or even artillery theoretically you he knew where that was coming from. you could see where the weapon came from. in this situation you don't. so you can't respond in the same way. it is not as, it is not a linear response you have to be more creative. and that is why i try to integrate some of the lessons from dealing with non-state actors conventionally. that use violence, not at a wmd level. that history dealing with non-conventional, non-state actors would be applicable to how you deal with a nuclear terrorist attack. .

low probability. so hopefully low probability of each case. i don't think there is a way of quantifying or speaking confidently which scenario constructed weapons or material is a greater risk. it depends on the situation in the place in the coming together of a lot of different events and factors. i guess i will take one more question. >> in the case of a bond easier for most people to a chain that

is very respond -- [inaudible] >> i am sure there is disaster response but it says. that is what you pay taxpayer dollars to go tours, making the government can respond. the question the book deals with is the hypothetical what could be god in terms of a foreign-policy or defense policy response. how do you get that problem through state practice? it is a bit of a different problem than a theoretical. there are ranges of plants that exist for different scenarios. you can only go so far with a theoretical in terms of writing a plan down. what the book does this go way beyond in terms of having a play-by-play for something like this. it gets into the more tract

analysis. that addresses some of these questions. again, thank you all for coming. i hope you enjoy the book. [applause] >> thank you so much for coming. those of you see it, do us a favor and fold up your chair and put it against the bookcases. i hope you will buy a book to support benjamin. get a book signed. thank you. [applause] >> booktv continues out transfix. william bennett author drug control policy under george h. debbie bush argues against the

legalization of marijuana with jonah goldberg, senior editor of "national review." >> host: hi bill. >> guest: jonah did this to you. >> host: we are going to talk about your book "going to pot." first we should have the full disclosure. we know each other. we are longtime acquaintances, friends. i'm under radio show. you must've been away quite a while now. >> i am not drug. i have a little bit of caffeine. >> host: i'm glad you got that out there. as you well know my inclination like this is to make a lot of pot jokes. >> guest: i've got a couple too. >> host: i will wait back and wait until they're integral to the story we are trying to do. one of the things i love about the show as it is for authors. it is not for interviewers.

it gives an author a chance to answer the greatest of all questions. what is your book about. so what is your book about? >> guest: my book -- our book -- i co-authored with robert wyatt, neighbor friend lawyer, meticulous researcher for which i'm grateful. i am not a meticulous researcher. the book is why we shouldn't legalize marijuana. we wrote it because we saw this train coming down the track legalization as we speak. alaska has just illegalize general recreational use. public opinion has shifted very much in that direction and pretty dramatically. may be even more genetically than gay marriage, the shift in public opinion to the favorable side. you know 20 years -- 15 20 years ago 20% of the american people were in favor of

legalization. now something like 60%. given the evidence we thought it important to write this book and nobody else seemed to be writing it. i think no one has about why this is a bad idea. the other thing and this is very relevant is as public opinion has softened marijuana maybe 60% in favor of legalization, the scientific evidence is overwhelming against it. director of national drug control policy. 89, 90, we didn't have the research. now it is overwhelming, the harm that marijuana does. i just have to believe -- i want to believe the american people have formed these facts. the point of the book was to get the facts out so they can make a second judgment on this, an informed decision. to get to the end of my story, in colorado, which is kind of grounds he wrote, they will reconsider at the end of the day

to put this genie back in the bottle and recriminalize because they are starting to see results. >> host: a couple of questions. who is your intended audience for this? policymakers, voters? it's clearly not libertarians. who are you and your a story of voices, or were you aiming this at? tesco is for the public policymakers and in this case public policymakers are brothers. i was just in colorado out of denver and a thank you note the 50s, these potheads force dishonest. -- force dishonest. it is decided by people in suits. if money is in here too. this was decided by a soon well-meaning public servants and some people enthralled to

financial interests and others who genuinely believe this is a good interview. but it wasn't some takeover by the pot smoking lobby. it was something done by citizens and i hope the deliberate process, but not delivered it enough. >> host: your rendition of this, first of all let me ask, why do you think public attitude on marijuana has changed? >> guest: several rings. one, a very smart finance campaign for marijuana. thursday's money in here. you can read a lot of story about how this is the investment of the year the greatest growth. more and more big money. the people for legalization whales and as they always do the people who are opposed in florida where nearly escaped

