of people talk what education is way to make money, as way to get a better job. the way i experienced it it's about making a person. i think everyone should have that opportunity to participate in the making of their own mind. i think needs to be a more active and people need to be more involved to think of their own education. >> afterwords errs on booktv every sunday at 10 p.m.. all previous programs are available to watch online on our website, booktv.org. >> good evening, everybody and welcome to the tattered cover. my name is eileen and before jumping to our event i i just wanted to thank you all for

coming. two events like this could be possible if it were not for your generous support showing up to them. really, thank you so much for adding to your denver reading community. we appreciate it. tonight we had the honor of hosting emily dufton here to talk about her book "grass roots: the rise and fall of marijuana in america." emily received her phd in american studies from george washington university and grassroots is based off her dissertation, the inspiration for such entries you tell us more about and she starts her talk. emily has been featured in history channel, in the art and a work can also be found in the "washington post," the atlantic history news network and run washington. we are excited to emily here today because as you know in colorado without a very intriguing conversation going about marijuana. even before it was officially legalized in 2014. her book adds to this

conversation with new research and interviews which expands this conversation even more than we could even hope to. so without any further ado please give a warm welcome that emily dufton. [applause] >> thank you so much for having me here. it is really an honor to speak at the tattered cover which is an assumption that is put on so many amazing cultural events. pardon my voice, i caught a cold for my toddler son and you know how baby colt are, the worst. hopefully my voice will hold on. i actually have been in colorado since 2010 and the city has really changed, the state has really changed. you are at the forefront of the movement that would be discussing tonight. legalizing marijuana in 2012 is huge. before people even infuse pot into beer alleys professionally you are very much so on the cutting edge. you really set the pace. i would like to start by situating asked where we are in our current moment it will not

quite a month into the second year of the trump administration and whatever you are feeling on the subject country you can agree it's a distinctly weird time to be alive. perhaps no more so than in america's strange relationship and should relationship with both legal and illegal drugs. last year i read probably on twitter that it hillary clinton were marijuana and what it excretes a very different inauguration on january 20, 2017. this is not to say if clinton were made a pot what if elected president pot or something but rather in the four states to tht legalize marijuana in the 2016 election, all of them got marijuana and all then got in the higher approval ratings either presidential candidate. the support is both an was and is overwhelming bipartisan comity. republicans and democrats alike both really support legalized

marijuana rights and a majority of us agree for drug should be both sold and tax like alcohol or tobacco. this is remarkable because as a nation where very difficult time agreeing on anything, right, on me too, daca, north korea, russia. a recent gallup poll suggested 64% of americans now support recreational legalization. we don't agree on anything, right? but it's fine if you smoke. until it isn't. after voting for legalize marijuana in november 2016, california open the doors in january 1 of this year. california is an incredibly big deal in the world of legalize marijuana. kaplan does it make the west coast essentially a block of legalization which will expand northward when canada the devices in july but it also nearly doubles the market and basically overnight. sales of legalize marijuana, recreational marijuana in 2017

totaled about $10 billion before california hit the market. this year california is expected to generate about $5 billion in sales alone and about 1 billion in taxes. this is huge. but three days after california's law went into effect attorney general jeff sessions revoked the obama administration's memo which essentially said within recent assuming you don't grow on federal lands, so the children, traffic across state lines, that federal officials will allow state legalization loss to stand. sessions action doesn't do that much. it's more saber rattling than anything else since 95% of drug arrests occur on a stimulant and also needs of the doj nor the dea has the resources or people to go after large-scale growers and distributors. it's an incredibly symbolic shift. sessions seems to be saying i'm going to ignore the social acceptance and going to focus on

it because i think it's as bad as heroin. so there, right? when news about his actions went live, people kind of lost their minds. legal pot is obviously a very chaotic industry. anything the rings ranks legale state level and illegal on federal level will now to face a bit of an uphill climb but sessions announcement jumps repairs of return to a 1980s war on drugs with more arrests,, morbus, more targeting african-americans. people saw an overtly racist motive and feared did not learn from past mistakes. but as for me i wasn't really surprised. my book was released almost exactly a month to the day before sessions actions would like. i predicted he would revoke the memo. i did not expected to happen this quickly by did predict it. i believe his reasons for doing so are more complex than mere racism. particularly since recreational marijuana overwhelmingly

benefits upper-middle-class whites, those who can afford legal pots high fees and higher taxation rates. instead, i believe both sessions actions of people very impassioned responses to our products of this 50 about over legalization at its broadest to this point. as well as a distinct resurrection of previous behaviors. the cycle of marijuana. >> sentence or disavowal, the pendulum constant swing between acceptance and the criminality from these things shipped to make each historical circumstance but in in the telg the powder remains fundamentally the same. that's what my book my talk tonight are both basically focusing on. the emergence of this pattern and what has happened since the first legalization protest of 1954 to bring us to this point. perhaps you'll see for yourself the same pattern that it think it's appropriate you won't, and i believe you can discuss it in the q&a section. so as i said the first protest

