leads you step by step through the process. we will have a couple of phases. we will not only talk about the issue the panelist raised to educate our people about the attack on voting rights with voter i'd's. we're also going to be talking about our issue areas, the work of the naacp. this is important because this is civic engagement process is not just about an election. it is about building power for the naacp. so when you go to register people to vote, you're not just talking about the election. you're talking about the work of the association, the issues the are important to us -- black me n and boys. the issues related to health and education, criminal justice. because what we want to do is build an army that can even after the 2012 election help us in fights at the state and local levels, build our membership and our power. next, convention in houston.

we will have a strict focused through the election on voter turnout. this fall, as derrick mentioned, will ask each of our state conferences to said aside time for plenaries and training on all of this, but to begin with voter registration. next spring at regional training, we will have conferences in every region next year, brothers and sisters, we will train on dotv and election protection as we move to next year's launch of our tv efforts. each unit is going to be responsible for developing a civic engagement plan with clear, measurable, and realistic goals. if i stay clear? -- everybody's a clear, measurable, realistic goals. let's talk about realistic. if he can only register 50 people, please tell us you will only register 50 people.

there is no need to tell us you will register 1000. the days that we over-sell and over-promise are gone, because we have a system to hold you accountable. accountability through online tracking. each person registered and contacted. and we know how many people will be registered so that we can turn those people that we register and contact on election day. let's talk about innovation. innovation will come through technology. you heard about this van system. it''s not roger van. it's the voter activation network. is a 50 state voter file that will allow you to find people that are registered, enable you to communicate with people on a basis -- regular basis. again, this is the only system of its kind, 50-state system, that exists outside of the political party structure, ok? and it's very important.

the only other entities that have this kind of technology are the political parties. and we at the naacp, will be able to deliver it to you and train you on it as well. mobile messaging campaigns to target people on their cell phones, social networking campaigned on facebook and twitter, upload to uplift allows folks to upload their contacts, and send them an electronic motor registration form. we used this to great success in 2008, where we registered over 20,000 people in a few short weeks, mostly students. we will use this technology to make this happen. finally, we of partnerships we are developing around the use of 10-866-myvoteone. it is a hot line that will communicate to people around election protection and other issues. volunteer. each delegate, we need

everybody here to commit to volunteer five hours a week k for your local unit civic engagement program. let's do the math. check my math. you got 2100 delegates, 5 hours a week, and between january 1 and election day is 44 weeks. that's 462,000 volunteer hours, the brothers and sisters. somebody said, that is a lot of volunteer hours. number two, we will ask everybody to recruit five other volunteers. you are going to volunteer five hours a week, and we will ask you to recruit five other people. if we do that, that is 462,000 becomes 2.8 million. we are able to do that. these other committed folks in this room. everybody in this room has

volunteered at least that much and maybe more. what we're asking you to do in the next 16 months is to focus your attention on civic engagement. it does not mean other stuff is pushed aside, but it is very important. no matter if you are licking envelopes or entering data, on the telephone, walking the community, five hours a week is all we ask. 3, we want you to join the naacp's mobile messaging program. many of you have done it. ascending the word "leader" to 62227. if you do not know how to do it, grab a young person and ask. each state and local unit needs to identify a couple of units to help us with this process. every unit needs to have a leader on civic engagement, so when the unit will hold accountable, someone that we can communicate with. a civic engagement coordinator. next, we need a technology

leader, someone who will coordinate the work on this van database. we're not playing. we need to train folks. these are the two individuals from the units that will go to the training at the state conference conventions later on this year. years of work to do in identifying those individuals after you leave this convention. each state area conference is being asked to schedule one plenary and 8 hours of training time, during the fall conventions to be specifically focused on civic engagement. the days when we spend 45 minutes in a workshop and think we have been trained are over. this work right here is so detailed and complex and requires a level of specialization and focus that we actually need to take these leaders, put them in a room and do some very serious training. that is the kind of model we are looking for. we are talking about youth and college leaders as well. they are identifying someone to do this work and come to the

