know when you look at the countries that have a post up chandra issue the united states, canada, it is about relative access to health care. and i think part of what we have offered quite honestly to the rest of the country thinking about how they give good medicine to people who really need them is to basically keep them lessons learned from us and say we think that there are lessons we have learned about how you can minimize some of the abuse issues as you think about how you implement the public health practice and think about the clinician guidelines and care to make sure people do get really good access to pain medications when they need them. as we have often offered some kind of opportunities and cautionary words for other countries as they think about and try to look at access to health care and medications to

do this in a way that doesn't replicate i think things that have happened here. >> is this an area where there is potential progress? >> i would want to qualify that. do keep in mind prescription drugs are completely come absolutely and totally permitted under the three international drug control as you would expect them to be that is the one area where you would stick to be allowed to do is be as particular products. that is to say a trained and licensed physician who determines that this particular medication is required or called for or indicated for a particular medical condition. the problem obviously then the conventions themselves as well as the bodies that provide the

guidance to the united nations system as well as our own government are attempting to limit, control and ideally eliminate the abuse and diversion of those prescription drugs. could they come up with ideas in terms of how better to do that? i suppose so but again this is where i come back to you with my closing comment of let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. at the end of the day i believe and i hope what we are all looking for is a solution and outcome where qualified professional physicians are making a determination as to when certain products should be used as medication and not to take them out of this formula. and when we moved to the licensed physicians, we move to an area that for the last 60

70, 80 years has definitely fallen into the national systems. one physician licensing system may be very different from another. is it an area for possible consideration, yes. but it's not going to be a simple issue is what i would suggest. >> let's talk a little bit about marijuana and cannabis created you mentioned your continued concern about harm. we are in a fragmented moment. we have states that are moving ahead with legalized recreational use. we have a number of states that have already put in place the medical use. there is the existing federal law and the tension that exists between what is happening in colorado, washington oregon, a bdc. the tension between that and the conventions. so it seems to be somewhat a mixed picture and one where you have the president saying we

need this as part of a criminal justice reform issue. this is one about the nonviolent offenders. it's about shifting to a public health approach but there is a deep ambivalence running through all these discussions. can you say a bit more about that and how do you navigate back as the leader in this area? >> i think there are a couple dimensions that are important. when you look at the president's comments he is talking about this in the criminal justice context that we can't continue down this path of arresting and incarcerating particularly kids of color in the impact we see. agree with that as it relates to drug policy. but when you look at kind of what the impact of legalization might attend for us -- not just legalization but they also have significant concern with the commercialization of marijuana. having done public-health for a

public health for a long time, i think that we see quite honestly the industry using some of the same tactics that the tic-tac-toe industry has used -- tobacco industry. some of the disclosure that the health harms associated with marijuana. i think some sense of the tightly regulated market isn't going to increase access to youth. we now have more youth in the country that smoked marijuana and tobacco and we clearly know the health harms associated with marijuana as it relates to the youth. not quite honestly portraying the substance as addictive when clearly we know that it is. so there is a significant. this is where we come from in terms of the unanimity of the policy. that said, it is also made clear that with the department of justice monitoring this she's

keeping a close eye on what is happening in colorado and washington and the men only about eight criteria for colorado and washington with a broad array of public health and safety that they needed to be held need to be held accountable in terms of mitigating harm. >> it is the department of justice. >> basically it said we are not preempting the referendum in colorado but reserving the right to take subsequent action based on our monitoring of eight criteria. again, public health, public safety criteria and that will continue to monitor the situation and reserved the right to take subsequent action based on those criteria. so our office -- again, i don't want to speak on both sides of my mouth. if we are science and data driven we need to be science and data driven. so these are largely publicly available data sets as well as work with the national institute of drug abuse is looking at colorado and washington and what has been the impact.

i think quite honestly it is too soon to tell in terms of what those issues mean. i think colorado by its node. co-owner acknowledgment we need to really ratchet up back. again it's really important for us to continue to oppose legalization and monitor what is happening in colorado and in subsequent state. >> how soon do you think we will be able because a lot of them want to wait and see what happens and there is an ambivalence among thoughtful people. people come down on this issue in a number of ways. so how soon are people going to be able to make judgments about the wisdom and the merits in colorado and washington and what will be the key criteria? >> we do not intend to issue a level of the definitive report saying it worked when it didn't. part of it is the commitment to continue to roll out public

data. these are existing data sets that look at things like the youth usage and looks at things like treatment admission and things like drug driving episodes and the diversion of marijuana from one state to another. so part of what we feel that responsibility is to make available those data set to allow people to make a determination kind of on what they think the impact is. so it is not our intention to issue this definitive report to say yes it works or no it doesn't. >> i want to jump in on this because what michael has laid out quite correctly is the united states of america's approach to marijuana and the larger legalization issue and i believe that is exactly right and correct as i understand in 1776 we decided we govern ourselves thank you very much

into and sometime around 88 he decided the system that we would do it and we got the state and federal government and i have no problem with this whatsoever. but bear with me on this please. we have also ratified three international drug control conventions and in two of those conventions, marijuana is placed in the annex of the prescribed product which the national government is expected to control and to the extent possible prohibit except for in very limited examples. my task as your representative, what you paid me to do is to march out to those international organizations and explain to them how everything that steve and michael have just talked about still leaves us in compliance with our international obligations. now this is a little bit tricky and i would remind all of you

that most governments in the world continue to have fairly strong views on cannabis and the oversight bodies the united nations of which we are a member have set up particularly the international narcotics board has been pretty clear i would even say at times severe with me in terms of not accepting the argument that we are in full and complete compliance and this is what i was talking about earlier on in terms of saying we are an independent sovereign nation and we will make around decisions and determinations. we are governed by our constitution thank you very much but please work with me ladies and gentlemen as we figure out how to project those national realities into the international community. sorry, i got carried away. >> i know that is probably one of the more difficult things to

explain because it isn't obvious how you reconcile those things and that's just the nature of the diplomatic predicament. >> texans are very good at this sort of thing. >> let's talk just for a second about the harm reduction in the therapy and needle and syringe exchange all of which are highly sensitive and divisive issues but ones which many are arguing me to be pushed forward as an element both at the domestic and international context. can you say of it? >> for as long as i've been doing this work it means so many different things to so many different people. if we are talking about a wide variety of interventions, pretty active users that minimize the health harms they're using of it.