took place in 1964 in august 1964 and in san francisco to be more precise. there is matter one history before 1964 of course. that stuff that's not the focus of my book but there are tons of excellent titles i could use a bibliography about if you're interested. by the time 1964 rolls around, the federal governments use on their one have not evolved much faster 1936 film reefer madness if you're familiar with it. the governments official stance was marijuana primus letter to a number of horrible things including heroin addiction, suicide, murder, assassination, et cetera. instead i start in 1964 when the young man walks into the san francisco hall of justice, light up with joy, declares he started a campaign to legalize marijuana and ask to be arrested. which he immediately is. his action is the first shot in what would become a 50 year adult over marijuana in which

thousands, tens of thousands of average ordinary americans essentially went to war over pot. whether they supported it or opposed mr., together these two factions grassroots activist went on to change the country marijuana laws three times. first in the 1970s and is spread to criminalization to a dozen states, and in the 1980s and the drug was re-criminalizing and demonize in the just say no 1980s. then drink the acceptance of medical marijuana. today's growing social acceptance has burst of renewed counterrevolution which we can see in the actions of jeff sessions and the prominence of anti-legalization activist and in a major pharmaceutical manufacturers are lobbying against the promotional legalization laws because essentially they cut into the bottom line. it all starts with this guy.

he is particularly interest because his 28 in 1960 when he launches his first participants felt like a hippie as with come to know them today. thank you cecil is about a year before the thousands of beats and sandra, haight-ashbury, three years before the summer load. he's a pretty easy-going normal guy. he's a t-shirt and jeans that, short hair, likes to spend time with a solid base and to revolution as unlikely as it is without of his attorney james white. james white is an interesting historical figure. he's a conservative or maybe like a more libertarian. he once describes him as to the right of barry goldwater, which is extreme. he's probably the government should not be able to tell an individual what to do in their private life, since of course they are not hurting anyone else. he's also a researcher and he

digs at these old government reports, some of them quite old including the indian hemp drug commission of 1894 and the panama canal zone of 1925. these showed the federal government once believed pop was both less toxic and less have formed them both alcohol and tobacco. i showing the federal government once the this way, white argued modern laws against marijuana are unconstitutional and his client does not deserve to be jailed for its use. his appeal goes nowhere. he is incarcerated for about a year. immediately upon his release he is essentially abandons the movement but white stays with it. he starts to me in the graph and had pelleted the reports he finds and calls that marijuana puff-in in the san francisco bay area and he also formed a new organization called, essentially a contraction legalize marijuana.

which could also spread throughout the san francisco ferry. it seems up with the grateful dead, starts trying with concert, things like that. it becomes very popular. allen ginsberg is also in san francisco at the time. he is quite prominent at this point, numerous accolades to stand in a a very national proe picky tends -- is so moved by it he brings the organization back within returns to new york and forms the first east coast chapter. with the support of ginsberg, lemar quickly goes national. the call for legislation gets wrapped up in something else which is the burgeoning youth movement of the time. finding these old reports which a government has backpedaled on since, a a growing number of yu and people saw a familiar story, that the government can live. it was currently lying about winning the war in vietnam. it was lying about the necessity of segregation, and the people

were finding it was lying about the effects of marijuana as well. combined with the growing baby boomers how to culture and marijuana spicing rates of use, christ for lisa zika swept up in single at the front thousands to antiwar marches and civil rights demonstration it was a moment of real historical significance pic before we go any further i need to retract the lipid and described where our marijuana laws come from. prior to 1970 on this high trajectory join up with all these other social moments there was no distinct federal law against the drug which is incredible. there were state laws and some are far harsher than others but there was no distinct federal law outlawing marijuana. richard nixon was elected president and 68 and again in 1970 to recognize the threat this youth movement poses to his administration and he uses his law and order stance as a means to thwart his detractors pretty

quickly realizes that by targeting marijuana he can get a lot of these youth activists locked away. protesting isn't against the law. it's the first amendment. but pot could work and offense and maybe even it particularly series the fence if they could get congress to pass a new law. that's what he does nixon and his attorney general john mitchell bobby very, very hard to pass the controlled substances act of 1970 which you may recognize with a five schedule for which a places drugs, schedule one are drugs that are considered incredibly prone to abuse and with no recognize medical value and he goes down to schedule five which is aspirin and things like that. nixon works hard to convince congress to place marijuana in schedule one. pending the results, he's able to do that by suggesting this would be temporary, pending the results of a two-year investigation that is the