training. each unit will be asked to develop a voter registration plan by november 30, 2011. november 30, 2011. what will happen is that the local plans will be rolled up interstate plans so we know what the numbers and metrics are for each state, in each state plan will be rolled into a national plan so we can see the national numbers. this will help us with fund- raising and pushing the fact that the naacp is uniquely qualified to turn out and educate the african-american voter. each unit will be asked to launch of voter registration and voter education campaign by key ing day, 2012. that day is january 16, 2012. we need to get your plans in. we will give your resources. by king day, we are looking for every unit that will opt into this program, which we expect to be all of our units, to get

going. everybody all right? everybody said, this is my the. thank you. god bless everybody-- everybody say, this is my vote. >> reverednd barber has one announcement. >> i want us to show something here. i want us to grab hands. christ did parables. he shoewed pictures. because the point of this is that we have to have inspiration, information, and implementation. and you donm''t create false dichotomies. if you call people to inspire people without information, they will do like with exercise and sit there. if you get folk inspired, but do

not give them tools, then they have energy. you have to put the best minds, the best message, and the best methods together, huh? you have to make sure there is a connection between your legislative, your implementation, and your information. and we can never be separated. the reality is, and this -- because creatures are just inspiration -- but my son is a physics major. he taught me three empirical data that darkness is an illusion. -- through the empirical data. he says that darkness is the absence of light. because you cannot create a light bulb that shines darkness. >> all right, reverend. [laughter] [applause]

>> so if the tea party is the minority, right now their influence is an illusion. >> right. >> i'm talking about science, not as a preacher. but if you turn on the right inspiration and the right information and hook i t with the right implementation, the bible says when god stepped out darkness, and god smiled and their the light came. it is an illusion if we hooked together, we win and we share the light, which means that "this little light of mine" cannot merely be a song, but must be the mantra of iourour movement.

we can turn on light and drive back dissolution of right wing darkness, if we'll do it. >> all right. yes. [applause] thank you. >> that's why reverend barber is my best bud. he gonna make me go to church. now, ladies and gentlemen, we come to the important part of this -- your input. now, we h ave lots of questions. to our panelists. let me start this off. in my home state of texas, all of the african-american community was in one district, basically. when the hammer came into existence. and we all know who the hammer

is. he split is up. -- us up. from the 12th congressional district, three other districts feed off of us. what does that mean? that we cannot, as a community, elect someone, because we are all, 15% here, 21% here, 10%. what do we do, what is your recommendation to us to make sure this kind of gerrymandering doesn't happen to our community? what should we be doing? >> what i can tell you is that we are fighting and to front right up against that very congressional math. so the naacp has intervened in

lawsuits filed in texas. as well as preparing to be involved in the d.c. district court. we're using both parts of the voting rights act to argue that what has been done in texas does not comply. it does raise complicated issues of how you combine two minority groups because you have latino and black voters? they have large latino population. there is important building of bridges we are trying to do. we are fighting back in court. >> anyone else? >> yes, i also wanted to say is always a very common for people when you think about redistricting to think about the congressional and state wide level. i was very glad that kristin raise the issue of judges, and also, remember that redistricting of sex every elected body. so -- affects every elected

body. it affects school boards, judges, city council, all kind of local districts, including water boards. it is important we are looking at the entire array. the lawyers. one of the things we're doing in this battle, because of the incredible leadership of kim, tina and ben, one thing we have been able to do is join forces with all the groups here in educating the bridges about redistricting, how to get involved at the local level, but we are also representing in maryland, the black caucus. we are actually representing them, helping them draw the map, talking about what is there,

pushing this issue about what you do about the fact that the african-american population in maryland is underrepresented, compared to their numbers in the state? so i just want to be very clear that one thing i want everybody here to know is that we are not just here speaking. we are resources for you. >> that is right. >> we are here to help. reach out to us, utilize us, work us to death. i want to be able to say, there is too much naacp. they are calling me too much. don't want to be in a position where you sit up there and you help and you say there is no where to get answers or the help. please look at us as resources. >> to your specific question, we have to be in the room. redistricting will be taking place at all levels from state to local.

