i thank the gentlemen and we

will recognize the gentlemen from tennessee now. >> thank you. with all due respect, you should be listening to scientist. i understand the parents who are grieving because their child died of an overdose. they didn't overdose on marijuana. you are listening to them rather than the scientist? it may go back to a few good men, the movie, jack nickelson, and you cannot handle the truth. the truth is the drug war failed. your direction on marijuana is a failure. get to dealing and saving kids from heroin overdoses. my young 22-year-old friend died of a heroin overdose. we smoked marijuana but that is not why he shot heroin. maybe he did it because he heard people like you saying they are all bad and you cannot deal with the truth and say marijuana doesn't kill you.

heroin does and meth does. they are different. and until you deal with the truth the kids are not going to believe you at all. you talked about alcohol and you may have gotten to this. the liver issues are serious, violence against spouses is serious. people don't smoke marijuana and beat up their wives and girlfriends. when they get drunk sometimes they do. and i know you have your statistics and i will debate them. if you get into the statistics about the amount of people with marijuana in their system who had fatal accidents i would submit they had other drugs like cocaine or crack or alcohol and marijuana wasn't the cause. people that smoke marijuana drive slower and look out for the cops. they are not driving fast and wild like people do on alcohol and cause deaths.

maybe the reason there are so many more people smoking marijuana now is because they are not listening and they have doing the other drugs, too, maybe but the drug war has been a failure. a serious failure. harry annslinger -- do you know who that is? >> i don't. >> he is your great grandfather. he started this war in the '30s and did it because the american public had problems, and sometimes we do have them, with hispanics coming in the country. that is when they made marijuana illegal and it was all directed at those people. latinos are just as much discriminated against in arrest. the fact we spend so much time

arresting people is sinful. you cannot name one person that died of a marijuana overdose? >> not to my knowledge. >> and do you know people possibly or heard of people that smoked marijuana who are corporate giants and run corporations? do you know about those people? >> but i know a lot of people who have gone on to develop significant disorders that smoke marijuana. 1-9 people develop a dependency and we know that particular those kids that use it earlier. >> kids shouldn't use it ever. at age 18, people shouldn't be arrested for it. maybe it should be 21. but kids shouldn't use it.

that is something we all agree on. but the fath is we need to put priorities toward heroin and meth. what percentage of your budget goes toward heroin addiction? >> we don't slice the demand reduction budget based on drugs. our prevention efforts are focused on preventing drug use. >> isn't that a mistake when people die from great numbers due to heroin and we don't distinguish and try to save people's lives? when you knock people over at the corner store it isn't to buy a donut because you are high it is because you are hooked on heroin. >> we acknowledged the opium epidemic we have in the united states and in 2011 we released a

plan that dealt with opiates and prescription drugs. >> i corresponded in 2011 and back then it was said there was no particular medical use. to date the fda and the institute of medicine hasn't found smoked marijuana to be affective for any medical condition. i think that medical association have. are you not aware of the people that smoke to get through cancer treatment? >> i do. it isn't our position to arrest people who have been using medical marijuana. i think it is important for us, and again, unfortunately the fda isn't here, it is the fda process that determines the scientific ethnicity. >> i had a buddy who was a seal

and he died of pancreatic cancer and his family said it was the only thing at the end that made him eat and smile. >> that is the our role: relying on the science. i think i would ask the chairman to invite the director of the national institute of drug abuse. we are a science-based office and if you listen to the director who is not involved in the substance abuse and marijuana issues she will lay it out. >> you were prohibited from law from using funds to study marijuana. you are the only office in the federal government that is restricted and you are required to oppose any rescheduling of

one drugs. are you troubled by the strengths and don't you think cra your opinion should be used to study and classify drugs? >> congress put that language in the reauthorization. >> would you support legislation to allow to voice your opinion and use science as a bases for your determination? >> i would support that federal agencies have the ability to do that >> yours is prohibited by law. should that restriction not be lifted? >> i think we would have to have further conversations. >> you think you should be muzzled? >> i think it is important be don't involve ourselves in giving agenda or legislation. >> but the totality of the drug

world needs you to participate and if you realize medical marijuana, like 20 states found, helps people with cancer and other diseases, you should be able to participate and set the drug policy straight. you should have a sane drug policy but muzzled and handcuffed. >> that hasn't handcuffed other offices and other federal agencies who are tasked with that. >> in 1971 congress created a commission to study federal marijuana policy and that commission came out in favor of decriminalization. would you support a new commission to study federal marijuana policy? >> i have not seen that legislation and i would be happy to see. >> it is a concept. >> we would be happy to have a conversation in terms of what that might look like.

>> i thank the gentlemen and we will additional questions as some members were not able to attend today and we didn't get to some responses from the witnesses that we would like. without objection we will leave the record open for two weeks and submit to you some questions and we ask for a written response. again, i think this is our first hearing. we may have a series. you suggested additional witnesses and we are going to try to work with the majority and witnesses they request. i think this is a serious issue and shows a conflict between feder federal and state and local laws and huge amounts of money we

spend at the federal level raise issues about enforcement, education, and prevention programs and other worth while efforts we have to try to keep substance abuse problems under control. being no further business on government operations this hearing is adjourned. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [inaudible discussions]

here is a look at what is ahead: today's edition of "washington journal" is up next. and then a congressional hearing looking at extreme weather events. and later on another one discussing the safety and regulation of e-cigarettes. here is a look at some of the prime time programming. more booktv tonight discussing poverty tonight. and american history tonight with the theme dropping atomic bomb and how president truman came to the decision to employ the weapon. and a special look back at the congressional hearing dealing with the irs targeting investigation.

this weekend special programming on the cspan networks. friday night, native american history and saturday a debate on scottish independence. and book tv in prime time on friday we go in-depth with ron paul and then afterwards with william burrows talking about his book the asteroid threat. and on american history tv on c-span3, friday a nasa movie about the apollo landing. and linden johnson's speech from the convention. and a look at the legal laws and

precedent of bush versus gore. find our television programming at cspan.org. or call us and let us know how it is going. twitter or facebook us. like us on facebook and following us on twitter. join in the conversation. >> today's edition of "washington journal." we asked viewers if they thought president obama should consult with congress before airstrikes in syria. and we took a look at the headlines. this is just over 40 minutes. >> host: we will begin with usa today and their headline of obama weighing airstrikes in syria to combat isis. he spent the first day back from vacation weighing options that

now include airstrikes in syria. martin dempsey is preparing options for the president to address militants in iraq and syria with a variety of tools including airstrikes. that came from a pentagon spokesperson. and josh ernest was questioned by reporters about the airstrike option and if he would go to congress for the approval. >> i am not talk about what is required if the president were to make a specific decision one way or the other. the president thus far hasn't made a decision to order additi additional military action in syria. that said the president is committed and remains that way as he has throughout this situation and advance of