controlled substances act also set up. this is essentially call the national commission on marijuana and drug abuse, also known as the shader commission because it is run by raymond schaefer, republican of my home state of pennsylvania. so the shaker sheep commission3 member committee passed -- schaefer -- and an investigatif the finalists for the scope and depth of the nation marijuana use the nixon hoped they would find horrible things about the drug that would benefit his criminalization of it. he hoped they would link you to violence, too hard or use, to the general and declining moral standard of the nation, things like that. he even strong arm schaefer several times bring him into the office and promising him a a federal judge if he was going for it to results matched what nixon is searching for. but things don't work out that way. which is rather extraordinary. instead the shader commission finds no connection between marijuana and it is a thinks nixon is trying to blame pot

four. instead they found about 24 million americans have tried part at least one twitch at the time was but about 11% of the population and 12 million were regular users. maybe five or 6%. they found marijuana users were basically no different from the average american citizen. they were no more lazy or violent or whatever. they decide that marijuana laws are essentially unfair. they hurt otherwise law-abiding citizens. they make people distrustful of the police and also you have to keep in mind the time their writing this, 1972. so you have watergate, vietnam and things that are incredibly large national skill which makes marijuana scene small. so the shafer commission argues for decriminalization. nixon completely ignored this report. but others don't. the shafer commission releases its findings in a paperback, it

cost $1.25 and it becomes incredibly popular especially by 1973 after a wave of young progressive politicians are elected to state houses across the country. they want to put the commission's recommendations into practice. one of these young politicians is name stephen and is responsible for intimacy the shafer commission laws in oregon. by 1973 oregon is a first aid to pass statewide decriminalization turning the possession of marijuana into a civil fine, the equivalent of like a parking ticket or something like that. what's remarkable is the sky doesn't fall. marijuana rates in oregon don't rise. people are supportive of the law. there are a couple of national organizations most probably a national organization for the form of marijuana laws. that was founded in d.c. in 1970 1970, very supportive of these laws. other states talk to pass the

correlation laws as well. in 1975 1978 dozen states inclg some really surprising ones like mississippi, minnesota and nebraska have decriminalized the personal possession of marijuana which meant more than a third of the country was living for marijuana warranted nothing more than civil fine. jimmy carter supported state-based decriminalization laws on his successful presidential run in 1976, and for active assessing like their moment had come. by 76, 78 people think national decriminalization and maybe legalization is around the corner. this is not to occur. while decriminalization laws are spreading across the country and of industry is popping up alongside of it. remember that the economy in the '70s was pretty bad. there were oil shortages that lead to gas lines that wrapped around the block and 73 and said in a car the term stagflation to the national lexicon but there's one significant growth industry

and that is paraphernalia. marijuana paraphernalia. by 1979, or 1957, excuse me, that paraphernalia market is bringing $259 a year off dollars a off the sale of pipes, bongs, holding paper something like that. that's the equivalent of 1 billion today, an enormous market. this market is able to succeed thanks to increasing interest in the drug but also because of the panoply of new magazines like high times which is found in 1974, stone age, stoned, variations of titles like that. they were devoted to this new marijuana culture and in need of advertising dollars. there's all this room to advertise these new things. this becomes polymeric when a lot of the product start to target kids. inadvertently or perhaps purposely. there were bong shapes like spaceships. there were a buzz feed with a frisbee. you are the dealer board game

which i thought was succinate, things like that. while they're being promoted and marketed to adults, some start to notice there's a a bit of a trickle-down effect and marijuana use among adolescents skyrocketed during this time. to the point where by 1979, 11% of high school seniors report smoking pot everyday and chilled and generous 13 report a drug is easy to get. so this situation with near nationwide incredibly rapid acceptance of decriminalization compounded by this powerful and very profitable boon in paraphernalia and the subsequent rise in adolescent marijuana use, this launches the first marijuana counterrevolution which is called the parent movement. informed in jimmy carter's hometown atlanta, georgia, in 1976. i know he is from planes but he was governor. the parent movement had gotten a bad rap over the past couple of years in drug history. people dismiss them as angry or

maybe hyperbolic but the thing is they were legitimately terrified of the children marijuana use. it seemed to come out of nowhere and sadly it's prevalent and all information that parents could find suggested that this drug is going to do irreparable harm to their children. there were a lot of federal government reports the said it would make invoice progress, ranger young girls and further it would destroy generations of chromosomes. they were terrified of a motivational center what kids would give up on life before it had even begun. so they start to gather together and basically consciousness-raising groups to borrow a term from second wave feminism when they start to share information, they start to collectively paired the kids. they say roulette uniform rules, giving alternative options after school. a couple of them publish pamphlets like parents peers and pots. a lot of pes in one sentence. these things become so popular

that there were over 1 million copies of that pamphlet about the furniture after the publication. parents heard this and they joined in droves. the movement takes off and by 1980 parents groups across the country and have national lobbying group in d.c. right across the border in maryland, national federation of parents for drug-free use. but the most interesting thing is that fund the parent activism spread like wildfire across the country but it was effective. recent battle marijuana use plunge and by 1980 a year after, high school students claim to believe that pot is really dangerous, , the majority of thm claim this. the parents win, , right? the problem is solved, hooray. not so fast. in 1980, also the year while rod

