companies and more including buckeye broadband. ♪♪ buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. fbi director christopher wray will be on capitol hill today to talk about the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol. he'll testify before the house oversight and reform committee. live coverage begins at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3, online at c-span.org, or listen live on the c-span radio app. how should drug laws be changed in this country if at

all? should they be stricter or looser depending on the crime? we want to know your thoughts on it this morning. on the senate floor, judiciary committee chair dick durbin in april talked about racial disparities in sentencing during the war on drugs and during the current opioid epidemic. here is what he had to say. >> at the same time as we grapple with the opioid epidemic, we are also in the midst of a national reckoning about racism and mass incarceration in america. we hold more prisoners by far than any country in the world. this is largely due to our failed war on drugs which disproportionately targeted people of color. while the majority of illegal drug users and dealers in our country are white, the vast majority of people incarcerated for drug offences are african-american or latino. that's a fact. more than three decades ago, and i remember this well, i served

in the house at the time, congress responded to the dramatic rise of the use of crack cocaine by dramatically increasing sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. for example, we had a sentencing guideline for crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine of 100 to 1. 100 to 1. that was it, we were going to get tough, we were going to send a message. it didn't work. overall use of illegal drugs actually increased after we increased these penalties between 1990 and 2014. and the availability of drugs like heroin and methamphetamine, instead of going down, increased. senator cory booker is the chair of the criminal justice subcommittee of senate judiciary. he's brought these concerns to the floor of the senate time and time again. i was proud to join him, as well as senator grassley and senator

lee. we authored the first step act to begin reforming our criminal justice system from the previous effort of our war on drugs. senator booker has raised serious concerns about extending the order when it comes to these fentanyl analogs. for example, he notes, the significant racial disparity in fentanyl analog prosecutions. people of color comprise 68% of those being sentenced. he also notes that addiction is in fact a public health crisis and we cannot prosecute ourselves out of the opioid epidemic, a lesson we should have learned in the war on drugs. >> senator dick durbin from the floor in april talking about the history of congress making laws when it comes to drug sentencing. we're wondering this morning, do drug laws need to be changed in this country? you heard him talk about the

statistic. look at these from the sentencing project. look at what incarceration numbers for drug offences. in 1980, over 40,000. in 2019, over 430,000. average time served, in 1986 it was 22 months. in 2004, it was 62 months. this from thesentencingproject.org, their statistics from may 21. listen to the republican side. here is josh hawley, missouri republican, questioning now associate attorney general vanita gupta during her nomination hearing in march about her prior commitments to decriminalizing low level drug possession. >> you stated that states should decriminalize simple possession of all drugs particularly marijuana and for small amounts of other drugs. now, are you advocating, is that

including, uh -- does that reach as broad as your statement says? are you talking about decriminalization across the board? is that still a policy you advocate? >> senator, i don't support decriminalization of all drugs. i have supported decriminalization of marijuana possession. that was a prior position. i have -- i am very clear that do i not support decriminalization of all drugs. there are many drugs that are having a devastating impact on and ravaging communities. and i believe, however, that substance use disorder is both a public health problem and an enforcement problem, and that it is important to treat those things as such. but i don't support decriminalization of drugs. >> well, thank you, i'll end with this, mr. chairman, i want to stay on that point, as you raise, ms. gupta, my state, missouri in particular, we've been devastated by heroin abuse, fentanyl, abuse of opioids

outside of prescription. so i would be very concerned about any decriminalization policy. i'll have some additional questions for you for the record. thank you, mr. chairman. >> from the confirmation hearing of the now associate attorney general vanita gupta. we're asking you this morning, how should drug laws be changed in this country? eastern central part of the country, 202-748-8000. mountain pacific, 202-748-8001. text us at 202-748-8003. we'll some of those texts on air and we can read your tweets if you include the handle @c-spanwj. look at this from normal.org, their headline on a recent poll, 92% of those surveyed of americans say marijuana should be legal under certain

circumstances. do you agree with that? is that how drug laws should be changed in this country? then take a look at "filter" magazine, a journalistic magazine that advocates for less criminalization of drugs. and they note this, polls show huge public option to war on drugs after 50 years. they write, in the 50 years since public opinion on drug use has changed slowly but drastically. at the moment 17 states have legalized adult use marijuana, many with promises of reparations to the communities most harmed by its criminalization. advocates have gained ground in the decriminalization of marijuana. the survey they talked about which polled 800 u.s. voters between may 17 and may 20 show that 83% of respondents belief the drug war to be a massive

failure. 85 of independents, 82% of republicans responded that nixon's plan had not benefitted americans. do you want the federal government to reform u.s. drug laws? tom in ohio, democratic caller, we'll go to you first, good morning, welcome to the conversation. what do you think? >> greta, i'm 86 years old, just a dumb tennesseean. we have no laws. crooks, politicians, and the government has their own three ring circus. a good example is predatory lending that i lost my home to in 2001. now my electric company, called

aes now, i got a $100 termination fee. it's not the money but -- >> tom, let's stick to the topic, though. what about drug laws in this country? >> 86 years old, i've never taken other drug other than prescribed which i'm ready to quit taking because they're all connected into the scheme. >> all right, tom. evan light on facebook, abolish the laws prohibiting drugs, regulate them and tax their sales just like alcohol. this decision will lower domestic crime and end narco trafficking and terrorism. it will also lower fatalities and addiction rates. we have everything to gain by legalizing drug sales and usage as long as the market is controlled and regulated and the sales are taxed. and then you have this from eric in seattle, first step act. this is what the court rules on yesterday. was a scam and publicity stunt and did nothing to help any

