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]

so richly with the supreme court with that jurisdiction between states end up with those mayors are standing. and to intervene. to have those pre-emptive claims. for those states that border colorado but the bigger issue and with that authorization because it is still in legal.

and with the constitutional order. with the effects of the bordering state with interstate trafficking is the reality to be increased so going into 36 different states and i am sure that number has increased. in there not many systems and place to come in colorado and one offender live from oklahoma to colorado then came back so in addition to the trafficking outside of

colorado that there are lots of people coming in. to participate in the marijuana margin. but that is primarily driven so those attacks are motivated partly because of marijuana but with that statistic. but you would notice the concentration is what you'd expect in major metropolitan areas and the display is not a surprising result you

would expect that to naturally occur with interstate trafficking especially uh consequences of the industrialization of marijuana. so i was on a flight to say what he's speaking about this conference? she said don't you think there should be federal coordinating drug laws between the states to cause problems? i smiled to say whether there should be i don't know but the reality is there already is. so many years ago congress passed along but now had a very odd time in history to have their own policies regarding marijuana. wan i cannot think of

another situation at any time in history in a manner that caused this proliferation of other states. in then it creates a novel legal issue with the nature of the union and the role of the federal court. so it is the subject that raises the question for the policy to be at stake so what approach to looking at this issue for those to rectify? and to start with the premise they have the ability to state the - - to set the policy.

it was apparently interested to provide solutions and then we can vote of the interstate issue with their own sovereignty so what happens when the state goes back for those externalities'? alexander hamilton said to call this problem through the articles of confederation. but the problem is that the states have observed your disregarded. but it acts as a negative in creation of the federal

court to enforce the supremacy clause. and then it would be effective in hamilton said it would be a mere treaty if not a government. so we don't use that for a blind pursuit of states' rights and then to be sure. and then i saw lucite of the fact and then to be authorized the marijuana production but congress got to gather because it was determined that it is a

substance n number two how do you track it between states but this agreement is part of the entire delegation. but to have control of local position that nothing to talk about the interstate trafficking of drugs. and then to undermine the ban. then then now chosen to pull back with the marijuana market with that express purpose of the $1 billion industry. and then precisely intend the type of what they try to prevent.

but that is what they intended to have with the nationwide ban. with that unresolved tension. with that irreconcilable differences. and then to make that unlawful under federal law. in them by the same federal statutes. and then by the federal statute. n then to preserve the union

and then once they enjoyed the benefit. and then to be repealed. and then to regulate. and then to be classified. but the question is with the peace deal of notification. and then other the legal issues emerge as well. because the prohibition of national policy for so long has been arrested. that has many other vexing legal questions.

and did ask me if i use illicit drugs in his you probably. >> so this is just a sampling is the status quo of these conflicting laws. so of course, none of the questions show the larger question of the constitutional structure. and then to be given the negative. to be the most interesting and most pressing questions regard marijuana. >> so for those academics

for the m to react and if they rioted in private if that's true. with social services to support that. and what this the consequences? >> but i'd take certainly of colorado or any other state the allies is marijuana it laugh have an effect outside this date which is the classic collective action but there is a proper way but what congress has done

is to go off state law enforcement from congress benefited from that and was policing the prior prohibition but now they have no obligation as the colorado member states and then to ban the firearms and state law does not but the way for congress is to pass legislation to grandfather federal enforcement you cannot plead marijuana but that does not prevent congress from stepping in to have that allegiance. >> but i was like to take

some questions from the audience. >> is said that they cannot be dismantled to say that those dispensaries because of law-enforcement agencies that have chosen that legal substances act to take place against medical marijuana. and then to end their experiment. so that is a policy decision that they should be allowed

their under no obligation to pass prohibition to leave those prohibitions in place. but as the supreme court has indicated of the regulatory regime to put into place. in both certainly they know the goal but not regulated in colorado to have more questions on kansas' with the current regime. so what we hear is a half, net debt colorado.

but now they are being targeted to identify that impaired driving. such of the same ways to increase awareness of sexual assault that they went up because law-enforcement was more of a concern in uc on the part of law-enforcement. >> sociable ago through the policy guidance? >> i think that is part of

political will not of law with the authority and responsibility to enforce federal law throughout the country the attorney-general has taken the position through section 542 there is nothing to prevent the new attorney-general changing policy chris christie maybe something. >> gore colorado to campaign because i alerted the vice president. >> questions from the audience? >> if they cannot take the cash and to pay cash for the marijuana business you have to take the loss in revenues

that it receives one to put that in the day. i am understand it is legal but but did blow is enacted now in the pre-but essentially the tax revenue is inefficient for half but

then retaken leslie said and they think it will continue pledge the. >> wave might decide this year. but this was just before colorado but she knew to relations cover her cushy suggested but it is almost like an area of native adept -- but i don't so start

going dennis f. and their irish with but to the budget in l. fare after ahead but how they but the cnn.

>> but then to have some much case law and ahead but the facts of actions with sad dimension. >> did is a fascinating urea i don't necessarily read, but it is controversy to this notion of federalism and that is a huge budgetary issue for those states that want to do certain things. but officials to see if it is a different type of legislation to see that it is fascinating unresolved picked body of issues with.

>> with some of legislation that results in the scheduling of drugs, since 1992 have had authority for the use of marijuana for individuals. has the d.a. fought about and even those throughout

the nation recommending to be compared rebel to the d.a. obsession. >> those over last 20 years where the d.a. has rivas said the scheduling question to move that to lead different schedule learning just the few weeks ago but of the main reason between the lead drug is that it requires that type of evidence and actually wants to see large-scale research even though there is of a

lot of research done there has and then anything that meets that gold standard so to causally refrain don't just show what anecdote. >> so with that large scale for those of medical use. there are a couple of blind studies of those for the purposes of the engaging and

then they tell lifted is d.c. or the final circuit but those provisions have that opportunity it actually comes from the first amendment but it cannot be secluded and then even with those under of abortion cases.