reagan gets elected to the oval office and his wife nancy needs a platform to achieve first lady. nancy was deeply in popular when she was brought to washington. one newspaper called her and i'm not kidding you, a frivolous social climber with more political ambition than lady macbeth, which is kind of a burned, right? she needs a platform that will make her seem warmer and more caring and more maternal. the prevention of adolescent dg use seems like a perfect fit. the first lady transform for several parent activists help into the nation's most famous antidrug activists within about a year. i have an entire chapter detailing how she scaled the concept of just say no from african-american grandmother in oakland. i don't have time to go into but a highly recommend you read it, it's geoffrey kemp or perhaps we can talk about it in q&a. this is what we see the pendulum tickets first really big shift.

moving from the acceptance of the criminal station in the 1970s to this demonization of the drug in the 1980s. this is able to happen because parent activists change the conversation about marijuana use in the united states. that is the source of their power. decriminalization laws were passed on the idea that an adult has a right to do with the want and a privacy of their own home, assuming that unit hurting anyone else. activists and nancy reagan turned this conversation around. pot wasn't about adults rights anymore because about the right of a child to grow up drug-free. it doesn't matter what an adult thought he or she couldn't do because as soon as the drug trickle-down and children were starting to use it, that adults use became problematic and dangerous. if all drug using adults were dangerous to drug-free kids, they are also worthy of being locked up, criminalize for their marijuana use. the movement gets really hot and

pot begins the demon drug of the 1980s because office in numerous very special episode of punky brewster, different strokes, guest starred the first lady numerous other programs and i'm forgetting other names right now. even though rates of adolescent drug use our plumbing at the same thing. pot is so scary because assisted, rates of other drug use are dropping. when does nothing scarier being abused, that's a time when marijuana becomes our target drug of choice. marijuana is reputation of the passages has become and target predicate what drugs are or are not in being used at the same thing. decriminalization laws in the semis were able to pass because of the united states was going to a fairly severe heroin epidemic from 1967-1976 until the federal government 76 until the federal government got it under control as multimillion dollar programs supported this announcement of methadone clinics across the united states.

so by the time the 1980s rollaround, the parent movement and nancy reagan in full force there are other drugs being used but there are none that are as prominent and is problematic as marijuana becomes. there's nothing not pot in headlights. it's the demon drug for two reasons. the first is it was being portrayed as as a threat to children and the second is other drug uses is so limited at the time doesn't seem like a national concern. this change is big time in 1986, specifically the summer, that june when an a new drug comes n the scene called back cooking. len bias, did anybody know who i'm talking about? basketball phenom from university of maryland. in june of 19862 days after he is -- what's the sportster where your selected -- there we go, where he's drafted, thank you, by the boston celtics. he is this phenom.

two days after that it's his huge income he dies of a cocaine overdose, of a powder cocaine overdose, but that death had such an impact on capitol hill legislation because the universe of maryland is basically like a home team that they go crazy passing antidrug legislation. crack a comes the demon in 1986 with hundreds of news articles written about it calling it instantly addictive, warnings of crack babies being born to mothers of use the drug in utero, and what one "new york times" letter to scott is basically destruction spread across america. by taking the national focus away from marijuana, however, crack surprisingly did more for the legalization campaign and almost anything else. it makes pot once again seen came in comparison same way the heroin epidemic of the '60s and 70s did. it set the stage for marijuana is resurrection as as a surprig

substance, which was as medicine. the crack crisis hits the united states at the same time as the hiv/aids epidemic is starting to make national headlines as well. in cities like san francisco, dozens, hundreds of young gay men are succumbing to the strange new disease. they're losing weight, they are getting these symptoms of all these other diseases. they are dying in droves and no one is sure what's going on. activists nickname brownie mary concerning for the brownies she would offer with a special ingredient in them, she's working with these young men. her neighbors, she finds marijuana can help them in a way that few other drug scandal. she can give them back a a bitf an apodictic and were it can released some of her nausea, given some strength and they start to feel better. other start to think about this and marijuana starts to be used to treat a variety of white right of illnesses from glaucoma

to the effects of chemotherapy. said after a decade of demonization marijuana isn't a national scourge anymore. it's a medicine. one that can provide relief to disease that very few understand. together brownie mary and dennis was a marijuana and gay rights activist the past when genuine 27th of so we just lost a big member of the movement, they pushed for the passage of prop 215 in 1996 which allow doctors in california to recommend, not prescribe, but recommend the use of marijuana for the treatment of any disease. the first medical marijuana law passed in the united states. by 1997 the "new york times" reported nearly one-third of americans knew somebody use marijuana for the treatment of some medical issue. marijuana had transformed basically just a decade from a national scorched to a potential panacea. the drug began to change shape