state prisoners. 87% of all incarcerated are in state prison anyway. now, listen to the oral argument before the supreme court on this first step act back in may. terry v. united states was the case. why they didn't think it could be expanded to low level crack usage cases. here is what justice breyer had to say. >> look, the ratio between crack and order cocaine is ridiculous, congress finally got around to modifying that. fine. anybody sentenced under the old range, go back and get resentenced. fine. the problem is, what does this section have to do with it, c? because this section seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with that ratio. it punishes people for 20 years

or for 30 years if they commit a felony, for example, of any drug, schedule 1, schedule 2, plus two others, any drugs, any of those drugs with intent to distribute it. it had nothing to do with the ratio. and if you look at the guideline, which is level 34 for career criminal, category 6, that has nothing to do with it. that not only picks up all the people who twice committed that felony, the crack one, and also people who committed many forms of robbery, and twice committed. if you don't win this case, i don't see what's to prevent any person, any person, certainly who is convicted of any drug felony, career criminal, from going out and asking, judge, resentence me. now, that's the practical problem i have, as well as the

language not really applying. >> joining us now is lawrence hurley, supreme court correspondent with thompson reuters, to talk about this ruling today. let's just begin with justice breyer there, lawrence hurley. what is he saying? >> as you can tell from what he was saying, there's no interlocking rules for criminal sentencing. there's drug laws and other laws about armed criminals and various other things. and the point he was making was that the first stepback in this law that reduced sentences -- reduced the -- retroactively the law that reduced the disparity between crack and cocaine sentencing was not really -- didn't really address this issue of people, no level offenders who were covered under this under provision of the law which included these criminals. so -- and the court was unanimous on that in the ruling

yesterday. so it wasn't like a divisive case, it was more that congress drafted the law in a way that would allow these low level offenders to be included. >> who brought this case before the court and what was their argument? >> a lot of -- actually the sort of dozen cases, actually, pending at the court on this very issue. but the one case the court took, terry, the defendant from florida, and made the case that he was in a possession of a small amount of crack cocaine and yet he got this very long sentence, that he should at least get resentenced under the new first step act. and lots of other inmates are making the same argument. and a lot of them, you know, are people who have been in prison for quite a long time who are nearing the end of their sentence, as was terry, who is

going to be released in -- is due to be released in september. that's why the court needed to decide the case quickly. he's arguing he should be included within the reforms because the whole point of the reforms going back to the fair instancing act in 2010 was to reduce this disparity between cocaine and crack cocaine sentencing which disproportionately affects black offenders. >> when you heard justice breyer there say what would stop any criminal from asking the court to resentence them, what was he getting at? >> i think he was getting at the fact that the provision under which terry was sentenced was a sort of broader provision, not just about crack cocaine, and therefore if you allowed the crack cocaine offenders to get

resentencing and other people who were convicted of -- as i mentioned, career offences in federal law, might also be able to ask. and that's clearly not what congress was trying to do with the first step act. >> what do you suspect congress will do next now that the court has ruled this way? >> interestingly, the first step act, it was passed in 2018 with bipartisan support, so it's an issue that republicans and democrats. and usually these days they come together on and president trump signed into law so in theory, it might be an issue where there could be some kind of bipartisan agreement if indeed there's will there to do what justice sotomayor suggested the court should do, which is that this is an injustice and the congress

should make some changes. >> who made up this bipartisan group? do you think that they now, under the biden administration, has the moment to make these changes? >> the biden administration of course supported the offenders in this case which is actually a switch in position from what the trump administration said. so it seemed like the biden administration will probably be supporting that. in the senate there was bipartisan support, members of the judiciary committee. and they filed a brief in support of the offender as well. so you would think that maybe as momentum within the judiciary committee at least to try to do something about it. >> lawrence hurley covers the supreme court for reuters. thank you very much for your time this morning, appreciate it. now, you heard lawrence hurley talk about this 2018 law that was passed with bipartisan support, signed into law by

president trump. it was the first step act. you have might remember there were people like van jones and other well-known personalities who were advocating for the first step act. and this is what the law does. it was signed by the president in december of 2018. it reduces the mandatory minimum sentences for drug-related crimes and repeat offenders, establishes mandatory minimums for violent offenses, and expands credit inmates receive for participating and recidivism reduction programs and includes provisions that address how inmates are treated in federal prisons. the court ruled yesterday unanimously that this does not apply to certain drug offenders. in light of that, we're asking you, do you think drug laws should be changed in this country? let's go to ruby in richmond, virginia. ruby, what are your thoughts on this? >> yeah, i think they ought to be changed, because i remember my grandmother told me about the

1920s prohibition. it just went underground. you know, it just didn't help. and when they repealed it in 1932, then, you know, alcohol was regulated. i just don't think -- i think people ought to be helped and put in programs and stuff like that. >> and ruby, if you regulate -- if you legalize these drugs and then regulate it, how do you respond to people who say they'll just become more prolific, the drug use? >> i don't think that's true. i think that people -- you know, people want to be helped. i had some uncles who were alcoholics and they didn't have any programs in those days, they just had to do it on their own. so i think all we want to do is punish people. i think we ought to be more compassionate. we should really try to help people. >> okay, rudy in virginia. andy in barton, vermont.

