incredibly high rate of diabet diabetes. they are secondary to nutrition. in the same way that we see this physically, they're logically there is trauma on the brain. if you have a chance to read doctor einstein's brain has the largest in the body other than the frontal lobe, it is the part that is damaged by, and we see children cannot get the big picture. they cannot effectively deliberate. their ability to abstract and this is the literature that we now know, this isn't a theory. we know this and we can look at the mri into the imaging and see the impact. a noted neuropsychologist says the consequences of the early

experience can be so persistent as to be multi-generational and as we grow older we see our parents and perhaps grandparents and our actions and behaviors and beliefs. so the rain is always developing and at any given point in life the brain has been sculpted by all that has come before it even buy things long before. the game become a rapper from compton california was asked in a documentary called the streets of compton, what he felt to be the most devastating thing occurring in compton california. he could have said poverty because we all know the impact of poverty. he could have said education because we know the undermining of education leads to an impact in our ability to critical thinking.

what he said, however, was guns. this is important when considering whether the long-term consequences can be reversed to excuse deprivation to the shortage of love or the corrosive fear and wesson of hopelessness. don't forget all of us are. of us have to in order to stay alive. thank you very much. [applause] i really want to thank you all and also the congressmen and women whose offices that you

work in the end of their and thd care about these issues let's conclude and then take the q-and-a with a couple things that our american public and you should know. in 2015, there were almost 13,000 people killed in the united states. let's put that in context over a ten year period between 2005 and 2015 there were 71 americans killed by careless attacks so 71 americans in terrorist attacks and during that same period, gun violence over 300,000. i think that tells us something and puts it in perspective about the urgency of this issue and our responsibility to address these issues.

i think with all you've heard today there's one thing we all agree upon and that is the explicit repeal of the amendme amendment. the amendment is even one that former congressman had said he regrets having authored. it's something he says we should think about again. but what the amendment debated idid inthe 1990s is explicitly d one of the funds made available for injury prevention at the cdc may be used to advocate or promote gun control, and this was said to be a shot across with the cdc stopping any research that it was doing on public health and gun violence. since then, president obama said you can go forward and do this, but just last year alone there

were over 110 members of congress to decide what'congresn explicit repeal because the cdc isn't doing it. the cdc isn't fear they will be violating federal law to engage in research that would tell us about the public impact of gun license. there were 110 members that signed the letter about this. and even if the repeal goes forward, and we certainly hope that it does, there remains the question of congressional funding so that we can understand this problem better. with that, are there any questions you all have? please identify yourself and speak as loud as you can. >> i have a question for anyone on the panel because you are qualified and i would love to

hear from any of you. drugs and gun violence are often believed in this coming november states of initiatives to legalize marijuana in particular is one of campaigns are noting a lot of discrimination, excessive force comes along with the war on drugs so i want to know if any of you are seeing evidence that there is going to be a reduction in gun violence and police excessive force if and when some of these initiatives to legalize drugs specifically marijuana are passed. >> quickly for the viewing audience, the question is with many marijuana initiatives on the ballot for november, is there an expectation there will be a reduction in gun violence. >> the experience we've had in certain states there has been a

reduction in certain types of arrest, etc. when marijuana has been legalized however it is important to keep in mind when we talk about drugs we are talking about alcohol as well, not just illegal drugs. when most of my work is done with capital cases and people on death row many of those cases are alcohol, so we still have to look at the impact of alcohol as well as those on the ballot to be legalized. >> there's another question up here. i can only speak for chicago.