pics of the people are less concerned about the victims of drug use and more about the victims of the drug war itself or knowing when to seek a a car patient getting busted for smoking pot. this becomes a powerful argument. we can see how powerful it is in medical marijuana, doctors recommend and it has like eating a% national approval rating. what in this country is 89% approval rating, right? the only thing is medical marijuana and maybe puppies, right? .. in 2007 which is the year marijuana in the united

states, 872,000 people were arrested for pot.just possession, not necessarily intent to distribute. that is a bust nearly every 37 seconds for the entire year. a majority of the people being arrested were african-american males who were four times as likely to get arrested for marijuana than whites even though statistics show whites use the drug in equal numbers. we saw in alexander, a name you might know. she was a lawyer working for the aclu in california in the early 2000 and she notices this trend. she writes a book in 2010 called the new jim crow: mass incarceration and age of colorblindness and it's an influential book and in it she details the amount immense negative effects of america incarcerated a wider percentage of its black americans in south africa had at the heart of apartheid which is remarkable. she commends action on the part of anyone in social justice to stop nine violent black male offenders which she argues is essentially a

renewed form of segregation. this is an incredibly important argument but i do have to note that alexander never outright suggested legalization. she mentions the word legalization once. she does say that marijuana ought to be legalized but that patient occurs in a long list of other recommendations within the culture of law enforcement in the united states. but her book is not a clarion call for legalization. it's an enunciation of a deeply problematic system. instead, calls for legalization as a social justice view become the work of a new generation of activists who have a 20 year history as a medicine and has seen legalization as a step to do something, basically to reduce the number of black arrests and equalize the playing field for blacks and whites. social justice has become the most powerful argument for legalization yet. everyone from republican

right-leaning cops to lieutenant governor of california has suggested that legalization is important not just because of the tax dollars to the state, as beneficial as they are but because of the social justice effects that legalization can have. i live in dc or outside and in 2014 when we file voted to legalize, that legalization anddiscrimination, that was the core message . this argument has been so persuasive that in past legalization laws in eight states and dc, and nine with vermont but will talk about vermont in a second. that means that now nearly 70 million people live where marijuana is legal and basically marijuana arrests have plummeted in those states. so now we have to ask our, how's it going? as legalization worked? the answer is yes and no. marijuana arrests, they definitely are but blacks are

still more likely to be arrested for marijuana even in legalized states, especially here in colorado. this is one of the state that has the most transparent specifics. and if you states have included additional legislation that would expunge the entire record so marijuana arrests in the future. all this is in addition to the fact that it is still mostly wealthy white people who are starting to control larger sections of the industry . so that means white people will continue to profit off the substance that has for decades incarcerated blacks. butthere are still problems here. some states are doing different things to work on that. california is the most forward thinking about expunging those backgrounds . but not everyone does that and this is still very new legislation. and of course, you kind of have to note that legalization activists do pin their hopes on making america live up to its creed, they

are in for maybe disappointment. pot is not what makes america racist and legalization is not going to perfectly disrupt the system of 400 years of systemic racism. so that's tough. so where does this leave us and most importantly, where do we go? >> legalization is popular and it is spreading. new jersey might legalize, as we had in vermont, vermont is going through it but as i said before, a new counterrevolution is forming as well. every revolution bursar counterrevolution which birthday revolution of its own. it will potentially never stop moving. jeff sessions is removing the federal despot, along with his comment that no be good people use marijuana is an incredibly meaningful symbolic show and perhaps more problematically, big pharma is launching a multimillion dollar lobbying campaign against legalization. insists there are specifics which manufacture fentanyl spent $500,000 lobbying

against legalization in arizona in 2016, the one state that didn't vote to legalize in the initiatives that were up. other pharmaceutical manufacturers, purdue, things like that, see some of a lot of money to organizations that close legalization. worried that rising racist marijuana views will lower the numbers of opioids prescribed and cutting their bottom line. they are not wrong about this. opioid overdoses have fallen in legalized states while states that have medical programs, doctors there prescribed taking hundred fewer prescriptions for opioids annually is an extraordinary number. >> so i keep asking what will happen next and unfortunately i'm a historian, not oracle. oracle's probably make more money. we can't say for sure but i know that i was surprised about sessions revoking the cold memo but legalization is the first thing in the revolution as opposed to it, they're all following the historical model. we should have seen it coming but i know that there is some

sense that we are doing better than we did before. it's november, you and colorado will celebrate six years in legalization, six years. after year more than the period of the 1970s of decriminalization laws being passed. that's huge. and we also seem to be learning from our past mistakes which is also quite extraordinary. adolescent marijuana use are down. sales of adolescence are essentially zero. even marijuana hasn't formed, at least not yet and the sky hasn't fallen. in fact, it was quite beautiful out today. the problem is in relation nation counted 40 years ago that paraphernalia industries skyrocketed in adolescent use, a serious grassroots backlash. they don't seem to be appearing today, at least not yet soalthough , you're doing a lot of things right just for you.>> but there are still problems of legalization that we can

encounter. all legalization laws in the state of vermont werepassed through ballot initiatives including yours .and those are only available in about half of the states with your in new york, new jersey, pennsylvania, that's not an option for you. and passing new laws through the state legislature is far slower and often times far more conservative process. even my over 60 percent of governors are republicans and sometimes less prone to supporting marijuana laws. maine is a great example of that, maine legalized 2014 but but the governor as opposed to lamenting the loss so he's withholding essentially vetoing. there is no interest in changing marijuana's federal standards, that would be years long and an incredibly difficult process but we should also assume men are met marijuana's federal law will remain a drug. but the real reason legalization remains tricky is because marijuana's own history.