>> so is it a semantic issue? >> the meaning of it is not uncomfortable. i think what is hard from the policy perspective is where do we draw the line on those policies that we support and of those that we are continuing to look at. so again we have always supported the change programs. we continue to support overdose prevention education programs. and a wide variety of other activity. it's interesting to me that in the kind of international world a look at medication as a treatment of the harm reduction therapy that doesn't quite square away with me. we look at it as a valid treatment approach. part of what we laid out yesterday was the president's budget budget and strengthening the united states effort for access to the treatments of these are the most highly evaluated medications that we have. so, we do support a wide variety

of interventions that diminish the health harms associated and quite honestly the mortality associated with the injection drug use. >> i agree not presently 100% with michael. this entire area of discussion falls absolutely squarely into what i would call the public health complex which we urge accept agree, support, plead with and vote for enhanced consideration in the international context. this is a good area for discussion. i do not say that we should agree with every single proposal that comes in under the label of harm reduction. i do say this is a valid issue for 194 member states and the united nations to discuss in the context of the formal structure

of the united nations and in the context of their individual national drug control policy's. this is an area where i do believe the nations of the world should be able to reach some useful conclusions as i might add the oas states did in september of last year in guatemala city when they discuss public health in their final declaration as an area where the 34 states of the western hemisphere agreed we should address and focus efforts as we addressed the drug use. >> weekend expect u.s. leadership as we head towards a special session to put a special and this is? >> sure. >> what you described in the session suggests that there's

proof already with some action in that area. >> actually, we probably don't want to have a technical discussion at this particular point in time. it would get half the people in the room a headache and the other four would fall asleep, but i would suggest that the united states of america has placed itself more or less in a position where it can influence the dialogue in the future because it has associated itself with neither of the two extremes. either those that espoused a the full prohibition in other words woke them up if they they so much as think about it or if you think they might think about it or the other extreme, those who say let's just legalize everything and the entire problem with go away we have

placed ourselves in a position where we can influence and i would like to think help produce at least a majority if not consensus in this area and this would be an area malaria again this sweet little ground we are going to put all of our energies, looking ahead what are the three or four things you want to take away from the special session in terms of practical advances in that middle zone about are the concrete things where you make use of the existing flexibilities to push the rest of the world to see things more in the way that we want to see them? >> i don't want to see people should see things the way we want to see them. the way that we described this as is we should find some common ground at all hundred 94 member states of the united nations can accept. let's keep the basic architecture that we have in the three international drug control

preventions in terms of resisting the large transnational criminal organization. my guess is ten people and the al gore that we can come up with 50 different proposals on public health. it is a logical and coherent way but it's not going to require. it's developed over the last 70 years a tradition to upgrade by consensus. and what does consensus mean?

it means any individual government can basically start an initiative if it feels strongly about it. what this says to a person like me that must operate in that system is i've got to find proposals, ideas concepts that will be acceptable to some governments that are still executing drug traffickers and other governments who have completely legalized entire categories of products. i've come up and suggested to with and suggested to some of those ideas earlier today. sentencing reform in terms of how many life sentences do you have to serve for this purpose alternatives to the incarceration, education process that are different or separate from the criminal justice system. these are the sort of areas where i would like to think we can find and develop some degree

of consensus. but i do want to make it clear to everyone here that this isn't going to be easy if it were just us the brilliant 100 people or so that are sitting in this room right now by 5:00 this afternoon we could have a perfect document to come out of the special session in the united nations in 2016. we truly cut. could. but we are operating under a very different set of rules and that sadly is part of the reality that i was trying to describe. if you think michael had a complicated situation from time to time of trying to keep some coherence among the 50 states in the union plus the district of columbia, ladies and gentlemen, may i repeat 196 individual states and the united nations that operate by consensus under those circumstances i would've

traded jobs with him any day of the week. >> thank you. i would like to open the floor for comments. my question to you is what more do you need or believe in terms of the tools or the capacity to carry forward the mission which is so expansive and has very high ambitions attached to it and you're in the process of multiple transitions of outlook and paradigms and partnerships. it's striking reading through all of the policy materials that were generated and it is a very dynamic environment that you are trying to shape in multiple places around the country. so where you sit and what more you were to wish for an

additional set of the capacities and the tools what would those be quick >> -- and the government for so long no one has given me a blank check before on what would you do. i think a couple things. and one i will start with continuing to change the public perception as a really big area. one of the areas people don't seek treatment is that it is still in the stigma. it would change how people are able to communicate and mobilize. >> i would love to see a more vibrant recovery movement in the same way that we have had movements in other areas that have changed public policy. so i think that's changing and people are beginning to come together and have a vibrant movement on this because i do think that becomes really

helpful. the second piece, and i do the leave that with one of the things we have here in the united states is that we shared resource across the country. we lead the world in research as it relates to good evidence-based programming and i think that we need to continue to focus on good evidence-based programs particularly as it relates to this criminal justice health care intervention. we have emerging models and a good few things out there. but we need to make the case and also i think to hand over to the law enforcement folks to see here are some good things. we have a few of those out there. drug courts are great but we don't want people having their records on that. the drug market interventions are promising and have other promising practices that are building. so we need a better system of how can we have a different

criminal justice response to these issues. so those would be two things. resources are always important and the other piece that i will say having done this work for a long time the vast majority of treatment quite honestly comes from the public dollar and the private veterans needs to step up dramatically in terms of how they provide a good benefit package for the substance abuse disorders. >> what would make your job easier in terms of the capacity and tools? >> my budget for the operation programs activities overseas and having a single coherent and consensus position by the united states of america in terms of our drug policy. neither one of those is very likely in the course of my entire lifetime. i would say at the end of the day what would be most useful in this area would be an approach

where there is some degree of consensus within the united states of america that so long as we stay in the basic parameters. in the standards and agreements to cooperate and engage bilateral, regional around the world. this is what i'm trying to do i am trying to do when i testify and before congress and meet with individual members. the general reduction in which we are trying to go so that this issue doesn't get caught up in a