legalization to get a 60% vote in florida. they got 58%. the opponents of legalization were outspent by a three to one. one of the people who contributed against legalization would shelve novels and. if you are spending you're spending a lot of money. he put $5 million intuited wednesday. so there was that. second, there was what i call rosie memory, rosy colored memory talks about how her memories are always rosy colored. it's better to her than go through it again. people thought of their experience in the 60s and 70s than they knew lots of people smoking marijuana. they had smoked marijuana. no big deal. it's not the marijuana we have today. third, in classic terms, the

argument medical marijuana the person who can't get relief anywhere else. medical marijuana was the wedge. many states say and how can you deny people the chance to feel better? this is the only thing that will make them feel better. this is the very interesting difference between marijuana and 79 for example. plan bias was a great ask late and he was struck down. a superb visible specimens. he was struck down by marijuana the same way. it happens. people calling my show often say no one buys marijuana. -- die for marijuana. not the same way. cocaine takes you to your knees.

marijuana moves you in a different way. this was able to work and what kind of person can ubc deny someone this medical marijuana? in colorado initial permits, permission slips for medical marijuana worry about via thousand. when the court's earliest it could have as many as you want and multiply to 220,000. most people getting over males between the ages of 18 and 25. this was a ruse. this was fraudulent. but it gave away, a wedge to get it through. one of the heads of the normalization legalization group said good riddance medical marijuana. once they get back we'll have so many people use them out will be able to get the whole vote. posts are one of my favorite

quotes is from edmund burke. the example of the school of mankind. but he means by that is sometimes you have to show people. two questions relating to that. you said yourself you think colorado will eventually change of mind on that. isn't that a useful example? is about the whole point of federalism we are going to get to to have the phrase laboratories for democracy is a loaded one. second of all if the problems with marijuana are what you say they are. as a parent i found this book very very persuasive where i will challenge you more. as a parent, take convincing more than ever that i would want my kid and the kids i care about to stay away for marijuana. how extrapolate from not

therein lies the debate. if marijuana is as bad as you say and i tend to agree with you on that why would attitudes change in its favor? you think millions of people living their lives smoking marijuana serving as an example to others than themselves, many people stopped smoking marijuana. why would public sentiment move so much in contrast or opposition to the facts on the ground? >> because a lot of the facts on the ground haven't caught up haven't become reality yet. it takes time. it is not cocaine. over time, over years, we years, when you do eight i.q. points which is what uses at the start of a teenager and go for 10 or 15 years it is 10 or 15 years. if you start as a teenager 17%

of teenagers will become addicted. addicted within the next month next week. it's two years, three years four years. there's a funny way in which people who have marijuana problems they tend to disappear the woodwork and fade out. they don't end up in crack houses and they don't end up eating their lives. they don't end up strangling their children. >> host: to have stores in colorado. the women who's the star the woman who was a star in the blair witch project, she became a pop way a grower of marijuana in northern california. that is how she kind of disappeared kid i remember some of the heavy pot smokers from college and graduate school.

it didn't die. they just kind of didn't reach their potential didn't reach what they should've been but just kind of faded away. nothing more dramatic. the point you raise is interesting. when i was director of drug policy why would you let the state do this in the laboratories of democracy and see what happens, which i thought was the responsible thing to say. i'm the director of drug policy. this won't happen on my watch. i will let people suffer for the sake of proving my point. let's have 100,000 kids not do their homework and see if they get stupider. not when i'm secretary of education. but now it is occurring. so yes there is a great opportunity for learning here and let's pay close attention and let's go to colorado and take a real close look every six months every year, let's count all the numbers and do the

science right and not pray. absolutely. >> host: you open and the introduction of the book. you open when it's a hypothetical about tobacco. why do you make the comparison your argument about tobacco. >> host: i am not entirely sure that i agree with my own hypothetical. if it were within your power to outlaw tobacco if we could start this thing over again we are pretty close on tobacco. we've really made of a moral friend and people are smoking and so on. either way none of that seems to prove to marijuana smokers. i am told in boulder colorado come and talk about ground zero, there's a place for no smoking is allowed but marijuana is the