what do you say, andy? >> that we need to totally drop all -- i'm very opposed to the law enforcement being dragged into this. they're not the psychologists, therapists, social workers that we really need to address the issue. education, opportunity, and compassion are the weapons that will stop heroin. and i'm just totally devastated that -- i'm semper fi, so leaving the taliban to just manufacture anything they want, and now they're in the speed business. ephedrine grows in their weeds, apparently. there were 300 cooking stores photographed by one of our b-52s. you know, 300 in one square mile, i had to get that in. we need to really wake up.

our foreign policy is probably the most effective weapon against heroin, not messing with the poor little kids that are being devastated because they can't read a book and nobody cares anymore. >> andy's thoughts. jewel in mountain home, arkansas, jewel, good morning to you. >> yes, good morning. if you ever have someone killed, whether it was by alcohol, driving drunk, or someone on drugs that overdosed, and there's many, many thousands of people that we lose each year due to alcohol and drugs. i think we should do just like the vietnamese did in the fall of south vietnam. we need to reeducate these people. and we need to take them to the jungle, just like north vietnamese people did, give them a sack of seeds and say -- >> let's go to david. richland, south carolina.

david? >> how are you doing today? >> good morning. >> good job, good job. i just want to see and hope in the future that we'll rehab these people. we've got a lot of people incarcerated, that's been in jail for 20-something years for crack cocaine charge. that's -- in richland, this guy got 26 years for 26 grams of cocaine. that's excessive to me. i mean, i think we can rehab these people, put them in a drug rehab for a year, two years, and see if we can't rehab these people. >> okay. >> okay? have a nice day, thank you very much. >> dave in orlando writes, drug laws should be severe for the mainly killer drugs and minor for marijuana. then robert in michigan, america is a drug-addled country. changing laws is not going to change that.

illegal immigration is a direct result of american consumption of drugs. big pharma who enabled the addictions over the last 40 years are the ones who should pay for this. and larry from west caldwell, new jersey. it seems to me the people who want stricter drug laws are the same people who don't want government interfering in their lives. if government is controlling the sale and distribution of drugs across the board it will help to put cartels out of business. margaret in kansas, margaret, good morning. what do you think? >> good morning. am i on the air? >> yes, you are, good morning. how should drug laws be changed in this country? >> well, i think we're getting too lax with drug laws. we've gone from one extreme to another, like lock them up forever or just let them do this. it has to be a better medium for this. there has to be a middle ground for this. and just letting people out of

jail for drug convictions is really not the right way to go. there has to be some consequences for people who deal or are dealing drugs, who are selling these drugs. this is my main concern, i live in a small town in kansas. there's a little over 4,000 people. and they are basically -- there is a small pocket of drug dealers that prey on people, less incomes and things like that who turn to drugs, it's a way of escape. if they don't have consequences, this will never end. and just letting them go is the

wrong way to go. >> brenda's thoughts there in staten island. ron in cleveland, tennessee, says marijuana needs to be legal in this country because it is no worse than beer or cigarettes. just tax them and that would make the government and marijuana smokers happy including me. your thoughts on how drug laws should be changed in this country. we're asking this of you this morning because the supreme court yesterday says that the first step act passed under president trump doesn't allow resentencing for all crack convictions. robert barnes writes, in an opinion written by justice clarence thomas, the court said the 2018 first step act signed with fanfare by president trump makes resentencing available to those who got mandatory heightened punishment. a quote from his ruling, the question here is whether crack

offenders who did not trigger a mandatory minimum qualified, thomas wrote, though do not. the conclusion seems clear in oral argument in the case last month, justices questioned whether leaving out low level offenders was congress' intent. justice sotomayor agreed with the outcome in monday's decision but she wrote separately to chastise thomas and the majority for including an unnecessary, incomplete, and sanitized history of what led congress to impose far greater penalties for possession of crack cocaine than powder cocaine. she wrote this: the full history is far less benign, referring to the fact that black defendants were far more likely to be convicted the crack crimes. while powder cocaine defendants were more likely to be white. she also noted some members of congress involved in passing the first step act had asked the court to conclude that it covered small amount convictions.

unfortunately the text will not bear that reading, she wrote. fortunately congress has numerous tools to right this injustice. do you think congress should now act, now that the supreme court has ruled that their first step act does not include low level offenders? do they need to right, in your opinion, this wrong? steven in columbia, maryland, good morning to you. >> i absolutely think they need to rewrite the law to include small amounts of elicit substances. it starts with cannabis, and we're starting to see a lot of progress in that area. but these are, you know, victimless crimes. and when someone is put in jail for drugs, guess what they're doing in jail. they're doing drugs. there's drugs everywhere. i think this all comes back to this like puritanical idea that,

you know, if you do something that makes you feel good, you should feel guilty about it. that's just ridiculous. i think, you know, republicans and democrats can both get behind this legislation and reform. and, you know, it's something that really has left me wondering what's happening here, like why are people still being punished or, you know, these victimless crimes. so i'm happy to see there's progress being made, but there can always be a little more progress. >> all right, steven. here is mary in south dakota sending us a text to write two things. how many senators have big pharma in their back pocket? ban any drug commercials from advertising on tv. like what has been done with cigarette commercials. we need to scrub the dirty floor before waxing it. big pharma goal is not the

welfare of americans. dan in takoma, washington, it's your turn, dan. >> oh, hi, yeah, i think we should repeal all drug laws. i think what you do with your own body should be your own decision. and i think we are enabling people to feel sorry for themselves and -- what you put in your own body should be your own thing. the idea of addiction has been highly inflated. too many people stand to make money off people's misery in the prison system. the whole thing is very bizarre. i agree with the last caller who said that it should be your own choice. >> okay, dan. look at the reaction from the majority leader chuck schumer, democrat of new york. he wrote, on june 8, we must end the federal prohibition on marijuana while ensuring