sort of the sort of political dialogue that makes it very difficult for us to get things done internationally. >> let's open up for some comments and questions and we will bundle the fee is to gather >> congratulations on the treatment world heading to the law-enforcement world. you talk a lot about the administration position on marijuana and its continued opposition to legalization. nevertheless, the president has also said that it's important that washington and colorado and other states choose to regulate marijuana are allowed to implement and move forward and

the department of justice issued guidance saying that as long as these priorities are and being implicated, then the department of justice will not intervene. it's gone down in colorado so my question is do you agree with the administration position that they should be permitted to determine their own marijuana law or would you prefer to see the federal government imposed a federal law on all states prohibition of marijuana even in the states that would pay for the new approach with >> i would like to bundle together three or four. >> in the drug war chronicle newsletter there is an issue that lies at the intersection of our cooperation with other countries and drug enforcement on the one hand and human rights and criminal justice on the other hand.

not every country shares our human rights standards and criminal justice. for example, we do not have the death penalty for drug offenses that don't involve violence like some countries do. there are international tensions right now following the execution in indonesia of the six convicted drug traffickers with thousands more in execution on the way and a number of countries brought their ambassadors and they opened a branch office in jakarta in 2011. one of many such offices around the world to collaborate with indonesia and many countries that have the death penalty for drug offenses. and so my question is as we move forward on the criminal justice reform in the u.s. and seek to

exploit that philosophy in our diplomatic relations is reform also going to be operational in helping enforcement and sharing intelligence or is only going to be at the policy level for example are we asking countries that we work with in the drug enforcement to give us assurances in what we contribute to them will directly lead to executions for the nonviolent offense. >> thank you. are there other hands in the back? we can take these two gentleman right here. >> detective howard from law enforcement against prohibition. you said earlier in your remarks that law enforcement played a key component. i started police work in 1974 and i have seen tsunamis of drugs coming to come into this country. marijuana, lsd cocaine ecstasy

and now heroine is double. and it's my experience as a police officer that we have been the mosquito on the part of an elephant. drugs today are cheaper stronger" into the dea drugs are readily available to america's youth. my question is why do you continue to have faith that my profession could have any impact on the drug trade either nationally or internationally in the drug trafficking organizations are the al capone of the 20th century and i know that the only way we took down al capone and the rest is obviously to end prohibition. >> over here and then we will hear from you and come back. >> by company i work for is not involved in this that i am also part of president obama presidential partners and members of the human rights campaign. my question is in getting the

cooperation of the u.s. congress to move towards the sweet spot you described would make his life easier. leaving aside the probable that he is getting 67 votes is this an issue in which the cooperation could be relatively bipartisan rather than split along party lines? ..

>> what's our response here as kind of other states think about doing this? i would say two things. i would agree that many states are very, very interested in terms of what's happening in colorado and washington as they think about how they're going to move forward with this. you know, i think you know that either the department of justice as it relates to what they've issued with colorado and washington have a same approach with oregon and alaska around this. and again, i think our response to this is to continue to monitor what happens in colorado and washington and in subsequent states to see, one, kind of -- if there needs to be a different response from the department of justice and from this administration, or to see if there are -- and what that might be. so does it need tighter regulations, or what are the possible options that the department of justice can take if it looks as if that those

criteria are not being met? so, you know i think it's important to do that. you know the president as it related to the department -- as it relates to the district, i think, was very clear that the district should stick to its home rule. as a resident of that district, i might not agree about legalization, i but i do agree with our own ability to spend our own money the way that we want to do that. so, you know, i think it's going to be continually important as we go forward to watch what happens as this rolls out. you know i think to your question, you know it's been very interesting for me to, you know, i come from the public health side and the demand reduction world, and quite honestly was not coming at this work from a kind of law-centric. but, you know, one of the things that i've come to righter and particularly as it -- to relate and particularly as it relates

to the heroin, there is a direct correlation between supply and demand that we can't ignore, right? and the heroin situation we have here is a good example. part of the reason that we're in this situation not only do we have untreated addiction that we need to do a better job at, you know intervention, but it's because we have such a plentiful supply right? and so we do have to focus on strategies that focus on, um, getting the supply out of communities. you know, if i think about effective public health strategies for a long time, if you think about tobacco, unfortunately, i'm still a smoker but it's harder and harder to find a place to buy a pack of cigarettes these days. and it makes one think about using those drugs. so getting bad stuff out of the community has been an effective public health strategy for a long, long time. i do think that law enforcement has a key role to play not only in getting bad stuff out of our communities and working with the criminal organizations, you know? i think it will have, it does have a synergistic effect as it

relates to demand reduction. you know the other piece -- and i think you know this -- we do want to give law enforcement a different set of skills and practices to be able to to not rely solely on arrest and incarceration as they approach people with addictive disorders. i think it's really important for us to continue to focus on those kinds of interventions. >> so can you talk about the issue that david raised with respect to the death penalty and also -- >> the human rights intersection with counternarcotics yep. here is the way, i suppose, i would frame the issue: international relations, foreign relations, foreign policy are the intersection of lots of different issues. human rights and democracy issues, law enforcement or counternarcotics issues, trade and commercial issues, economic issues, security issues, terrorism issues. at the end of the day, our

relations with any individual country are a combination of all of those and we from our perspective as a government as a nation and as a people try to develop some sort of balance in each individual case as to what is most important, what is not. and, obviously if all nations of the world were to determine not to have relations with a country that maintains a death penalty -- well, actually my job would become much easier due to the fact that we would have relations with no other country in the world. [laughter] at the end of the day our job again is to figure what are the priorities among those? is it right for us to have a liaison law enforcement relationship with a nation that, in fact, applies the death penalty in matters such as drug trafficking where we would to