what is taking place far too often, we are reactors than proactors. oftentimes, district plans are being drawn by the board and one or two members on the board. our strength is to go in very deep local, but if we do not have someone in the room, we do not know to make a call. again, this is accountability on our part. they are going to draw these lines to keep power or give power. it is our responsibility to be in the room so that we can preserve and what we have iand advance -- to gain more power. >> you know you're gonna get four additional districts. i don't know if congresswoman wasserman is in the room. she is working with the

district's. we need to learn to do the maps ourselves. the short is, actually being a part of the process. many decades, we let other people do that. we have to be a part of that as well. it is not too late to be active in texas carrot >> i like what you said about there is a misnomer that the redistricting affects only the congressional districts. it happens locally. where will the new hospitals be? where will the new schools be? all of that. the new roads that get built. the redistricting affects everything we do. so it is not just affecting the congressional district. our next question comes from our state conference president in california. guess dr -- you might take the first crack.

in california, we have a commission to retain our current political strength. a conservative lawyer has set a scenario that suggest that blacks are the enemy of latinos. aren't we both protected groups? >> good question. >> yes. the fact of the matter is -- [inaudible] keep talking. where is my mike? the fact of the matter is is that the tea party types and the ultra-conservatives acted on the political scene are just as high style or even more house style - hostile to hispanics

than they are to african- american. they really don't like african- american. but they're very hostile to hispanics and latinos as well. the fact of the matter is is that this altar-conservative group on the right is pushing african-americans and latinos and hispanics closer and closer together. i mentioned before about what happened in terms of net household worth. hispanic and african-american net worth, and the median level is between $5,000.6000 dollars. that is nothing in the order of the $115,000 of white household net worth. hispanics are suffering record high unemployment. all the things that reflect african-americans, including

problems about voting rights, they are being visited on hispanics right now. and it's pushing hispanics and african-american together. so the idea that african- americans and hispanics have some diverging agenda is especially according about the main issues, which is the economy and jobs. and that is the main issue. and african-american and hispanics have the same agenda. >>americans and hispanics have the same agenda. >> there are opportunities. we have not taken full advantage of it. we need to think more strategically about how we approach appear. they have all witnessed the highest amount of latino

population growth. there are many sizable numbers of african-americans. we have to figure out how we're coming together. we comes together and take some of these positions. we think about creating the district where they bring are groups together and provide opportunities for the groups who have not existed previously. >> why aren't the photo identification law is being challenged in the court as being unconstitutional? >> at least one so far. they filed a lawsuit against the missouri photo id law.

there are the registered voters. it passed through the state legislature. they were able to get there a ballot initiative. in 2012, there will be the voter rigid the voter protection act. it will be on the ballots. right now we have a loss it against the language of that initiative. some of these will have to be cemented under section 5. we will need to put in some evidence about the impact of its parent that is thought to say that there will not be litigation.

>> that has some one case. we lost. the next time we go to the court 20 to focus on the impact. these are having an unconstitutional impact. that means relying on you to help us find the people who do not have identification. there are ways that this has a human impact. >> we actually have one of our planet. he is not able to get the 9 d -- and id. there are all kinds of barriers

that people will face. it is really important that the branches really work with those who are doing this on the legal front. you have the contacts. you know stories. you know some of the people. we have women -- it is a real burden. it is not just about the burden. you have to pay for the underlying documents. it is an order to get it pictured tell us this is in a different. you have to pay to play. paid to vote. this really is important. $28 to get a burst of civic as some place. for a lot people, that is serious money. we need the story.

you are on the ground closest to it. >> they covered it. in the state's for a small committee redraws the line, what suggestions do you have for instituting a change for the practice that what my do you draw for legislative districts? >> some are independent redistricting commissions. this has been taken away from elected officials in given to individuals who are non- partisan. it is tough to imagine if they approach this with a partisan i.