only thing that is allowed and makes kind of cultural sense to some people. if you were within our power never to have had cigarette would we do if we could legislate, which is where we are in some ways state-by-state. would we have decided against it? you can do the experiment with alcohol, but it doesn't work. very harmful as cigarettes and a or harmful. it prevents really serious times when it can so not by outlawing it, though i don't think it is beyond the realm of plausibility of someone someday try to do it but by having different seriousness about tobacco all of these ads about how it is for you. but we are at this stage of

marijuana. we can make a decision whether we want to have this being more generally throughout society are not. >> i have to admit at the outset i don't buy the hypothetical. personally i would not go to the polls and vote to ban tobacco if i had the opportunity. nor would i then alcohol. not a surprise to anybody. i like alcohol and i actually like cigars. >> guest: but the point -- excuse me, the point is to say we absolutely would you do what kinds of factors we take into consideration if we did and how embedded business practice in the culture and what reasons can we get historically, culturally for keeping it in then apply the same analysis to marijuana. >> so i guess i'm trying to get out if there's a prosecutors

race aspect. we're sure there is. again, in my lane as a parent you know, i am with you for the most part. but in terms of the public policy there's a certain amount of let's not leave any argument now two days. i was really intrigued by someone who personally less federalism, the idea of them. i think it is the greatest system ever conceived of for maximizing human happiness because it lets the most people live the way they want to live. you seem to a one point basically throw the baby of federalism out with the bathwater here saying he can't have federalism or something like marijuana, do you reject the argument for federalism marijuana. i wonder whether or not the

right of the american people tunic mistakes and if i'm going to agree with you they can make mistakes, to say that not when it comes to marijuana and therefore you've even do something which i was sort of shocked by his you invoke i can't find it right now. i will find it the same that people who most often point out make arguments on federalism did so to defend jim crow. i agree there was a time when most people used to have for jim crow. that is what federalism is about today. do you have any real actors about invalidating federalism even when you think people are making -- when communities are making a mistake. >> i am a fan of federalism. i'm not sure if i'm as big of a federalism as you are.

particularly the republic's constitution and i do believe when the two conflict. i won't be accused of faking the question, but let's remind people there is federal law here. marijuana is against federal law. the obama administration has decided to wink at this and maybe someone could argue we should never pass those federal laws. as it stands, this is another case of the administration going against what established law is. >> host: can you explain for the viewers that the obama administration has done vis-à-vis colorado? >> what it has done is winked and said we are not going to enforce federal black against the use and sale of marijuana. if a class when substance. it is against lots of sallet or use it in cea has been told to lay off. i don't think that is a wise way

to execute the laws of the president has sworn to do. if people don't like federal law, then let the states do whatever they want. i don't know by the way how it would come out right now. we talked to people on the hill by the way and i don't want to distract from the question. this is not a republican democrat. did you see debbie wasserman schultz get into trouble because she opposed the florida initiative. meanwhile the republican folks want to go gung ho and certainly anyone with the last name paul. >> he will be out there. >> -- >> guest: grandpa will be out there that would be a big thing. can i change the subject to little bit? the other part of the beginning

of the book seems to me the harms marijuana. we summarize and reprint the entire article from the "new england journal of medicine" which summarizes the research and they are short-term harm focus, memory, loss of motivation all sorts of problems. i didn't have this around 89-90 now that it's simply available the research at northwestern and harbors that if i could design a drug, harmful and distracting for a student because the focus of memory and attention and motivation. in some ways enough to close the case. now i will make him never fully

pick up the secretary of education. it seems to be nuts to be saying let's have more of this on the developing brain. we're talking about how myths. where talking about the kids football, you know, alkyl holism in utero, all sorts of ways to protect fabry and here we have the overwhelming evidence that is harmful to operators, but particularly the developing brain and they want to make it more generally available. >> that was one of the recent asu in the beginning who was about four? you return to that team often. i think it is really valid and on point skewering of the cultural hypocrisy going on right now. there's a website called fox.com fox.com -- it has a piece of

