i'm glad you got that out there because as you know my inclination in situations like this is to make a lot of jokes.

>> i am going to try. one of the things i love about this show is that it's for authors and it gives the author a chance to enter the greatest of all questioned what is your book about. what is your book about? >> i co-authored it with a friend and neighbor and lawyer and a researcher for which i'm grateful. the book is about why we should not legalize marijuana. we saw this coming down the track. they just legalized general wreck creation all use and public opinion has shifted very much in that direction and pretty dramatically. maybe even more dramatically than marriage to the favorable

side. 15, 20 years ago maybe 20% were in favor of legalization and now something like 60%. and given the evidence, we thought it was important to write this book when all seemed to be writing and i don't think anyone else has about why this is a bad idea. the other thing is, and this is very relevant is as public opinion has softened on marijuana, maybe 60% in favor of legalization the scientific evidence is overwhelming against it. i was the director of the national drug control policy. we didn't have this kind of agency but now it is overwhelming. but the plaintiff the book was to get the facts out so they

could take a second judgment on this. i think in colorado they would reconsider the end of the day to try to put that genie back in the bottle. who is your intended audience to this is that policy, voters, it is clearly not libertarian. but who are you aiming this at? >> it's for the public policymakers. so it's for both.

this was decided by people in suits big money is in here, too and in the financial interest and others who believe that this is a good thing to do but it wasn't a takeover was done by citizens in the deliberative process. >> host: in your rendition to this, first of all let me ask you why do you think public attitude on marijuana usage has changed dramatically? >> guest: several things. one, a very smart and well-financed campaign. and there is big money in here. you can read a lot of stories of out this was the investment last

year. they spent about 3-1. if you are out spending sheldon you are spending a lot of money. he put $5 million into it in one state. so there was that. second, there was what i called rosie memory they talk about how they are always rosy colored and it's better to go through it again. try going through it again and it won't be so rosy. people thought of their experience in the 60s and

70s. no big deal, no harm. third, a very effective campaign in classic terms the argument of the medical marijuana and the person that can't get relief anywhere else so it was the wedge in colorado and many other states saying how can you deny people the chance to feel better if this is the only thing that will make them feel better. this is an interesting difference between marijuana and cocaine for example. cocaine, i became a drugs are at the time. the greek athlete and the university of maryland was struck down and a superb physical specimen. they were struck down in the same way it happens but people call my show and always say no one dies from marijuana, some do but not in the same way as

cocaine. cocaine takes you to your knees. this stuff doesn't. it is in a very different way. so this argument was able to work. what kind of person can't you be to deny someone this marijuana. southern colorado the initial permits and permissions slips for medical marijuana were about 5,000. then when the courts released and said you can have as many as you want, it multiplied to 220,000. most of the people getting it for meals to the ages of 18 to 25 for pain. this was fraudulent. but it gave the wedge to get it through. one of the heads of the normalization groups said go the

route of medical marijuana and once we get back we will have so many people using macs we will be able to. >> host: one of my favorite quotes is from edmund burke who says the example and he will learn from the weather sometimes you have to show people you can't just tell people. two questions related to that. you said yourself you think colorado will eventually change their mind on this and reverse the course. isn't actually a very useful example isn't that the point of federalism that we are going to get to? the phrase laboratory or democracy is a heavy one that second of all if the problem with marijuana is what you say they are and we find this very persuasive.

if marijuana is as bad as you say and i tend to agree with you on it why would attitudes change in its favor? you would think many of people living their lives smoking marijuana serving as an example to others and themselves many people stop smoking marijuana, they do it for a little while and then they stop. why would the public sentiment move so much in contrast or opposition to the facts on the ground. it doesn't knock you to your knees.

it's when you start as a teenager and go for ten or 15 years it is ten or 15 years. and if you start as a teenager there's 17% will become addicted that doesn't mean next week or next month it means a couple years, two or three years. the other thing is a funny way in which people many of them tend to disappear into the woodwork they fade out and they don't end up in crack houses the end up -- they don't end up strangling their children. you don't have this crazy coke drunk. i ended up reading a book about a wife who was the star -- this is the problem of you bandai. everything is interesting. the world news the star in the blair witch project.