we have to deal with the fact our young people don't have anything to do so it's not that they are killing each other over drugs but basically threw in a just want to be one. i don't know if you know what journal music is that it's basically music where you bang bang through music so if i say that i'm in with somebody else and there is a record label giving the money to basically kill my fellow opposition, then drugs have nothing to do with it. so no, the drug thing, no. >> this organization i run has over 200,000 members now, cops, judges, prosecutors, prison officials, and we believe that

yes, the war on drugs is what is causing almost all the gun violence. when you say that the drug is elicited just like we said alcohol was illicit, organized crime was created and started selling the illegal alcohol. to do that everyone got a gun because if you got ripped off of your product or your money you put in to say i was just robbed so everybody had to have a gun and that is what is happening now that we started this war on other drugs. and everybody committees young kid that can't get a job because we don't worry about the kids in certain neighborhoods getting the job, they got into the drug business because it is their thy choice and most of them would never be doing that if they were

given another decent choice. but this is what they do and they would have to have a gun to protect themselves and you've got a gun and you are in a situation where when i was a kid somebody would diss my girlfriend or say something bad they would probably get punched in the nose but when you have a gun in your pocket people pull that out and use it. >> one moment please. >> thank you for being here. my question has to do with improper policing and violence and heavy you have so much evidence on how it is done in terms of the public law that no one ever gets punished for it. >> i will tell you i researched

not just in minnesota both nationally. think about it, never in the history in the state of minnesota both what has to happen as they talk about this transparency and accountability, the justice department says they want data what are the consistencies and the standards of doing that until we see systemic reform and not just one case after another because they think there has to be some federal case that this becomes the standard of how we do this in the east policing cases because we saw the videos bob showed us and we know people are not invited and until there is some kind of an accountability and people are held accountable,

this will continue. >> let me add to that and take the next question we know there must be better researched. most police departments do not keep statistics on this and do not have cameras and if they do they don't check to make sure that they are actually taping and reviewing the tapes. less than 1% are invited after the police shooting and this raises questions about prosecutors to expand the conversation we have to also look at the accountability of prosecutors and whether or not they will pursue these particular cases and ethical ways and that is a gap and we have to pay attention to that if we want to see the reform takes place. there is another question up here in the front.

>> my name is madeline, and i'm an intern. i was wondering if the nra is still the main obstacle to the sensible gun legislation and funding for research and how their influence can be resisted and overcome. >> thank you for that question. >> yes, they are and that is what we are trying to do. it's basically to educate you guys and legislators to save take a stand. no more will you fund our campaigns. that's what we all have to do, we have to put the pressure on our elected officials that state if you don't vote for the common sense gun legislation you will not be elected and that's what we need to do. >> to no longer be a source of pride, that shouldn't be a point of pride for any legislator who

say that they are resistant to taking money from lobbyists. the first on that list should in fact be the nra that pressured congress that led to the amendment and i think that anybody watching this, any of you in this room would see the travesty in shackling or go to cdc from studying the impact of gun violence. there is no other country in the world that would say we don't allow ourselves to look at these impacts. let me give you a statistic. did you know that in 2005, one toddler per week shot someone. one toddler per week shot someone in the united states and we say we can't researched this

or look at this? why would we allow ourselves to be shackled like that. there's a question in the back. >> my name is sydney jordan and i may teach or america fellow. thank you for being here today. this is such an enormous problem in our country. as someone that comes from a community where i've had friends shocked by the police, gun violence, and a brother in prison for 20 years for drug trafficking, sometimes it gets very, very discouraging. so i'm wondering what advice do you have for young legislative assistance and people in general to try to help eradicate this

problem. >> the first thing i would suggest is talk to your legislators about ending job position. there's nothing that can be done in one fell swoop that would do more to reduce death, disease, crime, addiction and save billions of our dollars than ending the war on drugs. in 46 years that we've been fighting it, we have spent over 1.5 trillion all we have to show for it is that we made it more than 50 million arrests in this country alone for nonviolent drug offenses. 44% of those, 22 million were marijuana offenses. then we d did everything we possibly can to destroy those young people's lives that we are arresting and it just makes the situation worse and worse and worse.

it is a self perpetuating constantly expanding policy disaster. >> does anyone else want to address the question? pass the microphone please, thank you. >> in last week's foreign affairs, there was a fascinating article called the great white note, and it speaks to the populism that we are seeing not just in the united states but around the world. we are seeing england and angela merkel in germany having difficulty with immigration. if you were going to see a broadening of the constituency as long as it's been an issue that just looks like it affected poor black folks were abducted from folks, there's not much interest. trust me. when i told you about the canary people, it wasn't just about our families and children. it's going to be your children.