not apply that penalty? from my perspective, i would address that question by saying why do we want the liaison relationship? what do we get out of it in terms of are we protecting the american people? is it accomplishing something? is it getting a larger or feeding a larger objective? for example, having a relationship with the largest, most populace muslim country in the world which does not have a significant extremist issue. i how do we balance that -- how do we balance that against legitimate proper and direct human rights concerns and considerations and come up with a conclusion? and as is practically always the case in the hard issues, the conclusion will not be accepted or agreed to by everyone. it will at the end of the day be one that has perhaps the largest

non-majority accepting or agreeing with it. and may i wrap up on the bipartisan issue? brother, i would love to think that we could find something in this matter that, in fact does generate a bipartisan sport. support. my only comment, and i've been in this government business now for 36 years, this is a policy that is now under some degree of change and adjustment. and my own experience of the past 36 years is that is a time when it's rather difficult to find bipartisan agreement, because things are changing. and that is the most difficult time from my experience to get everyone to come together and agree. i hope i'm wrong. we'll find out. >> great. let's get another round of quick comments and questions. we have a hand here, we have hands -- two hands here. please be very succinct, and

we'll gather together three or four, come back and close. yes, sir. >> thanks so much. my name is dr. lloyd brennan, my question actually is twofold both for each of you. the first question is um, you know, as part of a group that would be deemed legalizers, it is somewhat erroneously concluded that we are not in concern for the well being of the youth of our nation. and so as you were speaking, you were saying that you articulated somewhat of a third way or an alternative sort of path between prohibition and legalization, and i was wondering if you could expand on what that is. and then for the ambassador, as et relates to -- as it relates to international narcotics control board, given the fact that a large amount of the teeth in that organization is perpetuated by the ability of the united states to control monetary donations what exactly are the ramifications of the united states as it changes its cannabis policy being negatively impacted by being out of

compliance, if you will, with the, with the international narcotics -- or with the international kong -- convention? >> can you hand that -- yes sir. >> hi. my question is for both of you regarding the policy that portugal passed in 2000. so with the legalization of most illicit drugs, crime rates have fallen by a substantial amount. how do you see that impacting domestic policy in the united states as well as future consensus on international policy at the u.n.? >> you just summarize that question slowly? >> yeah sorry. so how do you see the impact of what happened in portugal over the past 15 years impact domestic policy both in the united states and international policy and consensus at the u.n. special hearings? >> thank you. portugal. >> portugal. >> portugal yes. >> david holliday latin society foundations. the recent report, the policy

report of the american academy of pediatrics also made a -- recommended that marijuana be rescheduled as a schedule ii drug. i won't ask your position on that, but what are the obstacles and the future of that and what would it mean from your perspective if marijuana was reclassified as a schedule ii drug? >> thank you. do we have any other comments? there's one in the back. then we'll come back to our speakers, and we'll wrap up. >> sort of as a follow-up to that, don more by with the marijuana -- murphy with the marijuana policy project. mr. botticelli, yesterday morning you stated that marijuana would remain classified as a tightly-regular lawsuited schedule i drug, and you said: the administration continues to oppose attempts to legalize marijuana and other drugs. this opposition was driven by medical science and research. would you care to comment on the medical science and research that you think suggests that marijuana and heroin should be on the same schedule, and do you believe that they are equally

dangerous? >> okay. why don't we, why don't we come to bill first here and then to michael, and then we can close. bill? >> sure. um i'll start with the incb question. by the way, in crushes b is the international narcotics control board, it is that body which was established by the united nations when they ratified the 1961 international fist convention -- first convention on control of narcotic and psychotropic drugs. and the incb's role to a certain extent is to serve as referee, assessing whether individual member states are in compliance with their treaty obligations, and it has other more specific funks as well.

functions as well. i wish i could say we had a tremendous amount of inflounce on the -- influence on the incb. there are, i believe dr. green 12 members of which one right now is an american citizen and i'm not sure there's ever been more than one. and we do provide whatever our proportional share is under the united nations -- [inaudible] whatever it is that we pay into the united nations' system we do provide to them. i can offer you that over the last two years i have not detected any, any evidence at all of a substantial amount of deference by the incb to united states government's presentations despite the brilliance with which those presentations have been made. would you not agree mr. green, that the presentations were made brilliantly? your question goes beyond that, however, and it does say so what

would be the impact of the incb finally making a definitive determination that the united states is out of compliance with its obligations under the three conventions? that, by the way, that's an excellent question, and it's a question that i've been wrestling with for more than a year now. i mean, the world would not end the sun will still rise in the morning, and it will set in the evening. and the republic will still stand. those are good things so it's not an existential sort of issue. it does have an impact i suppose, in terms of u.s. leadership certainly on this issue, but perhaps in broader issues as well as we attempt to encourage other governments to abide by the rules under the human rights convention, for example. or under the trade agreements of the wto or other such multi-national conventions. we would have to factor that into our thinking, i would

suggest. we also would obviously have to factor in the impact of this in terms of the three conventions themselves. if, in fact, the nation that has exercised more leadership within the united nations over the 70 years, the last 70 years than any other nation is in overt and admitted noncompliance with its treaty obligations i assume that would make it less likely that other governments would feel any sense of obligation to comply with their treaty obligations as well. i repeat and on this i don't mean to overstate the case, it is not the end of the world, but there would be negative impacts. and my conclusion is it would be better if we could convince the incb that our domestic posture and position leaves us in compliance with our treaty obligations than the reverse.

and i will continue to make the argument that i have been making now for more than two years that our federal system our continued commitment to the fundamental objectives of the three conventions, and that is to discourage the abuse of these particular products and our discretionary authority as a sovereign state to determine how our limited law enforcement resources would be applied to this problem set leave us in compliance with our treaty obligations. i believe it is an argument worth making, i believe it is a correct argument, and i believe we are better you have off if -- better off if we can get the incb, convince the incb to accept that argument. >> portugal. >> portugal. portugal has been rolled out, as have a number of other nations

in terms of experimentation with different approaches on drugs. the netherlands switzerland at times, more recently, your bay. uruguay. look, my argument would be i put portugal in the same category with virtually any other nation and to which i will now add the states of colorado and washington in terms of providing us something that we can assess monitor and determine what the impact of their national experiment is both in terms of positive and negative elements from the, from that approach. i mean, that's -- i would not want to single portugal out. i don't think they would want to be singled out in terms of standing as a single nation that the entire world looks to and determines whether this works or does not work. portugal is a small nation. it is, for the most part, a very