after her career in the movies she became a pop life and so that's how she kind of disappeared. i remember some of the heavy pot smokers from college and graduate school. they didn't die they just did it integrate tv to reach their potential. they were more dramatic for the point that you raise is an interesting ones. when i was the director of the drug policy people say why do we need to -- let the state do this and i said what i thought was the responsible thing to say. that's not going to happen on my watch what's have 100000 do their homework to see. not when i'm secretary of education education. but now it has occurred so yes

there is a great opportunity for learning here. let's pay close attention and go to colorado and take a it" every six months in the very near its count of the members. >> host: you open in the introduction of the book you open with a hypothetical about tobacco. you make the comparison about tobacco. >> guest: i'm not sure that i agree with my own hypothetical. but if it were in your power to outlaw tobacco if we could start this over again, we are pretty close. and you really need it in public at least and people are shunned for smoking and so on. none of that -- i don't know if

this is true but i'm told that in boulder colorado there is a place no smoking is allowed with marijuana that makes sense to some people. never would we do if we could legislate, which is where we are in some ways with marijuana state-by-state would we have decided against it. you can do this but it doesn't work. it's so embedded in our culture, but again very harmful as cigarettes smoking is harmful. it seems to me the same society tries to prevent serious harm when it's possible to do so. not quite outlawing it is by don't think that it's beyond the realm of possibility to think that someday someone might try to do this.

but i having this seriousness in all of these ads about how big it is for you but we are at that stage of marijuana we can make a decision about whether we want to have this thing more generally diffuse through society or not. i'vei would admit at the outset personally i wouldn't vote to ban tobacco if i had that opportunity nor what i what i do i'll call and i like cigars. so getting to the issue -- >> guest: but the point is in the hypothetical to say that we wanted what kind of factors would we take into consideration if we did and how embedded is this practice in the culture and what reasons can we get

historicallygivehistorically, culturally for keeping it and then apply the same analysis? >> guest: i guess what i'm trying to get at is there is a brief aspect to the book and so i am with you for the most part but in terms of the public policy there's a certain amount of it's not lead any argument out. and i was intrigued by someone that loves federalism. i give talks on federalism and it's the greatest system for maximizing because people live the way they want to live as a matter. >> host: you seem to throw it out with the bathwater saying

that you can't have federalism for something like marijuana and that you reject the argument. and i wonder whether or not the right of the american people to make mistakes in into going to agree that if i can make mistakes to say that not when it comes to marijuana that therefore you even do something i was shocked by his un coke -- en envoke people that make arguments about federalism sort of defend jim crow and whatnot. but that's not what the states rights and federalism is about today. do you have any argument on federalism you think that the

communities are making a mistake -- stanek. >> guest: i'm behind constitutionalism particularly the public and i believe even the federal law to conflict. they won't be accused of taking the question, but let's remind people there is federal law that has been passed and it is against federal law. the obama administration has decided that may be they could argue that we would never pass as it is just like the states decided that as it stands this is another case of this administration going up against was established law is. >> host: can you explain what they have done in colorado? >> guest: they say essentially we won't enforce federal law.

it's a class one substance against the law to sell it or use it and it's been told to lay off. i don't think that is a wise way to execute the law which they are sworn to do. if people don't like the federal law let would do more to change the federal law then let the states do whatever they want. i don't know how it would come out by the way. i think that it would come out against the law but talk to people on the hill and i don't want to distract from your question this is not republican and democrat but did you see debbie wasserman schultz get into trouble because she opposed the florida initiative and meanwhile some of her own folks on the republican conservative site for example rand paul will

be out. that will be a big thing. the other part of the beginning of the book it seems to me where the strongest part of the brief is and that is reprinted the entire article from the journal of medicine which summarizes the research universities to focus lots of iq and motivation and all sorts of problems. i didn't have this evidence when i was the drug czar and now it is available. they've conducted a lot of the research. if i could design it is for us to do and that's what they'd

marijuana because it focuses the memory attention and motivation. in some ways enough to close the case it seems to me. i will admit i never fully take off their hats of secretary of education and it seems to me to have more of this on the developing. we want to make this more generally available. he returned to that theme often, it is a valid and on point skewering of the cultural hypocrisy that's going on.