restorative justice for those harmed by the war on drugs. he says he's working with senator booker and senator wyden on comprehensive marijuana reform legislation. the majority leader of the senate says that on the legislative agenda is changing possibly marijuana laws. do you agree or disagree with that? sharon in springfield, vermont. hi, sharon, go ahead. >> good morning. i believe, myself, because i come from new jersey, and i wound up in vermont, which god. but i believe if you give these to people, training if school for something like that, it will help them instead of putting them in prison. give them the opportunity to take the training program or prison. another thing is, a lot of people in my town that is on drugs, they need more rehabs.

they need more programs for them. and that's what i think should happen. >> okay. >> instead of taken the government money and putting them in prison. >> sharon in vermont. democrats for liberty posts this on our facebook page. decriminalize all of it. drug provision has clearly failed. the drug war targets people of color. mary in north carolina, hi, mary. >> hi, how are you doing? >> good morning. how should drug laws be changed, if at all? >> well, first of all, when they say that marijuana takes away pain, it does not. i've been smoking for 45 years, and what it does is it will relax you, it will make you calm. if you're stressed out, you'll calm down. if they say it takes away your pain, that's because you've never smoked it or they put some

chemicals in it to take away the pain, because natural marijuana is grown by water and sun only, not by light and chemicals. when you get it and it sparkle, they put some chemicals so it will take away your pain. they say that we'll start with medical marijuana. well, there isn't no medical marijuana, if it's just marijuana. because to make it medical, they have to put other drugs into it before it will take away your pain. >> mary, you've been smoking for 45 years, you say. is it legal in north carolina? >> of course not. >> so what do you think should happen? >> it's really not a bad thing

if they don't put chemicals in it. i think they should -- i guess let people make their own choice, you know? and try it, and they'll know for themselves if it takes away pain. now, people that's never smoked it, maybe they feel that it took away your pain. but if you know marijuana, it don't take away pain unless they added things to it. >> understood, understood. we'll go to vinnie in alabama -- excuse me, albany, georgia, who writes, my personal opinion is pharmaceutical companies is just as guilty as street level dealers but very few are convicted. steve in anaheim, california, good morning you to, steve. >> good morning, greta. okay. i don't think really you can change the law. are you still there, greta? >> yes, i'm listening.

you don't think you can change the law? >> it's gone too far, too long. you look at pharmaceuticals, like everybody's talking about, you can go down and get ritalin or adderall, which is cocaine and speed itself, if you have money to afford it. but you have to really look at the problems that's causing the drugs. lack of jobs, opportunity, the guy from vermont is absolutely correct. these people, the only industry they have is to sell drugs. these aren't the same drugs we had in the '60s and '70s. these are somebody that's mixing it up under the sink, that's why you're seeing fentanyl and other drugs coming across the border. that's about it unless you have a question for me? >> steve, what do you think should be done? how can the government act? >> that's the hard thing. i'm listening to the supreme court, who was it? i forget who was talking, but it shows you how the people in the

parkway are so clueless of exactly the drug problem out here. i mean, 10 to 20% of the population do drugs. it doesn't mean they're all aaddicts or laying around like you see on tv. they function in society. but they do drugs. i mean, it's a way -- like people used to smoke, to relieve stress, anxiety, or whatever. but, you know, as far as the law goes, you really can't legislate morals, you really can't. as far as what can they do, i really don't have an answer for you. >> okay. all right, steve. we'll go to barry in washington, d.c. hi, barry. >> hey there, how's it going, y'all? >> good morning. >> so as far as drug laws and whether they should be changed, they should be changed for the prison population, who for people who possess minor, you know, amounts of [ inaudible ].

overall, we don't want cartels [ inaudible ] as well. it's a line in the sand we have to draw, we don't want to harm the people in the united states who have worked so hard and we don't want our taxpayer funded money to go toward people who maybe just need a little bit of rehab or substance abuse prevention, if anything. so overall, it's a fine line we have to walk but i think we just need to legalize cannabis and legalize drugs that have been proven to be efficient. and for other drugs that are not efficient, we just need to ban them overall. but also decriminalize like the small possession of them. also target the [ inaudible ] for heroin and cocaine or something like that which are obviously a problem in the

united states. >> all right, barry. vickie mayfield posts on her facebook page, remove marijuana from the class one schedule. this is the most insane law and no one seems to be able to change it. legalize marijuana at the federal level. now, about the schedule one status of marijuana, this is from the congressional research service, which is an arm of congress, researchers that aid congress and their staff in changing laws, doing the research for them. so they write this. the controlled substance act places various substances in one of five schedules based on their medical use, potential for abuse, and safety risk for dependence. the five schedules are progressively ordered with schedule 5 substances regarded as the least dangerous and addictive and schedule 1 substances as the most dangerous and addictive.