homogeneous nation. it is a nation that is both limited in terms of population and in terms of geography. they have a different problem set, i suppose than you would find from a very large populace nation, a nation that is particularly rural or particularly urban a nation of multicultural, a nation that is located, say, in the crossroads of smuggling patterns. as we, the people of the united states and we, the 190 -- i think it's 6 -- members of the united nations assess where we want to go with drug policy in the future. >> thank you. michael, there are a couple of questions on marijuana to you as well as the question mike posed on how do you carve a third way. >> sure. and let me just because this might be a segway, i'll also speak about the portugal piece

because even when you look at some of evaluation, even institutes in portugal freely talk about the fact of to the extent that they significantly increase their treatment resources may really be a profound effect here, right? so this leads into the third way approach right? because what we're saying here is, you know we're really concerned with what some attendant health harms may be about legalization. we don't want the lock folks up. let's focus on health strategyings as a solution to this -- strategies as a solution to this problem. so even some of the good things that might be coming out of portugal and again, could be a significant result of the fact that they've dramatically increased access to treatment and they've used the criminal justice system as a way to leverage people into treatment. so i think that's really important to do. let me talk, we had a couple of questions about scheduling which i think are important and one of the things i always hear is why is marijuana in the same category as heroin? i think it's important for folks

to know that drugs are not scheduled based on relative risk right? so it's really important you understand that. do they meet up or down criteria as it relates to the individual category. so i think we need to be careful when we start saying well why is marijuana in the same category as heroin? it's not a relative risk scale. i think the other piece that's really important and i are say this -- and i will say this too, you know, because i think in the past it was a pretty fair criticism that the usg and others were not doing an adequate job on investigating the potential therapeutics of marijuana as it relates to the work that we do. and nida has continued to amp up their efforts. they now have over 50 studies looking at the potential therapeutic value of the components of marijuana, right? so even the institute of medicine has come out and said smoking marijuana is probably not the most efficient or health-minded delivery device for marijuana, and i think we

would all agree with that that that's not the case. so this is where the scheduling comes into place because how do we rely on good science, good data to dictate how drugs are scheduled? and there is a process that dea under hhs really looks at the scientific evidence as it relates to this issue. so, you know it's really important that i think we continue to support research that looks at the potential therapeutic values of the components of marijuana. >> thank you. finish we've gotten to the end of our time here. this has been an extraordinarily rich and i want to thank both of you for joining us this afternoon. i want to thank all in our audience for sticking with us and putting some putting forward some great questions and comments. and we michael, we wish you the best of luck on monday. that's a wonderful moment approaching, and please join me in thanking our speakers.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] >> and as this event wraps up a quick programming note that the senate will vote on the nomination of michael botticelli to be the director of the white house office of national drug control policy today at 5:30 eastern. he's been serving as the acting director of that position since march of last year. watch them vote live 5:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. and for more on what's ahead this week in congress, we spoke to a capitol hill reporter. >> host: joining us on the phone is mike lillis congressional reporter with the hill to talk about what else is happening in washington. mike lillis, so what's on the agenda on capitol hill? we'll start with the senate this week. >> guest: well, you know they

need to pass the funding bill for the department of homeland security. a big issue big contentious issue because of the immigration amendments that the house passed last month when they sent it over to the senate, and you saw mitch mcconnell struggling with this last week. he brought it up not once, not twice, but three times the house-passed bill, thinking that, you know, just beating the drum over and over would erode some of the opposition from vulnerable democrats. it didn't work. the house bill, as passed is not going to pass the senate, and so now mcconnell and the republicans are faced with the question of what do we do, how do we pass the department of homeland security funding bill and not threaten a shutdown of that agency but also satisfy the conservatives who really want to push back against obama's executive action on deportations? and that, of course, was why the house attached those amendments. so actually there's nothing planned in the senate right now as it stands because they don't know what the next step is, or at least they're not telling us.

so we're all waiting and seeing what mcconnell's going to come up with how does he thread that needle? he's walking a tight rope here, how does he satisfy the conservatives but pass something that will not get a veto threat due the immigration language? and, of course the dhs bill the funding expires on february 27th, so there is a timeline. there's a tight timeline because they're not supposed to be in next week because of the presidents' day holiday. so we expect that that bill will be back on the floor we just don't know what it's going the look like. >> host: yeah. and jeh johnson on cnn saying yesterday, you know, you can goty ahead and have this debate over executive action on immigration but don't tie it to homeland exe security funding.and what's the argument here by the administration, and is it having -- is it working with their own party, with the democrats? >> guest: well, you know they're saying that dhs funding has nothing to do with immigration, why are you tying this to something?

so they're framing it as so vital within the context of these attacks in paris, they're pointing out that the isis threat has been rising. of course, this has all been international headlines that are reaching our public. so they're using that sort of urgency to say why are you playing around with the department that is supposed to protect the homeland? the republicans understand that argument, and that's why the house passed it, you know six weeks in advance. you know, they didn't want to play with the department of homeland security funding. they knew it was going to be a political issue, and they said over and over, they keep saying over and over we are not going to threaten a shutdown of this agency but we do need to do something on executive action. you'll remember the house delayed this debate in december angered a lot of conservatives that they didn't hold obama's feet to the fire then and so they're under real pressure now from their right flank to do so on this must-pass homeland security bill. but again, it puts them in a very tough spot. immigration has always put them

in a very tough spot. this is no exception. they're caught between the republicans in their party who are really running a hard line on this and guys like boehner and mcconnell who would just like to pass something and get it on to the president. >> host: yeah. and this is playing out in "the wall street journal"'s editorial today. they wonder can the gop change? and this is what the "wall street journal" says that this restrictionist caucus that you were just talking about can protest all it wants, but it can't change 54 senate votes into 60 without persuading some democrats. they go on to say that it's too soon to say -- it's not too soon to say that the fate of the gop majority's on the line. precious weeks are wasting and the combination of weak house leadership and a rump minority unwilling to compromise isy playing into democratic hands. this is no way to run a congressional majority, and the only winners of gop dysfunction will be mr. obama, nancy pelosi and hillary clinton.inne