cannabis is the only drug in the united states that has had the distinct ability to move back and forth between legality and illegality and it's the only one to have done so repeatedly. prohibition was darted and ended with constitutional amendments which closes the discussion. these are state laws, and they seem to change quite a bit. potential among marijuana approval or disapproval never stops swinging because activists keep rising up to push in the opposite direction. remember that only about 60 percent of americans support legalization which leaves the percent who either oppose it or just don't really care. and recent reports have also reported that only about 10 percent of americans actually smoke pot with any regularity. so while legalization is important and it's time to a lot of fascinating issues, it doesn't have that same personal cachet that issued to gay marriage or universal healthcare. it doesn't reach everyone's life and we are after all

talking about an intoxicating drug. the reason our ideas about marijuana keep changing is because arguments about the drug itself are always about more than just the drug and its use. cannabis is loaded with meaning and often times it can mean many things at once. for some, while marijuana might represent freedom, can be freedom from government interference in their own personal life, freedom from mass incarceration for the freedom to do what you want, same time or someone else marijuana can mean fear. fear that the person behind you on the highway is high or a fear that children could access the drug or fear that the country just isn't what you thought or hoped it might be. as a national community we hold multiple ideas of what this drug is and what itmeans . and we're also willing to act on them. the book shows that after 50 years, we are working to shape marijuana laws in our

concept of right and wrong. no other drug has gotten this many people into the streets whether they were antiwar activists in the 60s or parents in the 80s or social justice activists today. many people have seen in marijuana both a threat and the promise. there's nothing bigger, more important in legislation than themselves. but i also believe that because danger is to be expected, it is possible that it's a change for good and that only comes from working together to ensure marijuana, laws for each community's values. if this issue is to succeed, they must first recognize. it's only when that perspective achieves that any kind of laughing, successful bipartisan change can occur. making enemies never works. i've seen that over and over again in myresearch. it's really only making friends is the way todo it . until we learn how to do that

, i will always think the declarations of the permanence of marijuana's current legal status . because after researching the subject since 2010, i think the pot is that old thing about the weather. whenever you think the law on marijuana is final, wait five minutes or five years. it will probably change. thank you so much and i'd be excited to answer your questions. >> so for the q&a, if you want to read to sharon and my friend over here with the boom i will get you on record. you'll be famous. >>. >> you have a questions? >> so a lot of people asking is marijuana the gateway drug. >> i see a lot of people coming off the greyhound, i

see a lot of bad things going on every night. is it a gateway drug? >> the real official on that is, thank you very much. the research on that is inconclusive because for the most part there are reporters who will say that it is and the other system will say that it isn't. there's no, the problem with that of course is becauseit's a schedule one drug and it's hard to ask , so the studies on it, a lot of organizations and universities are scared to get into it. research from abroad is not considered relevant to sort of american understanding that it can be incorporated into research. there's no distinct answer. for some people it is in for some people it isn't. i've heard stories from both sides. i've heard stories of parents who have watched their kids start tosmoke pot every day . and i heard stories of people who were, this is many harder things that have lots of indications because they are only using marijuana instead.

so is marijuana a gateway drug? for some people, yes but for some people, tobacco, alcohol, heroin, meth, all these are gateway drugs as well and it can be difficult to pin a gateway drug specifically on only marijuana, often times that marijuana use incorporated with other intoxicants used in things like that so there are arguments basically for both sides. i'm afraid it can come down to what we all want. >> so yes and no. >> any other questions? >> you mentioned the rise of the movement kind of inspired . in your book, you talk about how the policies of the reagan presidency led to the demise in several ways. can you expand on that?

that was one of the most fascinating things. >> i love you. so the reagan administration's embrace of the movement was sort of the downfall as well. which is remarkable. the current movement comes together in 76 by making it huge, national and it's influential. nancy reagan used this platform and embraces it but she starts to realize as well that within her husband's larger emphasis on health, federal government should be so small you can drown in a bathtub. if all these parents are going to work hard on preventing adolescent drug abuse, they're going to be doing community education, going to schools, and community groups, the federal government no longer have to on these activities so if the drawn budget for education is/ markedly, even though a lot of these prominent parents, national federation and i talk about to others

including fried and families in action, they become very dependent on federal grants to essentially do their work. activism isn't free. it is incredibly expensive to print materials, to attend conferences, to travel and do things like that so while the federal government is celebrating the parent movement as essentially a free community-based activism, parent activists themselves are keeping a lot of money from the federal government in order to do these things. but keep getting/. activists are starting to be strangled for funds and becoming really upset about it which because nancy reagan is promoting this is a free program. just benefiting the country while also fundraising oodles of money. she starts having tennis competitions on the south lawn of the white house to raise money for drug abuse effort. people are donating checks for anywhere between