schedule 1 substance, the csa prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of schedule 1 substances. marijuana is listed as a schedule 1 controlled substance ound the csa. and they write that congress can do two things. one, it could amend the csa to love marijuana to a less restrictive schedule. two, it can create an entirely new schedule or other category for marijuana. or three, remove it entirely from the csa. if marijuana remains a controlled substance under the csa, under any schedule, that would maintain the existing conflict between the federal government and the states that have legalized recreational marijuana. bill, let's go to you in venice, florida. bill, good morning. bill, good morning in venice, florida. it's your turn. how should drug laws be changed

in this country? one last call for bill. all right. i'm going to go on to linda who is in staten island. >> oh, good morning. >> good morning. >> so i don't know how the drug laws should be changed, but from my perspective and experience, i think that individual possession of marijuana should not be [ inaudible ]. the manufacturing and processing of marijuana. because i know in my hood, it's not marijuana and they're not processing it or manufacturing it or growing it, whatever crop they have here, it's not good marijuana. that's where they should focus the drug laws. it's from the manufacturer. they're going to regulate it, regulate it from that perspective and not from the individual use, because especially my black guys, my black guys, i tell them they

shouldn't smoke, period. however, as i said, in my hood, that's not marijuana. it's laced with something, rat poison or something, i don't know. >> okay. >> but from the manufacturers' perspective. >> rose says, do not legalize marijuana. those two fought to keep drugs out of the u.s. and nearly lost their lives doing so in military are being slapped in the face by those clamoring for legalization. the homeland security committee in the house on the gop side sent out this tweet recently, saying that the opioid crisis is being made worse by president biden's open border policies. right now, cartels are leveraging their expansive network to smuggle lethal drugs like heroin and fentanyl into our country. jamal in selma, alabama. jamal, what's your opinion on

this? >> my opinion on drug laws is, the drug laws ought to be changed from the standpoint of focusing on politicians in terms of how they enforce drug law. i know here in the state of alabama, we have legalized cannabis. but cannabis -- marijuana has been legal in the state of alabama for the last 45 years. and people are still going out, arresting people for possession of marijuana. and as a matter of fact, the former attorney general of the state of alabama ran on the fact that marijuana has been legalized in the state of alabama. so i think the focus should be on the politicians in terms of

bringing arrest warrants against them for not properly enforcing the law as it is on the books. >> okay. greg in denver, good morning to you. >> good morning, good morning. first of all, i would like to say we need to get to the root of the cause. those who lobby to keep marijuana illegal, these are american corporations who are willing to do this and turn good americans into criminals. we have the alcohol corporations, a lobby. we have the tobacco corporations that lobby against it. we have the prison industry that lobbies against legalizing marijuana. we have private prison unions who lobby against it. we have the pharmaceutical companies who lobby against it. and, you know, i think it's insane that, you know, these u.s. corporations can use their lobbying power to turn good americans into felons. it's unbelievable. and i still can't understand why

the alcohol and tobacco commission are in large of our marijuana laws. it makes sure several hundred thousand people a year in america, just tobacco and alcohol, and they're lobbying to keep marijuana illegal? it doesn't make sense. they don't care about americans being hooked on drugs as much as it is whose drugs america is being hooked on. thomas jefferson used this plant, abraham lincoln used it, john quincy adams used it, bill clinton used it, george bush used it, barack obama used it. you know, it's -- zero dead. look up the statistics. you know, tobacco, 480,000 dead americans last year. 17,000 babies died in their mother's womb because of tobacco. another 56,000 died from secondhand smoke. look at how many people died from marijuana smoke.

zero. and they want to tell us this is about safety? these marijuana laws are not about safety. they're about profit and control. the american people are starting to see that. we're changing the marijuana laws in this country. and the people in power don't like it. >> and greg, colorado is one of the first states. and what has been the benefit and what have been some of the pitfalls of legalizing marijuana in colorado? >> i don't see any. >> okay. so what are the benefits? >> the benefits, our prison populations are down. our arrest records are down. the courts are unfilled. americans get to make a choice based on what they believe is best for them, like me, you know, i'm in my 60s, and you know what, i smoke marijuana, but you know what i don't do, i don't smoke tobacco, i don't use alcohol, i don't use hard drugs. marijuana doesn't lead to hard drugs. misinformation does. lies do. propaganda does.

if you want to make america a better nation, we need to get these corporations and these politicians out of the way. our politicians have to listen to us and they don't. i don't see any benefit. we have the largest prison population on earth and most of it is due to our draconian drug laws that make no sense at all. how is it that -- like a woman who is pregnant and loses her baby because of tobacco smoke, nobody's punishing her. but some of these draconian states where if a woman gets caught smoking marijuana when she's pregnant, by the way there's no deaths to the fetus from marijuana smoke, they take the baby away, they punish her, they put her in jail for endangering the life of a fetus. none of that stuff happens with tobacco and alcohol. >> all right, greg, i'll leave it there. susan in florida texts to say, advertising for drugs and alcohol need to be banned just

lying significance. follow the money, she writes. for those interested in the arizona central paper, christopher landeau wrote a piece, we can target all the drug kingpins in mexico we want but that's a losing strategy. he writes, while the migration crisis across the mexican border has monopolized headlines, another crisis has been unfolding along the same border, the flow of illegal and increasingly deadly drugs into the united states. most of these illegal drugs enter our country over the southern border with mexico, transported by or at the behest of powerful criminal organizations based there. as the most recent u.s. ambassador to mexico, he writes, a critical part of my job was urging the mexican government to take a more proactive stance to interdict the flow of illegal drugs and hold accountable those responsible for it. unfortunately our main

counternarcotics agencies remain trapped in an elliott ness mindset. the main goal is to catch the bad guys and bring them to justice. that objective is obviously laudable but cannot be the basis of our national narcotic narco there's two problems to that approach. the practical problem is most of the kingpins live in mexico so their apprehension and prosecution necessarily depend on the actions of the mexican government. and he says, in any event it is far less clear that mexico's law enforcement and judicial institutions are up to the task of prosecuting these people. and what the former ambassador writes is that we must focus on education in the united states. he says that the efforts begin with education and prevention programs, particularly in american schools. do you agree or disagree with his opinion? bill in venice, florida, we'll go to you next, bill.