there is a website called vox.cxom. >> guest: the president gave an interview to them. we are not going to ban sugar but if you come to the mindset that -- they had the a great line about privatizing the white house and you said what libertarians want to privatize and you thought i was crazy but the thing about the country that is debating whether or not it isn't going to socialized medicine. it defines the boundaries of reasonable discourse and i think

the point you make in the book over and over again is a very valid one that we are constantly in this incredibly hyper paranoid state about safety and about health and treating our bodies like temples and regulating this and that and then along comes part path and it is just blanket immunity from all of those arguments and it's a very strange thing and it's a good point that you make. >> guest: a lot of things that turned around and that is just one of them. all of a sudden it is all out the window. >> guest: when you talk to the audiences and make the point that the question i was getting about the audience from this because as a conservative, with strong libertarian leanings. they are getting deeper into our

lives that you make the point about obamacare but it excludes marijuana while it is all around this other stuff. what's wrong with getting rid of the nanny state all-around and one of the costs of that is making it one of the things they have the right to do. >> guest: it is too costly because there is a difference of being fat and getting done and again maybe that secretary is the secretary is a psychological answer in part. the harm is so real so definite and obvious that it just seems to be extremely dumb. let's have an informed debate so people know without dealing with something that is innocent. >> host: you are in a position the position of the book of god doctor.

he says emphatically i will not let my kids anywhere near this. maybe this is coming to you as he has had a couple of books named after him. again, getting back to the question the audience, have you seen this as a matter of debate and argumentation any movement on that and are the people that are for deleting sugar and banning big soda is there any sign that you see on the horizon saying wait a second.

i'm grateful for that because he is a formidable fellow. we need to look at things individually and decided. it's interesting for lawyers in the audience oklahoma and nebraska are suing colorado and saying they are in violation of federal law and how to enforce federal law. >> host: because of the trafficking that is coming out of the state. >> guest: that is the harm that is being done and this would be contained in florida. remember there would be no black market. by the way that cartels are not at all. i suppose we can take pride in

american ingenuity growing in colorado that they have more powerful and weighing more powerful. my brother told me about one of his clients she tried to get a plea bargained for and the judge said this is the worst i don't know what he was. it's the worst in the whole row. i used to take pride by keith olbermann. >> guest: right. i was regarded as the third of president person in america by the communist newspaper at 30-years-old. >> host: that would've put a pet in my step. >> guest: that's exactly

right. can i say something important? the active ingredient that gets you high in the 60s and 70s average about 3%. it is 12% and i just looked at some adds a friend from denver sent me about sales this weekend, 30% some of it 40 45% they talk about a glass of vodka. when maureen dowd went to colorado to experiment and she took two to three bytes of a candy bar and she called up and she said she had died. the candy by the way is a whole another thing. it's much more insidious so they

take more. she thought she had died. it's american ingenuity. we are good at it and we are making powerful strains. that's starting to show up at emergency rooms and in the visits to the pediatrics in denver and so on. you talk to the clinical people they will tell you now with the body count is and how it's grown grown. i agree with him on somethin! grown. i agree with him on something.

>> host: the glass of beer or vodka misses the fact people rarely drink a glass of vodka like the they drink beer so we recognize the difference in potency between hard liquor and beer. presumably people -- what will happen, and i am playing a little bit of a devils advocate here but presumably what will happen is enough people die or bad things happen to them and that lesson is learned it seems to me that is a lesson that can be learned fairly quickly. i take your point about it but certainly we don't say we can't have.com on the market to confuse the alcohol content with the content of beer.