recently making the case for why we should treat sugar as a controlled substance. if the date is bad for you abuse coming ubiquitous and on paper, to my mind it goes back and forth between being persuasive because we are not going to be in sugar. but if you come from a mind that about privatizing white house, they said look, libertarians want to privatize lighthouses. but he said the great thing about our country is debating whether or not to privatize lighthouses isn't going to socialize medicine. dogma defines the boundaries of reasonable discourse. 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 health in treating our bodies like temples and danny medicine regulating not and along comes pot and blanket enemy mary -- plenary immunity. it's a very good point you make. hope >> guest: a lot of things that turned upside down in this debate. that is just one of them. >> host: when you talk to audiences and make that point, that is the question i was getting up for the ideas. as a conservative with a strong libertarian leaning my energy is about saying the other stuff is ridiculous. obama carried getting deeper and deeper in our lives than you make the point how obamacare does it it it it was -- excludes marijuana. what is wrong with getting rid

of this stuff all around in one of the cost of that is make a marijuana one of the things people have a right to do? >> guest: it is too costly. i think it is too costly because there's a difference between getting and being. maybe this secretary has a psychological answer. it is so real so definite so obvious that it just seems extremely to let this loose in the land. let's have an informed debate so people know we are not dealing with something innocent. >> host: you are sorted in a position of the book of dr. groups, not a bad position to be in. he did surgery center rack. he says emphatically i will not let my kids anywhere near this public policy matter. he feels differently.

his award by the way he's had a couple of buds named after him the group to 14 and so on they fell in colorado. >> i'm waiting for one for me it tastes good. >> host: so again getting back to the question have you seen -- i will put it this way everything is a matter of debate any movement on that? are the people for regulating sugar and banning big soda, is there any sign on the horizon of them saying wait a second, maybe pot isn't good at or you. >> host: bloomberg seems to agree with me could see the fellow and others names. part of the possibility of the start of an essay and we are not going after everything. we are going to look at them

individually. but we made this decision as a society already. again, there is a way to undo that the night is through the changes in federal law. oklahoma and nebraska are suing colorado on this issue. they are in violation of federal law. they have to enforce federal law. that is what is standing and that is the harm being done. either way this is one of the arguments contained in colorado. there's no black market. colorado has become the black market. the mexicans, the cartels are not bothered at all. but we can take guided american ingenuity that the marijuana that was more powerful. way more powerful. i remember my brother told me about one of his clients to try

to get a plea bargain for you. the judge said no this is the worst, whatever he was i've ever seen. my brother sadly told the guy the worst, really? >> host: i used to take pride in being the worst person in the world a keith olbermann. >> guest: right i made that, too. i was regarded as the third most repressive person in america by the revolutionary communist newspaper when i was 30 years old. postcode i would put a spring in my step. that's a goal for me. >> guest: just because it's important. but tetrahydrocannabinol which gets you high, thc in the 60s and 70s average about 3%.

seized marijuana today in thc is 12%. i just looked at them as my friend from denver sent me about sales this weekend. 30% some of its 48, 45%. talk about drinking a glass of and then drinking a glass of vodka. when marine dowd famously went to colorado to experiment, she took two or three bites of a candy bar. she said in her hotel room she curled up and thought she had died. candy by the way is another whole and because the argument this is not about children. it is about children if you look at the advertising. the candy takes longer, so much more insidious. she thought she had died because of the catcher hedger cannabinoid o. we are better at this.

it is american ingenuity. just like what was his name in breaking that. walter white. the great walter white was very good at it. so we are good at it making more and more powerful strains. that is starting to show up in the visits to pediatrics, psychiatrists in denver and so on. the clinical people will tell you now with the body count is and how it's grown. >> host: push back a little bit on that. jake's on his obviously not a huge fan of this boat here gives a libertarian. i agree with him on some things, but he makes the point that a comparison of a glass of to a classified code misses the fact that very few people drink a glass of vodka. we can recognize the difference in potency of hard liquor and

beer. both will happen and i'm playing a little bit of devil's advocate here. presumably what will happen is enough people die or bad things happen and the lesson is learned. the more potent stuff you have to treat differently than the less potent stuff. it seems to me that is the lesson that can be learned fairly quickly. i take your point about it but certainly, we don't say we can't trust people to drink -- we can't have vodka on the market have might confuse the alcohol content with the content of beer. >> guest: well, lots of job durations have learned about binge drinking.