good morning to you. >> yes, high. what i want to point out is we've been through this before with alcohol prohibition at the federal level. and to do that an amendment to the constitution was created. it was the 18th. we found out it didn't work. it caused the same kind of problems we're having with drugs now, and the amendment was replaced by the 21st, which was the repeal of the 18th. so my point being the same process has not been used with the prohibition of drugs. there's no amendment to the constitution to, as they did with alcohol, so in my view, and any rational view what's been going on without amending the constitution is totally illegal. and to add to that, no victim, no crime. by the way, i don't use marijuana, i don't smoke

tobacco, i don't do any of that. but the constitution is what it is. the federal government has no authority presently to enforce these laws on anybody outside of washington d.c. or federal employees. >> bill's thoughts in venice, florida there. grace texts us to say, if drugs and prostitution are legalized and everyone is carrying guns, legally, of course, and we defund andville nuys our police, america's enemy has won, i wish prohibition was still in effect. tim in wisconsin, what do you say, tim? >> i see it completely different. marijuana, say you come home from work, you've had a hard day, you're stressed out, you smoke a little marijuana. i don't see any problem with that. but the next day, when you get in your car to drive to anywhere, you're considered under the influence even though you're not for 30 days you're

considered under the influence. and we're no more stoned in the morning than a drunk person is when he drives to work the next day. they've got to be able to tell how high you are. i mean, it's one thing to get blitzed and you shouldn't be out there, but if you smoked a little yesterday, it seems so unfair that you're considered drunk the next day. >> all right. tim in wisconsin. janet in texas has this text. yes, laws should be changed. for example in the state of louisiana, a 48-year-old man was given 13 and a third year sentence for having two marijuana cigarette joints although he had two low level drug offenses, his prison is hard labor without the opportunity for parol for the equivalent of possessing two

marijuana cigarettes. james in buffalo, kentucky. hi, there. hi, james. james in buffalo, kentucky, are you there? james, good morning to you. >> all right. >> yes, ma'am, thank you. how are you doing. thank you for having. i'm here, can you hear me? >> we can. you have to turn down that television. that's why you're getting confused. >> sorry about that. >> no worries. go ahead. >> i know you have a lot of crack heads calling in this morning. marijuana shouldn't be legal. no drugs should be legal. that's the reason why this country is falling apart at the seams. all these liberal cities, they let the drugs pile in there, flow in, and that's how they control them. if it was so darn good, then all of a sudden the kids, if they legalize it, the kids are going to get all of it. they don't realize it's a

trickle down effect and all these people calling, well, there should be programs and stuff for the offenders. first of all, they got the thing before they started using elicit drugs. there were already opportunity for them. and for people to say there ain't no jobs, there are plenty of jobs. so, no, it shouldn't be legal. i can't believe that the country has taken this sad state of affairs. it's just going to get worse. they need to legalize -- or de-legalize everything and start putting these people away where they belong. >> sue in new jersey says stronger laws don't necessarily equate to a better outcome. my 26-year-old son knew which convenience stores or gas stations would sell him tobacco at age 15, now he's hooked on smoking. whose fault, she writes. steven in gladstone, michigan

says they need to quit treating marijuana the same as heroin or crack cocaine. it needs to be legalized, regulated and taxed. use the money to pay down the debt. john from frenchville, pennsylvania, welcome to the conversation. good morning. >> yes, good morning. i was just calling to -- there's so many points. first, america has got to come to the realization that alcohol is a drug. for people -- i can drink a gallon of milk and walk a straight line backwards. you give me five -- three fingers of whiskey, and i can barely walk. if that's not a drug, then what is? for someone -- again, for someone to say that it's not a drug, it's alcohol, it's the same -- is someone saying, oh, it's not a drug, it's cocaine.

you have a drug that is capable in sufficient quantities of killing -- of stopping the heartbeat of an african bull elephant in alcohol. it's ludicrous. there's so many aspects. and things like when people say more training and education and opportunities, that's fine. that's great, there's so much inequality in this country. but there's also, people need to recognize that a lot of people, not all, enjoy different forms of intoxication. it's natural, animals do, they

eat berries. ask people to drink wine -- >> so john, then what should be done? >> first off, could -- america, this country, is so bent on prosecution of people. if -- you shouldn't throw someone in a cage because they're getting intoxicated on something that's not ullegal, according to our politicians. >> i'm going to move to larry in eugene, oregon. larry, good morning. >> good morning, greta. i've been listening to your callers, fascinating as always, listen, like so much of american law, these drug laws are irrational, and frankly, seem to

me very, very stupid. they're counter productive, they don't work. they hurt people far more than they help people. we're spending a fortune, as we all know, on a so-called drug war that's never worked. remember prohibition, same thing, we were creating criminals. we're creating social conditions that harm the entire society. and we're doing it to ourselves. i think complete decriminalization of all drugs, they can still be regulated, you don't have to throw people in prison. we regulate cigarettes and alcohol. we regulate automobiles. to some extent we regulate guns. what we're doing is harming individuals, societies, whole regions like appalachia have suffered from this. we're breaking up families. there is no good coming from our drug laws. they protect no one, they hurt