you need to take that into consideration. it's going to be your children that are going to be concerned about gun violence and it's going to be your grandchildren that will be concerned because the world is changing and if we don't do something about that now, it's going to be a constituency that's going to be much larger than the ones that can be ignored. >> we will take one final question and it's in the back of the room. >> my question regarding police brutality and police violence it seems like every single time there's a fatal shooting in baltimore and recently in charlotte, there's a big uprising and protest. but that energy seems to die down after a couple days. i know that awareness is paid not just in the police

brutality, how can we get that awareness to stick >> the process has to be accelerated. the ability to begin an independent or civil investigation needs to happen sooner. in our area what happens is there is a shield that keeps the data and especially the video and audio secret until the close of the grand jury and that is too long and public opinion dies down. i think it needs to happen sooner. we are pushing for that in minnesota and will hopefully get some results, but it needs to occur more quickly.

on the related topicof the investigation has to be done with the same standard if it were uni that were committing the crime. >> and obviously i agree with everything said about as citizens, we have to realize we have responsibilities into the conversation has to continue. the reason i took the case is because i had been home cursing at the television time and time and time again. and i have to say you've got to try to make a difference. and that's why we are so committed to the reform, not just a civil action, but reform that is sustainable and transferable. but in the gap of us gettin getg indy's results, there have to be these conversations in the community that can continue that

really challenge the basic fundamental of why there is such a lack of transparency. quickly, a few weeks ago i had one of the most remarkable experiences of my life. i got to moderate a panel with eric gardner's mother, the twin sister just killed in tulsa, and oscar brand, the young man that was killed at the station in oakland. there were 4,000 people there, packed. and the question was we can't let you leave unless there is an action plan. and that's why i appreciate this panel and the townhall tonight because we have to leave each of these events with clear actions about what we are going to do

next. >> i agree with everything she said that i would add because i am a protester and a lot of people don't see the action that we do behind the protesting, so we do go to our board meetings and we do organize and our strategic when we organize and we do campaigns on social media, the say her name campaign and say his name campaign and keep each other informed but most of all, we vote. if you see this past march we got the state's attorney alvarez out of office because she knew about.com for of mcdonald, so we have to state at this and we have to keep spreading awareness and get involved in the political process. >> i want to thank you all for

joining us. remember we said repeal the amendment. you've heard about the mass incarceration and our drug war in the united states that specifically incentivizes the police departments to do a kind of policing that is undignified and puts them in very compromised positions. you've also seen by the video the complicity of other officers in some very violent activities against civilians. i encourage you to join us tonight at the national press club or watch the live streaming and i want to conclude i think she provides a voice for these particular issues particularly from the millennial perspective. one week from now will be the national election when we will

be electing a new president and it's the time when local officials will be elected. i urge you to hold them accountable with your vote and thank you for joining us today. [applause] ..ighboring

states. this is about an hour and a half. i am really pleased to have a chance to introduce you to our next session which is current and emerging issues of legalized marijuana. when i was thinking about this panel, i thought what in the world am i doing moderating on marijuana. i think my wife said he probably drew the short end of the joint. [laughter] just to clarify unlike the session we had yesterday, this will not be an interactive session. [laughter] it's undeniable over the last decade we've witnessed a tremendous shift in the legalization of marijuana in various forms among the states. as of today, four states,

colorado, washington, oregon and alaska and district of columbia legalized th recreational use ad another 25 states have d., biased position. indeed it's a testament for the timeliness of the session voters and ain at least nine states wil decide the various measures this november. arizona, california, maine, massachusetts, nevada consider legalizing the recreational use of marijuana as well. arkansas, florida, montana, north dakota are considering medical marijuana. our fascination with marijuana is no new phenomenon. marijuana's existence dates back over 10,000 years and came to the united states before the american revolution. in fact early revolutionaries grew strains of cannabis for mass hemp production. closer to home at the time it became a state in 1876 vote hemp an1876 both hempand marijuana wd