$10,000-$500,000 to the cost. all this money is coming in and it's no longer going to parent activists. no one knows the point where it's going. just so you know, which i talked about a little bit, ultimately becomeslittle more than a marketing term. a lot of organizations and businesses promoted because it gives them that halo of good deeds . because they can sell a lot more brownie mix and paper towels and a snack chips if you have the just say no logo on your program. so this is a give-and-take relationship between the white house promoting this anti-drug abuse effort and becoming very you know, well-funded because of it and incredibly well respected and the readings really go through the roof because while they are essentially starting to be activists, the people that gave them this platform to start with, the parent movement, some of the most prominent activists lose face in the reagan administration but by that time nancy reagan is back in california. her husband is over, she has

millions of dollars in what is now called the nancy reagan drug abuse fun and that money doesn't, there's not a lot of traction about where that money ultimately goes. so in the same way that legalization activists and the criminalization activists too close to the carter administration and believe that carter would be able to legalize or decriminalize the job drug nationally and that ultimately didn't happen a series of scandals , the parent administration does the same, there's a parent movement that does the same thing. it's too close to the reagan administration and it also is being in the backside. it doesn't work out. no it's the last capture of my book, i have six recommendations for activists if they're interested in continuing to pursue the platform whether it's support or its close the extension of access to marijuana and the one recommendation is to not get too close to the white house.the administration lasts 4 to 8 years. scandals can change people's minds.

drugs can or cannot be a very good platform for a specific federal official. it's very hard to pin your hopes on whoever is or is not in the white house.i would not recommend it. things are going to change to fast yes, it's a great question. >> it shaved its success because of the reagan administration but ultimately the reagan administration caused us to self-employment as well and all because of money. >> so did the dare program of the mid-late 80s, when it started, was the outcome of, were they riding the wave .? i read ultimately that was not very successful. >> it wasn't very successful. der has had a lot of problems. it was a program, everyone's familiar with the dare program. the drug education program. calls would come in the classrooms in elementary or middle school and talk about the dangers of drug use.

for the most part that was, they could not decrease drug use, in fact it might have inspired drug use because now parents knew what to look for. that was actually sounded in 1983 by a los angeles police official, darrell gates. he formed their with the overt support of the white house but it was not actually associated with say no or anything like that.it was not apparent program yourself while he mentioned a little, i didn't go too deeply into it. there are still programs that have their own east coast and for some reason nowhere still has their license plates you can get four cars. which i find charming but it's not like a huge, it's not as widely available as it used to be. i was a dare graduate as well but i'm not doing it anymore. >>. >> any other der dodgers here? no, wow, we've got some der people. alright. >> any other questions?

>> yes. >> you mentioned that activists should not get do close to the president. with respect to the trump administration it's the complete opposite, with industry and community have been hostile toward the president to the point that when roger stone who tried to join our community recently was ejected by industry leaders and activists, do you think that's a mistake to completely write off the president or that is a sound strategy right now? >> the president has, i need to write off thepresident himself , i don't know. these come down sort of on two ways. he has suggested that he would be interested in supporting state laws. he said i think more overtly that he supportive of medical rights but if jeff sessions who's in charge of the doj and most recently i think they're going to close the office of national drug control policy which is a not

super well-funded, his budget was slapped by 95 percent last fall and it's still an organization that does essentially offer suggestions and control for the white house is drug control strategy. it's made by ideally people associated to the objective policy analyst. so the white house teams to be suggesting that even though we had this cornucopia epidemic going on right now, that over 50,000 people died of opioid overdoses in 2016 alone. the government is focusing more on this over symbolic attack against marijuana while doing little to actually counteract the opioid crisis. i don't see trouble coming out in support of legalization efforts or faith-based laws at this point. he didn't do it after sessions revoked his memo and whether that was a process to revoke everything , be touchable, honest, i'm not sure but i don't see that being a huge priority for this administration.

so i can't imagine that is going to be, that probe is going to come out and say sessions, back off. get back in your lane. >>. >> any other questions? >>. >> i was thinking you were mentioning that the big driver of the parent movement was the parents who were concerned about paraphernalia being sold to kids. can you talk about any data that showed or estimated the amount of paraphernalia to middle schoolers or teenagers that got their hands on in the 70s, whether it was as prevalent as the parents suppose or were arguing or was it more of a fear that they acted on before it hit. you mentioned the youth, marijuana youth was high in the 70s but the actual shops themselves, were they selling underage people paraphernalia?