>> guest: the generations learned the lesson individually but it doesn't seem to carry over the next. it is defined by the experience. we ask them if that's what they do. what they say he is take a poll on this and you will really go out of your mind. in boston i was curious and baltimore we are getting clean needles and we have tons to share.

we will continue to see more. so culturally what do you think happens to be country that goes down the path that you are pushing against? >> guest: first, i was interested to see the democrat say about the decision he has been all over the map on this to be fair he just couldn't keep shape no matter what. if you look at the comments and it wasn't a good idea. jerry brown sighting debbie

wasserman schultz -- it is all it on all sides, it is a cultural mix. but where was i jerry brown. she said i am not in favor of it. we have challenges in california. i don't think that we could meet them as effectively. does the love of the time is what we are talking about on the two points here. the average across the country now, the average 12 people -- people 12 years and older is about 12% of people smoke marijuana.

in colorado with his 13. this twice that. and i think that it will continue to go up. that's a big jump. that's a lot of people. that is a big chunk of america. second, when you have something like legalization he's an academic expert and he is the drug czar in the state of washington for a while he says that when you legalize the will see four to six times as much stuff consumed, four to six times as much consumed cannot afford to six times as many people that four to six times as much consumed. here that user imitates the alcoholics or 10% of people who drink alcohol for alcoholics and they consumed 50%. 20% of people who drink alcohol consumed 80 or 90%.

so, what you have here and they've said about colorado is weekly users have now become dalia users and you could write them off from productive activity. the other broad cultural aspect and let me just say every time we bring this up i get a caller on the show saying that i'm a mechanical engineer, i spoke three times a week scheuer. the people are different. but for most of us you know, not its end of this end of the bell curve or that it's going to affect us. the other cultural sites of this is the problems that we do face do require a lot of attention and focus and do require us to tune in and again as i'm saying about cocaine it doesn't document may be the first time

it well but then you need more and more. that's what it does is it distracts and slowly takes you away from your duties and responsibilities. what i think it's one of is one of the most moving essays from the atlantic by a woman about her father. she doesn't beat children or get into a head-on collision with she talks about how many times he forgot to pick them up missed meetings, how many screwup's how many times he ran the car into the curved and how many things he just forgot to do. she wonders what life would have been like with her father and her siblings if he hadn't been a pothead. the immediate fatality maybe not but i know a lot of people who smoked.

i was in the university from 65 to 75. they just beer off and became a lot less. >> host: i agree with that. there've been productive members of society that smoke and people that could have been productive members of the didn't smoke pot. and that is the problem with this. people tend to think -- i didn't want to get too deep and weedy -- part of the pun.

>> guest: the new england journal of medicine these are not right wing conservatives in the harvard medical school assume all of it is true. there are some studies where you can test out the overwhelming evidence and a preponderance beyond a reasonable doubt. >> host: but get back to the anecdotal point which is about the legal. this is an anecdote and i understand that's very interesting. she's overwhelmed with kids

coming in with their parents and they have the candy. sometimes they have been vaping. why are you letting your child to this? it's legal. it is permissible and that's why when people say something is against the law most people tend to avoid it. they worry about getting in trouble so it's important to have them all fair and not just because it's been dressed up because it's an the signal most people observe. >> host: i was amazed. i was speaking at a college campus and i was having drinks with some kids afterwards at a fraternity or simply send one of the kids wasn't drinking and i asked him why. and he -- something with shifty about his answer and after a

little cross examination i found out he wasn't drinking simply because it was against the law and he didn't want it on his criminal record. since then i found that in many places. and it's absolutely true that people care about that kind of stuff. people probably aren't going to be working either, so this gets to my point about the anecdote. you have a section where you talk about how the fda takes some drugs off the market to work 3% of people. i think sometimes they are mad about that kind of stuff. if you told me that there was a 97% chance that they would react to some drug very favorably and iq are but there's a 3% chance

that they die i would want to do with my alternatives are in all the rest. but at the end of the day i would not want the fda decided there were about my loved one or i could take that drug. i would want to be the one deciding area on the other hand marijuana doesn't store any disease, so it's not quite the same thing. but the question i have is what is the logical process by which one makes these distinctions is it purely a numbers game once you hit the tipping point of 12% of people harmed? >> guest: i was on it for my knees and i think they took it off the market. but as you correctly noted there were other drugs available. maybe not as good or effective. they were not as effective. but i didn't want to take 3%.