have multiple uses. but in 1917, as part of a growing movement for colorado criminalized the use of marijuana as a misdemeanor and later made it a felony. that situation lasted for 40 years and nobody over the age of 60 knows that the use of marijuana stride in the late 60s in our college campuses. i'm only 59 and a half, so i'm not sure what you're talking about here. [laughter] in 1970, recreational possession was downgraded in colorado to a misdemeanor and 1975 possession of less than an ounce. that's the legalization movement. colorado is the leader of the united states. in the late 1970s and early 1980s, colorado passed several measures to legalize medical marijuana but the efforts never got off the ground due to federal law to find it as a schedule one controlled substance in 1970. that brings us to the current

state of the law in colorado. and 2,000, colorado passed an amendment 20th amended the state constitution to allow the medical use of marijuana the november, 2012, amendment 64 making colorado along with washington one of the first in the union to legalize recreational use of marijuana. efforts in 2015 marijuana sales in colorado came in at nearly $1 billion, which is up 700 million in 2014. i'm sure our panelists will comments that we are on track for $2 billion in sales this year. that's produced over $35 million in tax revenues so far. currently there are 698 marijuana dispensaries or storefronts in colorado. to pu put that number in perspective that is more than the number of mcdonald's, starbucks and 711 combined.

notably, legalization is a policy banning individual cities can decide or not to allow or not allow dmarko to become medical marijuana businesses. the jurisdictions in colorado 71% have already banned the recreational marijuana businesses. i would like to recognize the distinguished panel of speakers. panel members represent academia and the bar so i hope you can walk away from the theoretical and practical understanding of the experience is. first is the law professor at vanderbilt university who teaches constitutional law, federalism and milk did it come marijuana law and policy. the leading expert on marijuana policy and has written testified lectures on the state's constitutional authority to legalize marijuana. federal preemption of state

marijuana reforms. and the process of completing the textbook policy to be published later this year. and my alma mater and his textbook will probably be in the classroom next fall. he's referred to in the fifth circuit. the second speaker is well known, professor sam at the collegcollege of law. an expert on marijuana law reform and was a member of the colorado governor's amendment 64 implementation task force. he's published over a dozen articles on the subject of marijuana law reform and co-author of altered states inside colorado's marijuana economy for slate magazine. the next speaker is the attorney

generaattorneygeneral of the st. he was the chief deputy attorney general and the senior assistant supervising the natural resource division in the attorney general's office and he's succeeded the wyoming attorney general before that. continuing, he was the clerk for joseph and the wyoming supreme court. the next speaker is a special introduction for me, the solicitor general in the state of colorado and this is a treat because he's one of my former clerks. as the solicitor general to determine the legal strategy for fuel as well as select constitutional litigation. before becoming solicitor general he was the assistant solicitor general and is a

graduate of dartmouth college at the university of chicago law school and in addition to working for me he clerked for mark phillips in the district in illinois and i might add that he in addition to speaking at the first bar conference he has an argument in the supreme court coming up in october. of the next speaker is the deputy solicitor general in oklahoma. he litigates issues on behalf of the state. prior to joining the attorney general's office, he worked for gibson dunn specializing in appeals and administrative law cases. a former clerk on the fifth circuit and we welcome you today. with those introductions to get started.

>> thank you for inviting me out. here is a rich and fascinating body of laws that developed over the last 20 years. to understand these laws, we need to understand the constraints that have been posed by the federal government because many features of the state law are quite peculiar and represents the states to work around for the constraints. i will talk about free examples to help illustrate the point and then i want to discuss why some of these may be problematic for both the federal and state perspective. before doing that, i want to give a quick overview of what the state has been doing over the last 20 years. this is the 25,000-foot view in

the last 20 years of the state marijuana reform. this all started back in 96 with california's passage on the left-hand side, california's passage of 215. that was the wall that permitted some people to use marijuana for medical purposes. that particular type proliferated across other states in the ensuing years as is depicted in the chart you see that represents those states with marijuana reform. it picked up a bit in 2009, 2010 and then you also saw the reforms emerge as well perhaps most notably here in colorado and washington state to state

started to allow people to use marijuana for recreational purposes as well. those reforms are represented in green and then in 2014, it's also noteworthy that you saw a number of conservative states jump in and they were reluctant but these states did legalize the plant and legalized it for certain purposes that are presented its hard to tell them from the prohibition state but one remarkable thing that you see on this chart is that as of today as of 2016, there are 43 states that allow some people to use marijuana legally.