mike lillis is -- can how is this playing out between leadership and the rank and file then? >> guest: well, you know there's real tension there particularly in the house. we've seen it all year long since the republicans picked up 13 seats boehner thought he was going to come in and kind of roll over obama's agenda in the last two years of his presidency. instead today had this very tough vote for speaker where you know, he -- more than 20 republicans voted against him for speaker so there's a lot of tension there. and then they brought up a number of bills that they thought was low hanging fruit and they were just going to, you you know, pitch these -- they were just softballs that they they were going to hit out of park, and instead they're hitting revolts, you have seen it on the anti-abortion issue and then on the homeland security bill, a border bill, mike mccall bill a couple of weeks ago they had to pull because they didn't have the support of conservatives. so these are traditional conservative issue, ask and

they've had -- and they've had to pull the stuff off the floor. and it's sort of, you know, obama and pelosi and reid just have to sit back and really not do anything. they just have to kind of watch the republicans struggle and then work turn these headlines on their own.else >> host: what else is on the agenda? health care and also what about new authority to fight isis for the president? >> guest: well, i think we should mention first, in the house we just mentioned the senate but in the house there's a big vote on keystone, and that's the other kind of big, contentious issue that we'll be seeing. of course, the senate passed it last week. they got nine democrats on bill, so it is bipartisan. that does put some pressure on obama and house democrats to support it. it will pass the house on wednesday, and then obama's going to veto it. so big veto, biggest veto of his presidency. only the third veto of his presidency. and, you know, the house and senate will have the democratic

support to sustain the veto. so, you know, this is all political messaging. keystone's been around for five years, and it's, of course, an enormous proxy vote on climate change and the environment, and everybody's playing to their base here. but, you know, it's an interesting debate because there are some amendments on there. the senate passed a climate change amendment, says climate change is not a hoax and there might be some conservatives in the house who are a little bit wary to vote for it on that matter. and, of course, there will be democrats who support the keystone bill, and that will make obama's veto look a little bit worse for having a bipartisan bill and republicans are going to frame this as obstructionism, how many bipartisan bills is he going to veto? so that'll dominate the house and, i'm sorry, go back to your origin question? >> host: what else is on the agenda, and will the president be sending over to congress his outline for new authority to fight isis?

>> guest: yeah. we don't know if that's going to come. they are anticipating that. boehner said on thursday that he expects it in the next few days so yes, that could come over and that's going to be -- then that could dominate the whole congressional dialogue because of course, that splits the parties. that is not a partisan issue. you're going to hear liberals screaming loud for boots on the ground, you're going to hear conservatives screaming if it doesn't allow for boots on the ground. that'll be an entering debate but, of course, nobody knows what that language is going to look like. everybody agrees we need a new resolution, you know, the old one is 13 years, 14 years on, and everybody agrees that those are outdated and need some freshening up. but tons of disagreement about what that should look like and when that hits, whenever it hits, that's going to be a tsunami. >> host: all right. mike lillis, congressional reporter with "the hill" with the week ahead in congress.

thank you very much, appreciate it. >> guest: thanks, greta. appreciate it. >> the house returns tomorrow at noon eastern. that can be seen live on c-span. and the senate comes in today, 3 p.m. eastern. they'll have a couple of hours of morning business before moving to the botticelli nomination. watch the senate live here on c-span2. >> tonight on "the communicators," gigi sohn, special counsel for the fcc, on chairman tom wheeler's proposal for net neutrality including regulating the internet like a utility. >> the chairman has said we are not going to rate regulate and, hey, i don't know who the next fcc chairman is. the next fcc chairman may try to throw out this whole regime and do something that's more free market oriented or less regulatory. so i don't really buy the next chairman argument because, you know, the rules are only as good as the guy or the gal on the eighth floor enforcing them. so we've got to do our best to

set up an infrastructure that will protect consumers that will preserve an open internet which has been the greatest driver of economic development, free speech and innovation this world has ever known. >> tonight at eight eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> supreme court justice ruth bader ginsburg touched on reproductive choice, campaign finance and gender equality last week at the georgetown law center in washington d.c. she spoke to graduating students on her life and career for the second annual dean's lecture to the graduating class. justice ginsburg called on women to support each other warning that women of means will always have reproductive choice but it is women who are poor that will feel the brunt if roe v. wade is overturned. >> good afternoon, everyone.

it's a pleasure to welcome everyone to the second annual dean's lecture to the graduating class, and the excitement here is extraordinary. there were long lines. we have an overflow room because this room is packed. we have people in the front rows with notorious rbg t-shirts -- [laughter] and we're all gathered here from -- and i'd like a big round of applause for -- our extraordinary speaker, justice ginsburg. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. [applause] >> so idea behind this lecture is that it's an opportunity for our graduating students to hear from a giant in the law as she

reflects on her career and offers advice to graduating students. and i can't imagine a better speaker for us to be listening to. you know because we're going to be talking about justice ginsburg's career, i'm not going to go into a long intro. in this group a long intro would be completely unnecessary. but it's just particularly wonderful to have you here first of all because you're someone who's not only a great justice, but really a rarity among justices somebody who would be a historic figure even if you'd never been a judge because of your work for gender equity as an advocate. and also because you're such a wonderful member of this community. you know, we're so grateful that you come here so up, justice begins -- so often, justice ginsburg. two of our faculty mary hartnet and wendy williams, are working on your authorized biography. and, of course, your late husband, marty ginsburg, was just the most beloved member of

this faculty so welcome here today, justice. >> thank you, dean. and may i extend my congratulations to all of you who are graduating from this extraordinarily fine law school? the dean is right, that i had a very close affiliation with the law school, and i'm proud to say that the martin d. ginsburg chair holder -- a former law clerk of mine david caesar -- is here today, and he is visiting at georgetown. and any of you who are interested in tax should be sure that you attend his classes. [laughter] >> thanks forking here, david. for being here dade. i have to say, it was wonderful we were on this stage not so long ago when professor daniel

hall person was first holder and that was a great occasion and a tribute to an extraordinary man. so welcome back. what i'd like to do is to start by talking a little bit about your career and, you know you grew up in brooklyn and then went to cornell. and i think for all of us here as everyone is starting their legal career, when did it first occur to you that you wanted to be a lawyer? was it something that you went to college with the idea that you would become a lawyer? [laughter] >> no. [laughter] in the ancient days when i was going to college, the law was not a welcoming profession for women. so my mother had stressed the importance to me of being independent, and to her that meant be a high school history teacher. it's a good steady job where women are accepted.