they continue to do it. the argument that people would take 30% thc marijuana insipid like a fine scotch as decided by experience. that is what they do. they say take a full pull on this and you will really go out of your mind. do you remember the clean needles? that's back when i was the i was a drug czar in talking to people on the street in new york and boston because i was curious where we were pushing this. people said we are getting clean needles. we've got tons to share now with all of our friends. it just isn't true. it is false. that is why you are seeing more of the overdose team and more emergency room and will continue to see more. >> host: told shirley, what

you think happens to a country that goes down the path that you were pushing against in your book? >> guest: well, i got it for a couple of reasons. first of all as they said it's not a republican democrat. i was interested to see governor hicken looper about the decision it was a reckless decision. the character could just not keep shape the matter what the position was. he was never comfortable as soon as he was challenged. i think if you look at the comment says it was a good idea. jerry brown i thought i found myself in the opposition of quoting people i normally don't quote citing debbie wasserman schultz. >> host: and the new england journal -- >> guest: but it is an odd

fascination on both sides. a very odd cultural mix. where was i. -- i'm sorry i lost my place. >> host: jerry brown. >> guest: jerry brown. jerry brown said when i asked him, they've got some big challenges here in this country. we have some big challenges in california. i don't we can meet these effectively if a quarter of our populations does invest a lot of time it's over talking about. let me make two points here. the average across the country, the average people 12 years and older is about 7% 12 years and older smoke marijuana. i think it will continue to go up. that's a big jump. that's a lot of people a big

chunk of america. second, when you have something like legalization. mark kleiman is not on my side on this and he's an academic expert. he was a drug's daughter the legal drug czar in the state of washington for a while says when you legalize you will see four to six times as much stuff consumed. now 46 times as many people before to six times as much consumed. here, the marijuana user in the tape the alcoholic. 10% of people who drink alcohol are alcoholics may consume 50% of the alcohol. 20% of people who drink alcohol consumed 80% or 90% of the alcohol. what you have here is weekly users have now become daily users and you can write a lot of

them off. the other broader cultural aspects, like they just say every time we bring this up i get a caller saying i'm an engineer, i smoked three to five times a week. sure, you know, people are different. for most of us not of us come anonymous m. at the bell curve or that hadn't come it is going to affect us. the other cultural side of this is the problems we do face do require a lot of attention, to require a lot of focus, and again as i was saying about cocaine this stuff doesn't knock you out maybe the first time that will come a unique more and more to keep your hide. what it does this distracts. it only takes you away from your duties, your responsibilities.

the closed the book with what i think is one of the most moving essays i've read from the atlantic and madness by a woman named leah about her father who was a pothead. he doesn't eat the children or can enter a head-on collision but she talks about how may times he forgot to pick up on the how many missed meetings, methods, screw ups, how may times during the car and hit the curb, how many times they just forgot to do. she wonders what life would've been like a father and siblings if he had not been a pothead did the media fatality, maybe not. i know a lot of people who spoke. i was in and around the university from 65 to 75. would it kill this promise and opportunity and what they could have been. they just kind of feel it off.

didn't die, but became a lot less. if that's your motivation and focus and your energy. >> host: i largely agree with that. i've known people on all of the bell curve. i know people who could've been very productive members of society. if they hadn't smoked pot. that is sort of the problem which is if everyone can pick your anecdotes. everyone talks pass each other. i did want to get too deep into weedy, pardon the pun on the science. you have to admit competing studies for all of this stuff. >> guest: here's the overwhelming audio science. the "new england journal of medicine," these are not right wing conservatives at harvard

medical school. this is the science that have been the last five years. there's no case for marijuana. it urges it is true. study for study there are some studies, but the overwhelming evidence, if you have a court of law here beyond a reasonable doubt. >> host: let's get back to the end total power. >> guest: i just want to tell you about why not make it legal. pediatric psychiatrist, this is an anecdote, but it's very interesting said -- she is mostly medicaid patient that she is overwhelmed of kids coming in with their parents, sometimes they had to fake being conscious is why are you letting your child do this? the parent says it is legal. there is a problem.