many. therefore, i propose entire decriminalization, complete overhaul of the drug laws everywhere. >> okay. >> it has to start with the feds, of course. look at nbc's reporting, house reintroduces bill to decriminalize cannabis and create social equity programs. they write that after voting overwhelming last year to decriminalize cannabis at the federal level, leaders reintroduced a bill friday to strike marijuana from the list of controlled substances and invest in communities affected by the so called drug war, the act of 2021, known as the moore act would eliminate criminal penalties, clear criminal records and create social equity programs focused on repairing damages to individuals and communities impacted by

legislation. the bill failed to advance last year in the senate where a companion bill also died. a second senate bill is expected, they write, the second senate bill is expected to be introduced later this year with a backing of chuck schumer and senators cory booker, and ron wyden. the bill contains stronger social justice measures intended to address the effects of prohibition, including language that would have denied permits to applicants with felony cannabis addictions. it would set a 5% tax that increases to 8% in three years and revenue goes to the trust fund that pays for job training, reentry service, legal aid and health education programs for impacted communities. let's hear from louis in

arizona. good morning to you. >> i'm from arkansas and i'm for legalizing marijuana only. maybe some pain pills or something else that could maybe help people. but there needs to be something done because you can't have marijuana legalized in one state but not the next. that's making heroes out of that state but making criminals out of this state. you know, i legalize marijuana right now for everyone. it's a free weed. no one controls it, only god. >> all right. >> and only the person whose hand it's in. >> all right, luis, let me read greg in cleveland, ohio. he writes, the neighbors sold crack nelks to my house going up, they were uneducated high school drop outs and made more money as opposed to getting a legitimate job. they were convicted and the house condemned and torn down. drug laws do not need to be changed it's the people who need

to be changed he writes. eldon in scottsdale, arizona. how are you? >> hi, how are you? >> good. go ahead. >> i'm totally for the sale, the legalize of marijuana. because the people that has invested in the drugs -- what are we going to invest in, pork and beans? i think if you got one joint of marijuana, i think you should do at least 20 years. because if they ever legalize marijuana, it's going to bankrupt a lot of old people that has invested in things. and what are we going to -- what are we going to invest in and survive? >> okay, el-don.

we're at the top of the hour. we're going to take a break. when we come back we'll talk with columnist matt lewis about the political challenges facing both parties 150 days into the biden administration. and later edward isaac dovere discusses his book "battle for the soul, inside the democrats efforts to defeat president trump". we'll be right back. we take you live now to capitol hill where fbi director christopher wray will be testifying on the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol. he'll be taking questions from members of the house oversight and reform committee. you're watching live coverage on cspan3.

live here on cspan3 just watching the room come together here on capitol hill. we're expecting fbi director christopher wray to be testifying on the january 6th attack on the capitol. haven't yet seen the chair, congresswoman carolyn maloney of new york. shortly after we do see her and the witness enter, things should get started. you're watching live coverage on cspan3.

we just continue to wait for the hearing on the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol to begin. we'll be hearing from fbi director christopher wray as soon as he does arrive here at the hearing room and we see the chair, carolyn maloney of new york, things should get started.

you're watching live coverage from the house oversight and reform committee here on cspan3.

and live here on capitol hill just standing by for fbi director christopher wray. he'll be testifying on the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol, taking questions from the house of the reform and oversight committee. the chair of the committee, carolyn maloney running a few minutes behind schedule. so while we wait we'll look at some of today's washington journal. >> country approaches 600,000 deaths we ask you this morning what are the lessons learned from this global pandemic, dial

in at 202-748-8000. mountain pacific, 202-748-800 1. if you lost someone to covid-19 dial in from 202-748-8002. deaths hit new mark, 600,000 in the united states as states and cities across the country take steps towards normalizing, the u.s. on monday approached the 600,000 death mark. a stark reminder of the pandemic's enduring toll. the remarkable progress in the nation's battle against the coronavirus, thanks to a vaccination effort led by the federal government has lifted restrictions and perhaps given a sense the pandemic is over. 413 deaths a day is less than one-seventh of the 3,300 daily facilities during the ghastly january peak.

that from u.s. today. then you have "the washington post" this morning with the headline, virus is retreating in places that vaccinated, but keeping a grip on those that don't. listen to these statistics. nationally 43% of eligible americans are fully vaccinated and the country is averaging fewer than 16,000 new infections a day, levels not seen since the early days of stay-at-home orders in march of 2020. ten states concentrated in the deep south and rural west report fewer than 35% of residents are fully immunized. from one of those counties in missouri, pope county where less than a quarter of the population of roughly 30,000 is fully vaccinated has reported nearly 90 new infections in one week, an increase after several months of decline. lessons learned from this pandemic, that's our question to

you this morning. clem in new york, what do you think? what are the lessons learned? >> hi, how are you? >> morning. >> am i on? >> yes, you are. >> good morning, my name is clem, and i'm from new york. i was part of the first a.i.d.s. clinical trial, living in harlem it rolled out disasters, like everything else. we had expanded access to these pills where, therefore, you could get on it for free. for free. and i didn't see any of that done. they didn't expand access as soon as they realized that it was working and a lot of people could have gotten on it for

free. >> relate this to the covid-19 pandemic. >> the pandemic, the way even it rolled out, if they would -- there was no trust in it. there was no trust in it. >> in the vaccine -- vaccination effort? >> exactly. >> even i was skeptical because of the fact that we don't have an aids vaccine and it's been years. years. and for them to come out with something so quick, of course, everybody got skeptical. now i live in washington heights and the kids are saying that they want kids. they don't want the vaccine because they're scared they won't be able to have kids. and i don't know how all these rumors were able to get out. i don't know if it was the republican party and trump putting the doubt in the vaccine. i still think that's still going