even though throughout this entire period the content of the federal law has remain unchanged. of course the federal law and the use and possession of marijuana. the states found ways to work tk around federal obstacles and let me give you three examples of that. the first one the states found ways to get doctors to help lead the medical use of marijuana without exposing federal sanctions and this is critical for the marijuana state that want to limit access to the drug in other words they want to allow people to use it for medical purposes. and for other controlled substances to states commonly

used positions for exampl are ef you want to go out and get percocet that is an opioid painkiller, you need a doctor's prescription. you can just walk into a walgreens or cvs but the states can do that and that's because physicians can't prescribe this particular drug or any drug on schedule on. if they do, they threatened to yank their registration to prescribe controlled substances. so in the state program the required position for the prescription would be a nonstarter. no physician is going to risk their registration to the dea, the practice and livelihood to prescribe marijuana.

in fact the states already knew this when california passed this back in 96 and so this example of the wall that was passed almost two decades prior to california's this was actually passed in virginia in 1979. it is a medical marijuana law that allows people to possess and use free of the sanctions so long as they get the prescription to use the drug. but the law from 1979 didn't have a m. affect survey was still on and about in those days but they didn't have a practical effect. in california the proponents found a workaround and what was that? it only required the physician to recommend, not to prescribe.

that may seem lik semantics buty later convinced them that it made a difference and in fact when a doctor simply recommends marijuana all that entails is having a conversation where you declare you might benefit from the use, the circuit declared that was protected speech. as a practical matter, that meant they couldn't punish doctors for issuing a recommendation although it could for issuing a prescription. so every state followed the proposition 15, every other state that adopted a law followed the path and now requires a recommendation. they call it different things. they do not require a prescription.

the second way the states found ways to diffuse the threat of the federal crackdown on the marijuana supply. if people couldn't actually get marijuana it's like me telling my 5-year-old son you can have an alligator as a pet, he's going to be happy with me, very happy tha that i've allowed himo get an alligator as a pet but he will be disappointed and probably mad when they discover they don't offer one. in the past 20 years the states have had to provide marijuana and two basic ways for people to legally obtain marijuana under the state law. one is to grow it themselves. it's normally considered under most states to be a trafficking offense but these states that you can grow it yourself.

.. >>

>> you can grow with yourself if you want but they are an operation across the state and there are at couple of states when it is set they prefer commercial cultivation like arizona and massachusetts if the store is too far away you can't go with yourself it is a hardship when. not it depicts the of regulatory models overtime. the red on the chart that has that personal cultivation. if you wanted marijuana after do-it-yourself that you could only get it better

is a combination would bet you can choose to get a from a store if it is purple and the solid blue are the states that preferred commercial cultivation. and as you can see from the chart the 1996 days from long ago that if it was the only game in town devastates were almost exclusively with red. whatever some operating in california and elsewhere but they were considered illegal under state law. but 2009 with that distribution model.

to allow those to sell marijuana. those earliest dates that turn purple that allow them to grow with themselves but interestingly every state that has passed marijuana reform every single one is a blue state or a mixed blues state 51 to you to go to a store to buy a rather than on growing yourself. also to grade commercial cultivation from other states it goes back to where enforcement the large-scale commercial suppliers name much more vulnerable target that is growing a handful of plans and in nearly-- the

federal government tried to shut down the large commercial suppliers they could not allow for individual patients or caregivers there was far too many of them hundreds of hundreds of thousands so those that knew the federal government would crack down at least in part that they could ensure that qualified patients would have a supply of marijuana to be interrupted by the federal government. in 2009 and department of justice and then that they

think to sell marijuana to patients. new with that commercial cultivation. and those that proliferate. with those licensed by the state to sell marijuana circa 2004 even more on the map today there are hundreds of the shops in colorado and other states as well. but even with the commercial supply had caught all and there is something they have not done.