>> the interesting thing about what happened in the 1970s, this is the interesting difference to decriminalization and legalization. decriminalization doesn't have those levels of regulation or oversight legalization has. to the extent that you have bouncers, you have to show id, do all these kind of things. in decriminalization, none of the systems are set up and corner dealers don't ask for identification cards but the interesting thing about the paraphernalia industry in the 1970s was that it didn't have specific stores. head shots were prevalent but only in certain areas of the country. paraphernalia was being sold in record shops, high times was told in 7-eleven's and all these other things. it was an industry that didn't burp its own set of stores. not as much as it crept into already established places, music stores, cafcs, things like that so one of the reasons that steve rocio pioneered the parent

movement, she got involved in this at all because in 1977 she went to the record store to get a star wars record for her son and was overwhelmed by the balls and pipes and everything that were there. one of the television shows in the 1980s, the facts of life, remember the facts of life? trudy who was the little innocent girl, she sees a bond record store and she's like i don't understand, how does this make music? how do you make it bond -mark there's a joke that these were available in stores and all these other things. it wasn't as exclusive through this element that was the element of a larger market and that was when it was a problematic thing, not ensuring that it was only accessible by adults or things like that. it wasn't like a liquor store, stuff was just there and prevalent.actual specifics for how many kids were buying these things, dollars were not widely

available at but there were a few reports from major newspapers that had, they gave $300 to an 11-year-old and a 13-year-old and sent them through new york city to buy paraphernalia and they bought all $300 worth. they were able to spend all that money.people were not restricting sales to children, checking ids or things like that. obviously there were a few choices that were covered by newspapers and having that same sort of media scare tactic but it did seem relatively easy to access the stuff. it wasn't like in any way. >> who's going to buy a budgie? >> except for college students. >> any other questions? >> know? i want to thank you again for coming out, it was wonderful to talk to you and i always want to speak to the entire cover, very much. i want to applaud the state audience. i'm sorry again for my voice.

alright. >> for nearly 20 years, in depth on book tv as peter the nation's best-known nonfiction writers with live conversations about their books. this year is a special project we are featuring best-selling fiction writers for our program in depth fiction edition. join us live sunday, march 4 at noon eastern with jeff shara whose novel odds and generals was made into a major motion picture. his most recent book is the frozen hours. his other books include the final storm, to the last man was 11 more novels which recounts the military history of america from the american revolution to the korean war. during the program we will

take your phone calls, tweets and facebook messages. our series in depth fiction edition with author jeff shara sunday, march 4 from noon to 3 pm eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> he delivered i think i know the stump speech you're referring to which it's a speech he delivered about the original as him and why it's superior to what's called the living constitution approach to jurisprudence and i heard him deliver that speech in madison wisconsin in 2001 and it's one he delivered often. it was his stump speech and i was looking forward to finding a written version of that because i love that speech, i thought it was great. it included a wonderful passage where he compared the living constitution approach to a television commercial from the 1980s where a prego commercial where somebody is making pasta, just heating up store-bought pasta sauce and the husband says to his wife,

you're using this store-bought sauce? you're not doing it homemade? what about the oregano and the wife says it's in there. what about the pepper? it's in there. the garlic? it's in there. my dad would say we've got that constitution now. he wants the right to an abortion, it's in there. you want a right to die, it's in there. anything that's good and true and beautiful, it's in their no matter what the text says and i thought that was being a pop culture junkie myself and having watched that commercial with my father, i always loved that passage so i was looking forward to finding it but he never actually apparently wrote that speech down . so we have a version of it, a very different version of it in the collection, one he delivered in australia in the early 90s. but that particular version which he delivered very often , he never wrote down. instead, he worked on a very clipped series ofnotes that he called the outline .

the outline was really just a set of prompts that he would rip off of. and if you didn't know the speech, you would look at this outline and think what could this possibly mean? there are only about 50 words on it. some of them are misspelled. then he would photocopy the outline and write notes on it for any given occasion so the people he should back at the speech or new ideas that popped into his head. unfortunately there's no reference to the prego television commercial on the outline but we were surprised that how he did it but he knew what he wanted tosay . it was easy for him to just rip off that basic outline. >> watch this and other programs online at booktv.org . >> next on "after words", former us trade negotiator and a senior senate staffer ira shapiro argues that the u.s. senate has lost its

political center. he's interviewed by former senate majority leader john daschle. afterwords isa weekly interview program with guest hosts interviewing top nonfiction authors about their latest work . >> i welcome, i'm thrilled to have an opportunity to talk with you about your book. the book's title i think is intriguing. broken, how the senate save itself in the country. what is your conclusion to that question? >> tom, first of all i'm thrilled to have a conversation with you . when c-span told me that you were going to do it, i felt like i had won the lottery . to be an old friend, but also a great senator and senate leader and an author two on the subject. you can't do much better than that, thank you.