we are looking very carefully on the ones that emerge. they answer that they are not ones that discriminate. they have an objection. there have been concerns about the ones that have been exposed. if you are in a place we have a rich fishing commission, it is important to make sure you are engaged. they may be doing it for the first time. >> it is clear for our litigation.

the key here is participation it is absolutely key that any state whether they got commission or whatever, what you've got to do is write your state legislature committee. they want to do this. you have to be an bauds. we can and that we have this kind of involvement. we need to strengthen our cases by your involvement. one thing i really urge is going

to our website. the bottom line is taking the to all the rooms they want to. they cannot come up with these discriminatory maps. >> he said if the panel could give two specific steps. >> testimony is so important.

>> it is aiding gear important testimony. favored an african-american voters. how can work. if the lawyers have a tough time bringing case without legislative efforts. it shows us how these laws hurt minority voters. testimony is key. >> whenever somebody has committees, there will start here. they're able to document this. they are going to do all they can do.

we will be faced with this problem. we're getting organized to help them get what ever it is they're going to do. we will make sure people understand this. >> utilize the two that they talked about so you can do others trained. it is not the panacea to the solution. it really helps push out our messages. we're all year from different parts of the country. far too often we are relying too much on this.

we must understand what we are facing such making the changes that are going to harm us. >> our last question will be asked by the rev.. >> we have a number of questions that we did not answer today. aqere will be an fa a it to go up on the website. >> what are your thoughts for engaging the stacks of want to reiterate where we already are. out of practical steps. >> we have this with the major

denominations. each of them call on the fate leaders. they engage with us on members of development and voter empowerment. you're going to have to take that to the local level and a gauger leaders. we will work with the national leaders. diesel local relationships. this is really just a question of getting them engaged. they never forget that perce can impact peers.

it is important that chief find of this. we need in low use -- mous if they cannot come, as an to give you an hour and a half block doing theirs. it goes into their conviction. they will do civic engagement. many of them, and they will do that. most of them are have social justice committees. have a little faith. the third thing here is the most of them are in a synagogue or mosque. if you are, help make sure you

leave the committee for social action. if your leadership in the church where you intend tell zia the social justice for details view that social justice is not for a person of faith, tell why you are still there. >> i understand that a lot of people were asking about how to get it. you can go to our website and find it.

i want to make it clear that this document is because it keeps changing. you need to keep on top of it. thank you. >> i am so pleased that he had stayed to the end. i think this was the most important session that we will have. the teacher that we're holding up, we want you to go out and get this t-shirt. this is so critical to our future.

this is my vote. it is a campaign mantra for us. we want you to a major that you get this certification. you getde sure that this shirt. this is my vote. this is my vote. we will close you out. this has been a phenomenal panel. these are the resources.

give our leadership. they did this. they brought this tibia along with our chief operating officer. -- it to you along with our chief operating officer. go out and tell us about it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the next day forum on whether marijuana should be legalized. then sarah palin speaks at a tea party rally in iowa.

after that, a chance to say how redistricting could affect the political power of african- americans. vernon loeb talks about his mom memoir. "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. next it discussion with former drug enforcement officers and drug reform activists. this is about an hour for a feminist.

>> when we get to that part of the program, if someone has a question, come over here. if you wanted a camera shot, come over here. our first figure tonight is congressman polis. he is a democrat. he is establishing himself as one of the most outspoken federal credits. he told the crowd during his keynote address that he is working to legalize marijuana. he would file a legalization bill. he is also of to some other stuff here.