this one is only 70% that there is no death rate. that will do. and of course talking about your child. can i say that on the medical side we do something that a lot of people who want our position don't do. we allow for the prescription medication of marijuana. that is if you have this case that there is testimony people come forward and say it's the only thing that works and relieves pain. okay then follow that can follow the protocol. follow the normal protocol and get a prescription. nothing else will work etc.. that seems to make sense. you have 200000 medical marijuana users in colorado. a lot of people think that it's the work of ten or 15 writing

these slips. we don't know the content. we didn't know the purity is or what it is tested for. i know this sounds like big government but at the end of the day you put stuff in your body you would like some reassurance that somebody's tested it out and that's okay particularly something that goes down into your lungs. >> guest: it would be crazy. but it's drawing lines and one of the factors are the ones cited. what else is available and how much harm is this doing. >> host: that is a decision you don't trust the state equivalent to look at and you think it has to be the federal drug enforcement. >> guest: it depends on the

nature and so on. do people want to also say find cocaine and meth and heroin and by the way those mexican drug cartels are now exporting large amounts into the american west. two can play at this game. >> host: i'm not sure that we want it held hostage. one of the arguments is this what put them back in business and they would do something very unusual cold diversify, change the product. >> host: i want to get a little bit back to your cultural concerns. going back to this analogy about tobacco, forget the question whether we would ban it today or

not, tobacco is the most demonized, certainly more than marijuana. it's one of the things i love about the shop that i go to. it's a band of brothers. brothers. the only people there the one thing you know is they don't have a problem with cigars. >> every time you look at the cover usaid and novak did it go -- you would say i didn't know that. >> guest: we have plenty of them, maybe even some of them right out on public. >> host: what would prohibit as you know we are trying to nip this in the bud again pardon the pun. we are very early in the process of this decriminalization

mainstream marijuana and i think we would both agree we are going to have twists and turns and ups and downs and all the rest. what would preclude the culture and there will be some serious lawsuits of people messing things up. >> guest: there will be lawsuits like you see with tobacco. >> host: what i'm waiting for and what i think is fascinating is when employers start seeing we are going to fire you we can test you for having taken the legal substance and there will be lawsuits about that. but eventually all these different institutions are going to wield in and what prevents thewould preventthe culture and legal institutions and all that from doing to marijuana with a gun to

tobacco and minimizing and shrieking its usage. >> guest: they may do that but after what point at what cost could this have been avoided. i have heard both stories in colorado. we have heard that lots of places. we have the association say these people are selling something which is scientifically demonstrably harmful. they should be sued for everything and we will see those

those. they are already not great of discourse but if you keep with it, there's a lot of iq points. it's the onset for a lot of marijuana use, just exactly the wrong time.

what about the argument. there is the social cost of the militarization of police and the overcommercialization of society, those are costs of society, too. >> guest: in the sheer financial terms of his life. a lot less than if it were not available. the estimates for what we spent on prosecuting cases they say

four to 5 million 11 billion you will get way past 11 billion. the estimates are in the alcohol and allergy isanalogy is that for every dollar we spend, that we get from taxes you have to spend $10 because a lot of people believe that is about the same ratio that you have. we'll spend that much. by the way let's get these numbers. the number of people in state prison where that is the most serious of offense, .6 of 1%. people need down, people in federal prison it's about 1.3