i didn't think about law until at cornell i was a research assistant for a professor of constitutional law. and he wanted me to be aware that our country was going through bad times. this is the early '50s, and it was the heyday of senator joseph mccarthy who saw a communist in every corner. and this professor wanted me to appreciate these people who were being hauled before the house un-american activities committee or the senate internal committee and quizzed about some youth organization that they had belonged to in the 1930s. but there were lawyers standing up for these people, lawyers reminding our congress that we have a first amendment that says

we can think, write and speak freely without big brother telling us what is proper speech and that there is a fifth amendment that protects people against self-incrimination. so i got the idea that being a lawyer's a pretty good thing because in addition to practicing the profession, you could do some good for your society, make things a little better. for other people. well, that was that made me decide that law school was the best place for me. of course, be i had anial -- if i had any talent in the world, any talent that god could give me, i would be a great diva. [laughter]

but, sadly i'm a monotone. [laughter] and and my high school teachers were very cruel, they rated me a sparrow, not a robin. and the sparrows were not allowed to sing the words. only mouth them. [laughter] so anyway, there was some concern from my father about my becoming a lawyer. but then i married marty. it was my -- the week after i graduated from cornell we were married x then my fam -- and then my family said, it's okay. ruth wants to be a lawyer. if she can't withhold a living she will have a man to support her. [laughter]

>> so, and you had met marty at cornell? >> yes. my first year, his second year. >> and how did you meet? >> we -- well, we met because we had friends who thought we might like each other. marty had a girlfriend at smith, i had a boyfriend at columbia law school. [laughter] but there was a long, cold week at cornell -- [laughter] so that's how we started out. [laughter] then it came to me that after not too long, martin d. ginsburg was ever so much smarter than my boyfriend at columbia law school. [laughter] >> and then you got married at the end of your time in college, and you went to law school. >> well, marty marty did not have a stellar career at cornell because mainly he majored in

golf. [laughter] he was on the golf team, and he started out he was going to be a pre-med. but the chemistry labs were in the afternoon and interfered with golf practice. [laughter] so then he switched to government, and i said what are you signing up for -- he would ask what are you signing up for and he would take the same. [laughter] >> now i heard an interview where he talked about tact that your academic records -- about the fact that your academic records at cornell were not so similar. >> he said he was the last passing man in his class and i was first. [laughter] he said if you look at it like a scroll, we're right there together. [laughter] >> and what was harvard law school like? there weren't many women in your class. >> there were nine women in my

class. this is -- i entered in '56. the very first year that harvard accepted women was 1950, so it was only about five years. there were nine of us. there were 500 odd men. the women in my class felt that they were literally on trial. there were two of us each, they divided us into four sections, and we felt that all eyes were on us. that if we failed, if we gave a bad answer to a question we would be failing not only for ourselves, but for all women. whether it was true or not, we did feel that we were on display in the classroom. i had a colleague at columbia law school now in -- this is in the '70s and he said one day

he has some regrets about expanding the enrollment of women at that time. women were about 25%. because he said in the old days if you wanted a crisp right answer, you always called on the woman because she was super prepared, she would give you the answer that you wanted, and then you could go on with the class. but, he said, nowadays there's no difference. [laughter] the women are as unprepared as men. [laughter] one of the biggest challenges we had, harvard law school in those days had two teaching -- [inaudible] but only one of them had a women's bathroom. so we'd use the restroom during

a chat, but think about exams. exams were very pressured at law school. the remarkable thing about it is that we never complained. we never thought to ask. it was just the way things were. these were pre-title vii days so employers would put sign-up sheets for summer jobs for permanent jobs and it would say "men only." it was the same way at columbia when i transferred from harvard to columbia for my third year. columbia had a wonderful placement officer, but she put up those lists and, again, no one thought about it. that we could complain. >> and what -- why did you transfer to columbia? >> marty's third year of law

school he had a virulent cancer and those were days when there was no chemotherapy. there was only a huge operation and then daily radiation. and our daughter was born 14 months before i started law school. so marty tried to get a job in the boston area and he had a great opportunity in new york. so i did not want to be a single mom. we also didn't know how long marty would live. so, of course, we were not going to be separated that last year. and so i went to the then-dean of the harvard law school his name was irwin gris wald, and said if i successful complete my third year at columbia, will you give me a harvard degree?

and the answer was, absolutely. no. [laughter] and i thought i had the perfect rebuttal answer. there was a woman who had been my classmate at cornell. she took her first year of law school at university of pennsylvania transferred into our second year class, and i said well mrs. so and so is in the second year with me, and she will have year two and three i will have year one and two. you say the first year is by far the most important. i had a case. [laughter] anyway, fast forward to my grand colleague who spoke here last year elena kagan, when she became dean of the law school, she said every years ruth, we would love for you to have a

hard -- harvard law school degree. [laughter] and when elena made that offer marty said hold out for an honorary degree can. [laughter] i have only one degree, it is from columbia -- you can't rewrite history, but i do have an honorary degree from harvard university in 2011. [laughter] >> justice was belatedly done. [laughter] and you were at the top of your class at harvard, harvard law review, top of your class at columbia columbia law review. what was it like then looking for work? you talked about how hard it was, you know no women were allowed to apply for many jobs. >> i had a tailored black suit that my ever-supportive mother-in-law got for my interviews, and then i was stunned that no one was

interested. only two firms called me to be downtown offers preliminary interviews, and those two with ended up not giving me an offer. but it was this wonderful professor -- [inaudible] maybe you've used his constitution law book -- he was determined to get me a job. he was in charge of clerkships for columbia students. and he called every federal judge in the eastern district, in the southern district, the second circuit judges. they were reticent. and the reason was some of them could overcome the fact that i was a woman but none of them that i was the mother of a 4-year-old. finish and the fear was that