they go up in flames. legal, permissible, okay. when people say something against the law most people tend to avoid it. they're worried about getting in trouble. it's important to have the library. not because it's dangerous, but because it sends a signal which most people observe. >> guest: >> host: i'm very torn. i was amazed and maybe the first time it happened at a college campus and i was having beers with kids afterwards at their fraternity or someplace. one of the kids wasn't drinking an iced out why. something was shifty about is the insert and eventually after cross examination i found out he wasn't drinking because it was against the law and he didn't want it on his permanent record. for my culture milieu, there was very weird it is very

eye-opening. since then i've found that any many places. it is absolutely true that their ambitious people talk about that kind of stuff. on the other hand ambitious people won't smoke the products either. i ask you about the yannick are talking about how the fda take some drugs off the market from even 2% or 3% of people. i think sometimes the fda is not about that kind of stuff. if you told me that my loved ones, there is a 97% chance that they would react to a drug very favorably and help them in some major way. there's a 3% chance that they would die. i want to know what the alternatives are the rest. at the end of that would want the fda decided whether or not i

love corner i could take the term. on the other hand, marijuana doesn't cure the diseases, so it's not quite the same thing. but i guess the question i have is what is the logical process by which one makes these distinctions? is a purely a numbers game that once you hit 12% >> guest: if other factors he said i was on fire for my needs. they take it off the market because it was 3%. but as you correctly noted, there were other drugs available. maybe not as good maybe not effective. i didn't want to take 3%. this one is 70% as affect it as vioxx, but there is no death rate. that will do nicely. of course you are talking about your child.

can i say on the medical side we do something that a lot of people holding our position don't do. we allow for prescription medication of marijuana. if you had this case there is testimony. people come forward and say it's the only thing that works. the only thing that relieves pain. following protocol on a normal medical protocol and get a prescription and satisfy that nothing else will work it better, et cetera. that seems to us to make sense. you have 200,000 medical marijuana users in colorado. a lot of people think it's the work of 10 or 15 chiropractors writing this permission slips. we don't other content. with another. he is or what it's testing for. i know this sounds like big

government, but at the end of the day when you put stuff in your body, you would like some of these tests particularly some thing -- you may get mad at the fda but i think you want in fda, don't you? you want to be crazy. but one of the factors, the ones you'd say what else is available, how much harm is this doing what are the risks of taking it, what are the risks of not seeking a? that's a decision that don't trust the state equivalent to look at. it has to be the federal drug report. >> guest: it all depends. it depends on the nature of the harm and so on. but people also want to say fine to cocaine and that. by the way, the mexican drug

cartels are now importing -- exporting large amounts of heroin. two can play at this game. >> host: i'm not sure we want our public policy howled. >> guest: this would put them out of business. they did something very unusual call diversify. >> host: turns out hochberg yours don't know where they are. so i want to get a little bit back to your cultural concern. again going back to this analogy about tobacco forget the question of whether it would or not. tobacco is probably the most product in america appeared certain were in america. and you know, one of the things

i love about the cigar shop i go to is if a band of brothers. one thing you know about everybody there is they don't have a problem with cigars, which you can find almost anywhere in america. >> host: >> guest: every time you cover eisai i didn't know that. >> host: there's millions of us. >> guest: i smoke cigars, too. should i announce that on this interview? i've got plenty of them. right out in public. >> host: so what would prohibit as you know you are trying to nip this in the bud. again pardon the pun. we are early in the process in the mainstream in marijuana. we both agree it will have twisted and turned them upside down but all the rest. what would preclude a culture responding in the legal culture

eventually with some serious lawsuits and messing things up. >> guest: absolutely, the bar will be in on this. >> host: also, what i'm waiting for, what i think is fascinating is one employer starts hanging we are going to fire you if we can test you for having taken a legal substance. they're going to be lawsuits. i'm sure there are diario colorado. eventually, all of these institutions will be a living. what is to prevent the culture and legal institutions on all of that from doing some marijuana, what they've done to tobacco and minimizing it intriguing that usage. >> guest: they made. they may jonah. after what cost could this have been avoided.

i've heard both stories. in colorado which talked with employers who said we don't even bother to test it. there's just no point. we've heard that lots of places. could be so many young people using it. somebody who requires that engage cd their way. i also think you will have the bar and again they are often not allies and the association name these people are selling a team which scientifically is demonstrably harmful. they are not warning people and the sky should be sued. we probably will see those. >> host: truck charters have been smoking pot and getting into accidents. i'm not a lawyer, but it's very bad. >> guest: we see more and more of this, too.