budget is surprising only under federal law. so with a final example, where does the state's wine to this date no state has directly owned and operated a commercial marijuana store. this is surprising to me. so following the repeal of alcohol prohibition when the states repealed all call prohibition many decided to own and operate a piece of the alcohol distribution market. as a week to curb illegal sales and also to curb that initial inclination of private enterprises to grow the market with that model has lost popularity today but even today about one-third of the state

continue directly to control some aspect of alcohol distribution. there is now called store in new hampshire so why aren't there any state owned and operated marijuana stores? this is rather states have not been able to work around federal law. in particular they cannot work around the pre-emption concerns further if the state were to own and operate a marijuana distribution center for store, there could be a lawsuit arguing this day operation was pre-emptive to get those injunctions. the same thing that later there could be state regulation but then to

eliminate those does not stop that person and then to be free and clear so these concerns are out there but it is for those stay on and operated that is why the state's have not looked at this particular business. so no brief that will briefly conclude to give my thoughts but for those freed - - three examples show federal law has changed. with say a large way it would distort the development of state law. of the last 20 years the federal government has spent playing a high risk strategy . in other words they were betting that they would not be willing to repeal their own prohibition, they could not get doctors to issue prescriptions with a prescription monetary

programs or could not allowed to create the large negative regulated commercial operations. the federal government got a wrong the states were willing to do that. but the results is the perspective of the states from the federal government so we end up with the system that any state left to its own devices could adopt. so i will give you example so to be a model to the stage in the early years with a 70 year-old cancer patient you can use marijuana legally to grow yourself. but not everybody has that access. or in california to growing industry do so from the perspective it did not serve

patients even from the federal government's perspective it wasn't necessarily the model you want the states to choose because they choose that to a vague federal law enforcement. the new personal cultivaticultivati on operations but they could not stop those without the state to supervise them it is very difficult to monitor the 100,000 patients to maybe growing a few in their basement to make sure that they do not sell it. so ultimately this example is a hardball strategy to see if the works that well with either party. >> i am thrilled to be here

to talk with all of you of this important issue. i will talk about the stalemate of the marijuana law. and to give up a sense of how we got to this place but here we are now the better the implications going into the election 2016 policy-making 2017 and beyond. mentioning 2009, this is the place with the other cautionary department of justice those that most refer to as the memorandum. but most of the of log drug enforcement in the country

with those foot soldiers of its the war are drugs. there would be no different than that for experiment but then gave voice to deference to the state so with the surgeon federal criteria i am sure there would have something to say about that shortly. and the other things such as the development of organized crime bill laugh with the state government to be that

policy-making choice. with the treasury and financial crimes during courage banking with some of memorandum and also by president obama they're all in the same direction to say how that experience plays out. so this is the enforcement priority this is not the

legalization of marijuana in it is simply law-enforcement. so don't beat yourself up if you have not heard this but with the bill enacted by congress that stated that funds made available to the department of justice to prevent such states from making their own state laws with the distribution and cultivation of medical marijuana. to implementing their own

state law. with a criminal defendant to california? to be prohibited with those states that were authorized with the state medical law. with the prohibition on prosecution for those entering cajun contact to fully comply of such laws. although you are acting in accord with the state law.

so to create some circumstances so to be in compliance with state law. but the other aids to quite a bit of litigation but to say it is medical but to no respect what that means? can i say that because it

remains legal but there are lateral consequences that despite the memo consistently for the industry last year it was say $1 billion cash business. and that is a bad idea for people in those business to pay the employees in cash that employees for the employees to go home with their paychecks in cash but one of the things the government has charged the

states with to keep organized crime out so they're trying to regulate to tax marijuana but it negative business is incredibly hard to regulate because there is no paper trail. so that hampers blocks of state rules also putting citizens that risk. so another issue that is pampered so a few are in violation of the substance control act except to the cost of goods sold are unavailable. if it is north the 70% and also creates those incentives the only way is to make more. the only deduction is a day increase their cost by