1.4%. that is a lot of marijuana. but so those numbers are wildly exaggerated. libertarians love to say if you light up you will go to prison. you don't have anybody that went to prison for lighting up. >> host: the other question i want to ask is how much of this is downstream of larger social problems? a.k.a. that is in math class in high school, if that is reflected in the situation at home again i know there are other things going on. my brother had problems and died

because of his addictions and i know that it comes from all different lifestyles and places thatbut we are talking about the macro level and a lot of the problems that you are trying to address our upstream from smoking pot or in today or not? >> guest: yes but we do know that here as elsewhere where you stand and how secure your foundation is there was an earthquake in san francisco and in mexico many more lives lost in mexico because the supports were so weak it was a lot of complaining in san francisco as you might expect. i think the most absurd thing that i saw was a panel discussion. it was just in part though and

it was this person from the washington park saying when we open our dispensaries we need to putthem in the poor neighborhood so the people that have been victimized. they are members going after the industry for beer and alcohol and you really have to push it and they yelled at me on our side of the table. look if you start smoking and lose iq it hurts you more. if your motivation for school isn't that strong and you start poking your odds are succeeding. so take something that is

harmful in the society. people will offend in all classes but the effects of harm some people have safety nets and to some people deal with treatment centers and other people will fall right through and never get up again. >> host: we brought it up a bunch of time and only have about four minutes left. alcohol is bad for you. that hasn't stopped me from being a friend. >> guest: me neither. i was drinking a martini and he saidadhesive is that the virtuous? let the record show that we have had martinis together.

>> host: you were using to this earlier is the only reason you are not applying the same argument because it is so much more embedded in the culture? >> guest: probably. >> host: prohibition was the right idea but it was so deeply embedded? >> guest: it is important to reduce my alcohol consumption. i can't think of his name the prohibition was better than none at all. we can understand of the last supper. don't introduce new ones and it seems to me. we know the harm that it causes.

almost every family that i know. >> host: and usually it's the distinction between the alcohol and other problems. >> guest: the fair-minded analyst as it is a long and complicated argument that anything if you look to marijuana and tobacco he would conclude and all of this because they think there's a stronger case than there is for marijuana marijuana. we'll call this about the smokers has decreased smoking. there are now more teenagers smoking marijuana than cigarettes. but the same society does what

it can. it can put the tobacco back but we can stop this one from getting out. >> host: we are just about out of time i want to thank you for doing this and -- >> guest: can i say one thing? if people have comments, questions, complaints or say things about me that's fine. >> host: and if they want to say things about me they should also go there because i don't want to hear it. [laughter] >> guest: . >> host: this is great. thank you for doing this. >> backless "after words,"

booktv signature program which authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed by journalists, public policy made hers and others familiar with their material. "after words" airs every weekend on booktv at 10 p.m. on saturday, 12 and 9 p.m. on sunday and 12 a.m. on monday. you can also watch online. go to booktv.org and click on "after words" in the book booktv securities and topics list on the upper right side of the page. >> here's a look at the current best-selling audio books according to audible.com. /

coming up next jenna versus public shaming of governments and corporations can be a powerful tool in creating social and economic change. this is about one hour and 15 minutes. >> welcome to brooklyn public library. this is usually on when i start. please welcome jennifer jacquet. [applause] we are here to discuss the first book. >> it's my only look so book so far. [laughter] >> many are yet to come and let me give you a sample of the biography. do you want to read a page or two. i can hand you my book or we can start in on the discussion. >> i'm happy to start right in. >> jennifer jacquet as an assistant professor in the

university and works at conservation cooperation focusing on a human dimension of large-scale social of the dilemma. she wrote the blog on scientific america. so, once again crossing the river and let's just give one or welcome. [applause] >> make sure you pull that up close so that we can hear you. i just noticed the guilty planet blog. there are creative works around is that true? >> there are reasons we will continue to draw body motions to for the large-scale problems and particularly the ones that involved in a environment or leader oflever of use or anything like that.