>> 40 years into the drug war, how many of you think that the drug war is working? we have about four people. have people think we're losing? >> the vast majority. winning the drug war. marijuana use is up. every object is city has come to this. it has recommended the this. is marijuana harmful? absolutely. drugs are used for predominately

recreational league. or whether they are used for drugs for pain killing or prescription. compared to nicotine, it is less addictive. unlike alcohol, marijuana does not make users aggressive and violent and committing secondary crimes. all these things are bad things. we do not want people using out of hall and of using cigarettes. on the federal approach, and the regulatory structure looks a lot more similar.

there's the negative impact as well. they are available. what is the negative impact? there are criminal justice resources that contributed funding to the cartel's lead to violence. in made it difficult to keep marijuana from children and destroyed the lives and families of other law abiding citizens. prohibition does not stop people from using marijuana. 38% use it. having the provision makes it much more difficult to keep out

of the hands of children. they do not care. there is a regulated distribution care. they make sure they card people. they're going to card everyone to make sure young people do not marijuana.s to youn every year more arrests are made for marijuana possession and all violent crimes combined. marijuana arrests in the u.s. were 850,000 last year. eighty-nine's are more for possession, simply possession. imagine the cost was to the families.

they regulate access to make sure people do not drive under the influence. marijuana at the federal level does that make illegal. then make into the state's change the law. even in a state like colorado's that has legal marijuana, many counties and cities have said they do not want it within their borders. what is the action? there simply is not one. there's no federal nexus as to why there should be in national prohibition. the national regulatory structure will help keep marijuana out of the hands of minors and generate revenues to reduce the deficits.

some on the other side say when it is legal maybe it will go up. here is the best answer. we should earmark some of those revenues that come in to help educate the dangers of drug abuse and provide quality treatment. even if they have a psychological reliance. they should have these services as well. these are almost a joke. it talks about addiction. scientists will say that marijuana's that chemically addictive pickup we probably get nervous. i do not know.

this is nothing compared to withdraw systems from an off bohol or nicotine addiction. not to mention the drug sector illegal. major talking about a withdrawal condition as well. there was the lack of oversight to regulatory structure. regulate the nicotine level in cigarettes. that is a big thing. they were trying to spike it. has that happened to marijuana? absolutely. we make sure that people are not spiking marijuana with additional potency. marijuana, alcohol, tobacco, these are not the things your people to use. i've never smoked marijuana in my life. i've only been drawn twice in my life.

these are bad things. we need the resources to educate the public. occasional use of alcohol and smoking or marijuana use, inc.? is possible to do that. for those of you who have used marijuana, do you belong in jail? i have friends here have. i have friends who less successful professional career sees it from time to time. do they belong in jail? absolutely not. visualize the people in my mind care is this a good use of taxpayer resources for them to be in jail debts why should this be in the underground

distribution system deck? it is part of the overall economic recovery. i would like to use some their revenues to reduce the deficit. we should as a plan not use marijuana for any purpose. as long as there is a lot of regulation. we make sure people of mild the difference does not use it. talk about what contributes to schizophrenia. what about impediments. it increases the rates in this

country. it interpreted far more than any link to marijuana use. and not have an opinion about whether they should legalize marijuana or not. we have dry counties in texas. many counties can prevent the sale of alcohol. many can and will prevent the sale of marijuana. they're welcome to do this if they want. this is a reasonable step. there is no federal nexus for action. this is not a federal issue. the constitution reserves the right to regulate these issues. there's almost a reverse a federal nexus. we are contributing to international difficulties for about 50% of the money comes

from marijuana smuggling operations. it deals a blow to the cartels. half of their money overnight will disappear on our southern border and be more containable by the resources. i think the federal government to get out of this business. what if the state once marijuana or prescription. what ever they want to do they should be allowed to do that. the federal government to get out of the business of doing this.