on. but, you know, we -- just the way it all came out, i knows to -- i know fauci, i met fauci before, if i was to tell him, there was just too much information and the information was boggled. >> so -- >> it was -- >> so what could have dr. fauci done differently? >> i'm trying to think what he could have done differently. because it was, you know -- it was such a panic mode. but i think he could have called the aids community. you really could. >> okay. i'll go to janice, who's in tennessee. janice, lessons learned? if. >> well, the lesson i learned from this pandemic was, trump lied to us in the first place. he said it was a democratic hoax

to make him lose the election. because of him, he lied and didn't tell us the truth. he knew all of this. all of this then came out and this man is still walking around free after he killed some over 500,000 people. if that had been a democrat, they would want to put him up. and another thing, the fauci said what trump was -- wouldn't say. he went around. he tried his best and when they got out there and decided to tell the truth, trump got mad and angry at the one who told the truth. the only thing we learned from this pandemic is that man lied and people died. trump lied and people died. businesses closed down, schools closed down because of donald trump. he need to be held responsible. he think he can get away with anything. wake up america. >> cnn reporting the first state to shutdown due to covid-19 reopens today. cnn reporting today, california

lifted most of its covid-19 restrictions tuesday as part of a grand reopening which the state will end capacity limits, physical distancing and at least for those vaccinated mask requirements, the new order went into effect tuesday and allows vaccinated people to go without a face covering in most situations putting the state in line with guidance from the cdc, it's still required in hospitals, jails, school, child care centers and k-12 still require masks. california also makes the front page of "usa today" this morning with the headline, california at cross roads in homeless crisis. governor gavin newsom, they write, has set awe side 12 billion in what he called a historic budget to combat homeless. as restrictions are lifted, it could worsen the homeless

problem in california. steven, good morning. >> good morning. this is a -- like a previous caller this is a second pandemic that i have survived. well over 31 years with the aids virus, very involved from the very beginning trying to seek help, get answers and get rid of the homo phobia that went on. i can't imagine any americans who watched television during that time or anyone with ancestors with polio and smallpox era, that they don't want to take medications. it's all trump's faulted. and he hasn't to this day come out and told his followers, his cult to take the vaccine. he will not because he doesn't want biden to have a win. >> so steven, lessons learned? >> that we should never allow a

trump or anybody affiliated with him to have any power in our government. that's our lesson should be learned. >> carolyn, alliance, ohio. >> hello. >> morning. >> thanks for letting me speak. what it's shown me is that we have very poor educational system. people don't seem to understand scientific methods. don't seem to believe in science. and when this virus came out, they called it the novel coronavirus. which means new. science had to study it from the start because there was different than a lot of the other viruses, different consequences. but yet the scientists when they first discovered some things didn't know enough and let's say the cdc say don't wear a mask right now, later they found out absolutely everybody should wear a mask.

and science is testing, testing, testing with seeing that -- if the person first was right, another scientist tests, that's not correct. we need to do it this way. people don't understand scientific methods. so yeah that was what i learned. >> carolyn, okay. rebecca says on twitter that you cannot ignore a pandemic. that's what she learned. darlene in gold hill, oregon. you are next. >> i just want to say that what i learned was what the previous caller said, too, how uneducated parts of this country are. all the taxes that we paid for school has gone to waste because people do not seem to understand the danger. dr. fauci tried to educate the people but he was controlled by the whole political environment. many times i saw him on the stage with trump and trump was just so nervous that fauci was

going to tell us more than what he wanted us to know. and i think it's really a sad lesson that we learned that these fascists are willing to let 500,000 americans die rather than tell us the truth and tell us what we should do in pandemic. so i learned not to truth anybody from the republican party. thank you. >> darlene in oregon. today in the opinion section of "the new york times," two senators writing, there will be another pandemic. are we prepared for it? and this is from senators bob menendez, democrat of new jersey and susan collins a republican of maine. they write the devastating events of september 11, 2001, shook the united states to its core and sparked immediate and consequential action. congress formed the mission to investigate the missteps that contributed to the attack. they write and to issue prescriptions for what we as a

country could do to prevent future attacks of foreign terrorism on american soil. they write the death toll from covid-19 pandemic is now more than 200 times the death toll of the 9/11 attacks but congress has yet to establish a similar blue ribbon commission to investigate the vulnerabilities of our public health system and issue guidance for how we as a nation can better protect the american people from future pandemics. we're beginning to emerge from a pandemic that has claimed more than 600,000 mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends, neighbors and co-workers in the united states alone. fraj tragically it'll claim more lives before it's over. the economic costs will never be fully realized yet we are about to reopen. it isn't too soon to call for an

independent 9/11-style commission. do you agree with these two senators that we need, if we're going to learn lessons have an independent commission to investigate? robyn in dell toena, florida, good morning to you. what do you think are the lessons? >> i think that americans are uninformed. and we don't go out and research information. we just listen to what is either on the news station that we choose to listen to, and, you know, people don't do their own independent research. and i think that -- and follow the money because sometimes information that's given out there with -- welcome. today's hybrid hearing, pursuant to house rules some members will appear in american and others will appear remotely via zoom. before we begin i want to say we have set clear guidelines for the use of the hearing r