let's just talk about education. i told folks in colorado if you keep doing that you will see your scores go down and they are already not great. it's a lot of i.q. points you know we hear teachers talking about kids in the class. it looks either chewing on a pencil, but they are inhaling marijuana. this way seems to me educational and every other way. by the way development of the brain starting at 12 and 13 is the time of onset for a lot of marijuana use, just exactly at the wrong time in terms of cognitive development. it just seems to me all the things we want to do all the things we're fighting for or are worried about justice and hopping. two points i want to get to.

first of all i will get help from libertarians that i don't bring it up. what about the argument scheuer pot is bad. pot is not ideal or great for everybody but it's okay for some people. the social cost of mass incarceration, the social cost of militarization of police in the over criminalization of society, those are costs to society, too. >> guest: sheer financial turns his life, a lot unfinished opera and available. the estimate for what we spend on prosecuting marijuana cases arresting people on the use of police or jeffrey miron at harvard says four to 5 billion. aclu says 11 billion. took it way past 11 billion hard to damage producing.

the analogy is for every dollar we spend then we get taxes we've got to spend $10. a lot of people believe that's about the same ratio. look at these numbers down because they're very important. a number of people in state prison for marijuana for that is the most serious of an and marijuana possession .61%. you are not going to jail. people in federal prisons is about 1.3 1.4% average amount of possessions is 115 pounds. that is a lot of marijuana. some heavy using.

so those numbers are widely saturated. libertarians love to say if you light up camille go to prison. the other question i want to ask is it's really downstream of larger social problem. they can do is a math class vpn pot in high school, that is probably reflective of the situation at home. i know that there are going on. my brother died ocean had a very strong or not all this personally. authors of different at some places. we're talking about the macro level. a lot of the problems you're trying to address really are

upstream from smoking pot. >> guest: we do know here or elsewhere, where you stand and how secure the foundation is has a lot to do with when the earth shakes you'll be moved. it was an earthquake and seeing that cisco is an earthquake in mexico. many more lives lost in mexico because the supports were so weak. a lot of a lot of complaining in san francisco as you might expect. it was horrible. i think the most absurd thing i saw was a panel discussion on c-span or c-span has a discussion. it was just in power. it was this person from the washington state saving money open our dispensaries, we need to put them in poor neighborhoods so that people who have been most victimized by the

police would have a chance to return a profit. now there is a good idea. i remember going after some of the liquor industry for the excessive advertising and beer and alcohol. i got scolded for it on our side of the table. nevertheless it was the right thing to do. look if you start smoking and lose i.q. and you started with less i.q., hirsute more. if your motivation for school isn't as strong a new start smoking dope in your motivation is lower there isn't any question. so take a malady. take something harmful to society. distributed equal to law classes aired people will offend in all classes as you say. the effects of the harm some people have safety nets. some people in treatment centers

had some people will fall right through. >> host: we brought it up a bunch of times. alcohol. you know, alcohol is bad. the book of virtues. another book i was sitting there drinking a martini. the guy came by that is that her suit with? >> host: let the record show we've had martinis together. >> guest: together. at 11:30. >> host: we do not to say that part. >> guest: we both get up early. >> host: is the only reason why the same argument to alcohol because it is so much more and added in the culture?

>> guest: probably. >> host: prohibition was the right idea but it didn't work because it was so embedded in the culture. >> guest: can reduce alcohol by 70% consumption. violence all sorts of things i'm about the culture would understand. he though wanted to have their booze. i can't think of his name. he said prohibition is better than no liquor at all. we can let it stand. wine at the last supper. you are not getting rid of it. the demons you have to some extent, but don't introduce new ones in we know the harm alcohol is caused us. a lot of families have a drug problem. almost every family i know has an alcohol problem. posts are usually the

distinction between the alcohol in the pot is very blurred because your judgment is impaired. >> guest: a fair-minded analysis a long and complicated series is if anything if you look at erewhon and tobacco cigarettes and alcohol, you would conclude all of this makes me think there is a stronger case against tobacco and alcohol than there is for marijuana. ..

>> could i say one thing and. >> host: you can. >> guest: "going to pot" book.com, if people have questions, complaints want to say things about me, that's fine. >> host: at a point of fact if they want to say thinged about me they should also go there because i don't want to hear it. >> guest: yeah. everything you want to aim at joe, aim at me. i've heard it before. >> host: bill, this is great, thank you for doing this. >> guest: my pleasure. thank you, sir.