how best to regulate these substances including alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco. thank you. >> barnett speaker is the 37 attorney general. he is been recognized by the drug investigators association for his investors would drug- trafficking laws. he has made efforts to improve the narcotics laws. he is a lifetime colorado resident u.s. served as the u.s. attorney general. the director of colorado. please join me in toppling him. >> thank you for the invitation

to join new. unlike some of my comrades, i believe the debate about drugs is a healthy one. it is my hope there will be as well informed as possible about the various issues. hopefully i can bring some perspectives on the legalization of marijuana and the war on drugs that he may not here. you certainly will not here in of the ads the marijuana industry will run in the lead of to the 2012 election. i've been a lawyer for 33 years. i been on dozens of panels discussing drug laws and reform. that has led me to some very interesting observations. the people on the panel have

either been academics paid affiliate's of public policy editorialists or politicians and areas of great affluence. they have jut infested neighborhoods for a system that lived in there. this may be a coincidence. i do not think so. i think your experiences in life have a lot to do it your views on these subjects. i have noticed over the last 20 years that the proponents of drug legalization insist on defining the term war on drugs for their own purposes. for their purposes it relates only to supply reduction strategy. they did not want to include drug prevention and treatment strategies.

i think this is the mistake. out never call our reduction strategies a complete success. i've been witness to this. law-enforcement played a key role. a lot of people who want to raise the white flag essentially believe that the drug problem cannot be any wars. they are wrong. the problem could be and has been much worse. the survey by the department of health and human services so's the percentage of them rose the they did the '60s and '70s until it reached a peak in 1979. 14.1 cent of americans reported use of an illicit drug in the last 30 days.

combined the 1980's with drug prevention campaigns. by 1992 when bill clinton was elected president, and illicit drug use have been cut by over 50%. the results were more dramatic for marijuana. it peaked at 14.2% in 1979 and decline to 3.4% in 1992. i am wondering if we had similar success with the out of wedlock rate if we would call that a failure. even today are drug use rates are lower than they were 30 years ago. let me turn to the issue of marijuana legalization of why i believe it is an important part of the demand for reduction

strategy. by personally would prefer legalization of marijuana to the medical marijuana regimen we currently have in colorado. the repo model which is sold -- the retail model has become a complete joke. it is nothing more than state sanction fraud on the part of thousands of patients. only the terribly naive kid learn otherwise. their 120,000 medical marijuana patients in colorado. the democratic profile is the same as a recreational drug use profile and colorado. the average age is slightly below 40.

83 some of the patients are male. at least civilization come again people would not have to live to doctors and the government to pursue recreational drug use them i will not be voting for the legalization of marijuana when it appears in our state. i believed it will far outweigh the benefits in terms of social costs. that stems less it from my concerns about the impact of legalization of the drug on adolescents. we know that adolescents use of marijuana is a function of two things, accessibility and acceptability. marijuana has always been highly

accessible. medical marijuana has taken that train new level. the number of persons under 25 who use marijuana in the last year is now 9.5% above the national level over 60% of teenagers presley being treated for marijuana at addiction, the number is rising. therefore their source for the drug is a medical marijuana patient. medical marijuana has impacted the acceptability of the drug. i mean the perception of risk. when the perception of the rest decreases, a teenage use increases get a handout i have supplied. it is the first lithograph. it shows a clear relationship between teenage marijuana use

and the perceived risk. alarmingly, after a tenure decrease in teenage marijuana use, we are now seems evident increases. it corresponds to a decrease perception of risk. in 2009 alone, a daily marijuana use among 83 10th graders increased 10%. it is of 16 some among eighth graders. this should be no surprise. teenage use of the drug increased significantly to twice the national average. today alaska has the highest per-capita ratio in the nation.

why is increase teenage use a problem? in 1979 when it was an all-time high, the average was 2.5%. in 2009 it was 10%. every year handout prepared by the harvard medical school. it is about the impact of marijuana on the brain, particularly the adolescent brain. if you do not read anything else, please read that handout. it is dramatic. it indicates mayor one that is much more addictive than many people think according to a report released just last month

won in four americans who began using drugs before age 18 become at six compared to one in 25 that the end easing after the aged 21. we will talk about the costs of law enforcement efforts and the benefits from legalization. this is blind side economics. it will not come close to describing the increase drug use that will come from legalization. in colorado alone, with a 34% increase in suspensions. this will translate to a much higher loss of revenue to reduce tire assistance. drug abusers commit crimes. in the last year alone, the number of impaired drivers that tested positive for marijuana increased by 35%.