making more marijuana that may not be the best public policy. but one that we normally think of businesses with the use, that has been a mixed reality sense states have begun legalizing marijuana. so with today's health care teach a seat that is great but with those colorado dispensaries. and also get of coalfield the vintage. but then to show up with the arizona state court were

drug dealers. [laughter] and they wanted their money the judge said you didn't have to repay the contract on public policy. while paid is at the time may have seen like a win for the marijuana industry getting people to pay their debt probably is not the best for this emerging industry. also with a specially insurance cases like in the district of colorado, there were some crops damaged by a big fire in the spring and they had it covered under their insurance policy that included growing crops. so there is another question so what do you do?

so you knew that when you set the premiums. i don't see why you shouldn't have to pay. so why do they say there is a strong public policy against marijuana? but they don't act like it is illegal. so that indicates the view that marijuana right now is a cause i'm legal status. -- quasi legal status but they hope that the person can hold the bankruptcy courts but those in the business cannot. in terms of employment coming from the colorado supreme court unanimously determined and medical

marijuana user complies with state law had to be lawful off-duty conduct policy because he was violating federal law. that the conduct was not lawful including of what could be of interest to those here but every state has some version of contact that the lawyer shall not engage to fit the crime so all conduct remains a legal of whether a lawyer may do anything. with the criminal conduct

this isn't tim permitted under state law. one and said they colorado ethics rules. >> is good to be here. i got the phone call from

the active attorney-general after confirmed to the u.s. senate from the chief japanese bought - - chief deputy spot to be attorney general. and there are some strong opinions with the united states attorney with that legalization to be very

adamant and one of the things that i thought i would do is with what i woodsy -- would receive from that scientific perspective and then to identify for where they are coming from to have the chance as they come into the debate decided charged as this one is. so i will just go through the things that ic and directed meant scheduling that is easy.

then to identify brand-new molecule's and that is the substance but the other thing that is really controversial issue insight into the drug trade we have asset forfeiture like most dates is a very hot topic was the things that i do of the done monday for people who traffic in the drugs. so we get a pretty good view i get 20 or 25 in one year. with the seizure of assets

that is just the beginning of the process. but another thing that i do is with the attorney general's office to have the one said step of appeals so i am in charge and i am very heavily involved so in terms of those cases to see to it is being convicted with some of the things that are happening with those. a big one is a division of criminal and destination. and with the division of

criminal investigation. so mostly is wiretaps and investigations with the criminal division of investigation. end i will spend some time talking about those challenges so i can see that up close to do those things that need to be done. but one thing that i don't do the attorney-general so

the drug enforcement so in light only the attorney general's office so until they come up on appeal. so i don't have a history of that and then to have that experience with what i don't have. and with the drug trade to say prior to that investigation some of the judge talks about his role as a magistrate that is

something so around the state of wyoming. now of course, you probably have already heard this but you only have 600,000 people but the statistic that we seek is different from those larger areas but it may be hardening or worth paying attention. but one thing that i will mention briefly that i will move on with the general observation awakenings are headed to face the law-enforcement ariane it is we do have about the initiative in wyoming right

now. is only illegal in the help extract. so that has some become an important market so with legalize marijuana but what we do have is that ballot initiative. and it needed 30,000 signatures to get on the ballot. it is for medicinal use not recreational use. but like colorado medicinal block was very liberal even 18 year-old could claim they

have fibril myalgia to get a certificate down the street. but that is with those physical conditions that could lead to consuming that legally. potentially the signatures would have to be collected so what may not make it on the about it but there is some problems that could be problematic and the biggest is there is no opposition or opt out. that is a strong tradition whether education or other areas for local control that is what the growers may have difficulty to excepting that position of marijuana in the community so that could be a

fatal flaw in the ballot initiative. but because of that the commission spent a lot of time with some excellent professors university of wyoming. financially they had some very good information about these various issues and policy issues from various places to talk about the various models. it is a very restricted model. so what do i see as pending issues but first i will mention with scientific issues to some extent if

marijuana is legal or not we have a statute in wyoming that says a certain amount of material in the position of liquid for but we don't have that ended is not a supreme court decision that to a high of cooking brownies and chocolate. but then he got caught. said did not go to the supreme court but there were issues. is extracted so as a liquid or a solid?