i -- and the fear was that i wouldn't be able to come in on a weekend, i wouldn't be able to stay late. it was almost -- and i overcompensated and worked hard as any clerk in the court. that's the way it was for women in the '50s. it was getting the first job. that was very hard. when you got the job you did it very well. justice o'connor tells this story about her first job, she was also top of her class at stanford law school. and no one would hire her as a lawyer. so she volunteered to work for a county attorney free for four months. and she said at the end of that four month period be you think i'm worth it -- if you think i'm worth it, you can put me on the payroll. and that's how she got her first job in the law. well when barry called all

these judges and he said an offer you can't refuse, give her a chance, and if she doesn't succeed, there's a young man in her class who will step in. and carry you through the year. so that was the carrot. be and then there was a stick -- and then there was a stick. and the stick was if you don't give her a chance, i will never recommend another student to you. [laughter] i never knew that until years and years later. i thought the judge for whom i clerked, judge palmieri, he had two daughters, and i thought he must have been thinking about what he would like their opportunities to be. >> and then -- >> and in those days in the southern district most judges wouldn't hire women. in the u.s. attorney's office,

women were strictly forbidden in the criminal division. there was one woman in the civil division. and the excuse for not hiring women in the criminal division was they have to deal with all these tough types and women aren't up to that. and i was amazed. i said, have you seen the lawyers at legal aid who are representing these tough types? they are women. [laughter] >> and then so you clerked? >> yes. >> and then what did you do after you clerked? >> but -- by that time i could have gone to any number of downtown firms. in fact, i was to go to one of them when a columbia law school professor came to me and said, ruth, how would you like to write a book about civil

procedure in sweden? [laughter] and i thought, now reallily sweden and norway and denmark, it turned out to be a wonderful opportunity for me in many ways. i was what27, 28 at the time. and i was going to have something that i wrote between hard coffers i was -- hard covers. wiz going to learn a language -- wiz going to learn a language that i had no familiarity with. and marty and i had been married eight years, and i had never lived alone, and i wanted to know what it would be like. and marty was indulgent enough to take care of jane when i left for sweden into she -- i left in the beginning of may. she joined me after her first

grade was over. in june. so i had a taste of what living alone was like. and so that was my kind of eight-year itch. [laughter] which i never had after that. [laughter] so i spent two years on the swedish project. columbia had a project on international procedure, and part of it was writing books about different procedural systems. part of it was revising the federal rules and title 28 to make our rules more accommodating to lawyers abroad who wanted to find evidence in the united states or process in the united states. so after that i was again going to go to the law firm which, in

fact, was the firm with which marty was affiliated. when a columbia professor famous professor, walter gelhorn, who was kind of a one-person personnel office for law school jobs, walter asked me if i would come to see him in his office. and he said, ruth, what is your name doing on a harvard list when you're a columbia graduate? harvard list what harvard list is he talking about? then i remembered that harvard had sent a form, are you interested in law teaching? if you are fill this out. so i filled it out. and i never gave another thought to it. at that time there were exactly

14 women in tenure track positions in law schools across the country. and so i jumped to the wrong conclusion. i said walter, is columbia interested in me? and the answer was ruth not columbia, but rutgers. the state university in new jersey. i will be totally frank how i got my first teaching job. rutgers had had an excellent civil procedure teacher named clyde ferguson. clyde left rutgers to become the dean of the howard law school here in d.c.

rutgers tried to replace him with another african-american man, but having failed in that quest, the next best thing was a woman. [laughter] that's how i got my first teaching job. and the dean, he was a very good dean. he was a dear sweet man. but he said, ruth you know it's a state university, so you will have to take a cut in salary. and i expected that, but not the cut, not the huge cut that it was. so i asked how much so and so was earning, it was a man about the same time out of law school and the answer was, ruth he has a wife and two children to support. and marty has a good paying job with a law firm. so i met with some other women

at the rutgers campus, and we brought -- we were not bold we didn't bring a title vii -- title vii wasn't on the books million the year after i started at rutgers but there was the equal pay act the very year i was offered this rather lavish salary. [laughter] so the women at the rutgers campus got together and brought an equal pay case which after many years was settled. the -- every woman got a substantial raise, i think 6,000 was about the lowest raise that people got and in those days in '63, that was real money. >> and did that experience cause you to focus in on gender

equality cases when you, after you started teaching? >> no. i didn't set my own agenda at all. it was, there were two forces operating on me. one was the students. the women students wanted to to have a course on women in the law. and i thought that was a pretty good idea, so i went to the library, and in the space of a month, i think i read every federal decision that had ever been written involving women's rights or the lack thereof. that was no mean feat because there was precious little less than today would be generated in a month i think. so that, that was the women students pushing me in that direction. and then there were new clients coming to the aclu office in new

jersey with complaints that the aclu had never heard before. one were pregnant schoolteachers who were forced out on what was euphemistically called maternity leave which meant you go as soon as you begin to show because, after all the children mustn't think a their teacher swallowed a watermelon. [laughter] and then if the school system wants you back they'll call you back. but there was no guarantee to come back. so the women were complaining. the complaint was we are ready, willing and able to work. of there's no reason why we should be forced out of of the fourth month. and they thought maybe the new anti-discrimination laws would be helpful to them.

then there were blue collar women who worked at places that had good health insurance packages. one of those women worked for the lipton tea company. she wanted to get family health insurance and was told that family insurance is available only to a male worker not to a female worker. so they wouldn't -- there were those complaints. rutgers itself, rutgers in those days the undergraduate school was all male. there was a much smaller and very fine women's college douglas college but many people on the rutgers faculty wanted to admit women. it was kind of what columbia went through with bonner. -- with barn ard. so we had a gardener who had a son and a daughter. his son had gone to rutgers.

his daughter couldn't go to rutgers and thank goodness we did not have to make a federal case of it, because the rutgers faculty was so keen on the idea. what they saw immediately was if we can accept women students, we will upgrade our academic standards. of. ..