said even just those issues i guess the competition it is so difficult to figure out marijuana in the crime lab so without changing the quantity with the sample so using a gas chromatic graf but so of the material but it's in that area had to get

that material to calibrate? we do know if we go to the gas station the inspectors core around to make sure that the amount coming out of the pomp and yazov to do that enabled crime laboratory. because of that calibration material. and of the sample degrades over time. set will be an issue for the crime lab's.

with that to do a recent study to involve medical marijuana. and those have less than 25% of those packages were within 10 percent accuracy in the example. so those are significant issues just to point this out to regulate marijuana and regulating the thc content. to say this in wyoming to be traffic and to the state the direction is then the direction of adults those

were some of the biggest scientific challenges. >> >> but with oklahoma against colorado. with the spillover into wyoming of marijuana purchased from colorado.

but with the amount of marijuana in wyoming so this pretty easy to tell. so with the quick couple issues from 2014 replaced 127 million and a share in 2015 and moved up 100 critics so intent 2014 so currently there is a big percentage increase coming from marijuana and colorado.

real estate and the largest increase in some parts of wyoming that we expected 15 years we have similar increase so the evidence is pretty clear with the favored state we have more marijuana coming into our state from colorado much purchased from those legal dispensaries. >> so a song that have impact on a neighboring state and he was the school principal but there are some big issues.

but in those days there was a time when all high-school sock started a no-smoking school. only in designated areas. so pretty soon every right would be smoking in the classroom. but then as they come back again there are these areas with the public to think about these things. and to be in that marijuana area. and to prepare those reports

for this state one of those that found so striking for what we know about tobacco today is the long-term effects of what i have seen is not that good. and so of course, with that issue them with those clinical trials. and then scientifically with those long-term effects. also for example, the attorneys jefferies -- attorneys general to reduce tobacco.

and then it is going down dramatically in the country. but addend. >> again we appreciate your time. >> so what are the challenges that you and your office space to represent state law? to understand in terms of perspective and i am lucky and that regard without the controversy to put that

aside. at least if you are a legal nerd like me but the prospective is wrestling with questions of pre-emption if you break federal law and remarkable after 20 years of legalized marijuana of what method to use and to all they scratched the surface in the controlled substances act. and with that standard that measures the effects.

or a much more narrow version. and then there is no pre-emption. so we wrestle with that. and then it successfully. and still we don't get much of clarity with standing issues or preliminary issues. and then to turn that back over is to have that enforcement guidance. in how they viewed those

priorities. and how they are met or how they would ago about to enforcing against the state that they're not holding the other end of the bargain. addenda then to the state of washington to preserve that option to force the preemption provision against the state of colorado. and here we are four years later into commercialized recreation marijuana. and then to enforce of the prosecution basis. that isn't satisfactory either. and then on the other side of congress.

and how to approach the problem. in den to say as long as they are compliant with the dlj you cannot spend money on the prosecution to entrap the state regulatory process. but you also know from the cases of cannabis in the u.s. supreme court matter what you are doing of the controlled substances act. and then the very specific way to play out without situations and so far it is up to the states to regulate to the best of their ability.

and with the regulatory structure that survives challenges. >> with the empirical the fact with added decrease of crime activities or drug-trafficking? to see that impact and then turn that to the other panelists. with that role aspect. but to have some major law enforcement issues to be coronated by this office and

with those medicalize to cover up interstate trafficking. i know they catch headlines it is difficult and a very granular level with the increasing use of a baseline certainly the numbers and we're getting from the federal government suggests there is an increase of trafficking so there are some compelling arguments that were not anticipated so i don't know if i have enough information to speculate how that plays out. >> oklahoma sued colorado tell us about that. [laughter]