2/3 of those arrested for a deceit that are drug addicts. six times as many homicides are created by people under the influence of drugs and those looking for money for drugs. i look forward to your questions. thank you very much. >> our next speaker is the founder and executive director of the new york city based nonprofit organization "drug policy alliance." this is the leading organization in the u.s. providing alternatives to the war on drugs. he is one of the world's less receptive respect -- respected on international policies.

>> thank you very much. it is a pleasure to be here. i am very happy ecb and colorado's. it is very likely to be the first state to choose to end marijuana prohibition come the election next year. thank you for taking the lead. he made some wonderful plants. let me do the same. here's my perspective. i am here of the alliance. we just opened in colorado. we are not saying to legalize

all drugs. this never been a drug-free society. there'll never be a drug-free society whether we like it or not. we have no choice but to accept the fact that drugs are here to stay. the challenge for us is not how to build a moat between the drugs and ourselves. it is not to pay any price or bear any burden. it is to extend their reality that they are here to stay. how do we learn how to live with the reality of drugs in our society so they cause the least possible harm?

it tries to reduce the addiction and the suffering in the criminality and all the bad things we know. we have to reduce the negative consequences of our drug control policy. the best drug policy reduces the harms of drugs. people a dying of adulterated drugs. they should leave the world. less than five some of the world's population but almost

25% ranks first in the world. they keep popping and puffing to keep up with us. they cannot. our rate of incarceration are higher than those in year. we lie on incarceration in a way that is exceptional. i'm not saying do the spirit for the to do this. this is not the way to go. the right way to deal with people who use drugs and did no harm to others is to leave them a loan.

it is predicted to leave them alone. -- the right way to deal with people who use drugs is to leave them alone. those basic notions of freedom, compassion and responsibility armagare my car bodies. there were levels of violence. it is more dangerous because it

was illegal. what are we dealing with today? $300 billion in revenue a year, political terrorism. we need to stop people. we need to make available the services that help families still of the addiction. we have to take it out of the criminal justice system. i am not saying that doing so is a risk free. i'm not saying making marijuana legal and treating it like outlaw all won the acute use

some increase. i'm not saying it is an entirely safe. what i am saying from an economic perspective and a scientific spur effective -- perspective, there is an ethic and moral person appearing -- and in person. where we are the fundamental notion of human freedom. if the sovereignty of our online's embodies being negated. anybody can be drug tested.

the laws did not reflect this. it is about a rational policy with respect to marijuana. it is not moving in a direction. medical marijuana was about the medical problem and medical patients. my hope has always been that it could provide a model with how we could responsible regulate marijuana in the future. i do not wanted being sold as a free-for-all in 711's. i want to have taxation rates that can discourage consumption. and not to have adequate knowledge. when you look around the world and that the netherlands which

is the country that more or less legalize it in the '80s and that has struggled with a policy, that it the policy is one in which the number of young people using marijuana is less than it is in the united states. buy your drugs and the same drug dealers in the netherlands as you do in the united states. it provides evidence that we can legally regulate marijuana without suffering negative consequences. three surveys showed that high school juniors and seniors say it is easier to buy marijuana than it is to buy alcohol.

when i think about who will use marijuana more, it cannot be the adolescents. we did not see these jumps and our youth. i wanted the people might ease a little more marijuana. is that a bad thing or a good thing decks to the extent they substituted for alcohol. you see how many reduce their pharmaceutical drug use. it means this is the billions of dollars of years going there, and citadel bonds of the -- instead it will fall into the hands of the american treasury.

they're getting busted on marijuana. they will be able to focus greater attention on more serious and violent crimes. it is not a panacea. it is not going to be simple and easy. there is no flip the switch. the attorney general will be called upon. i hope he will do it in good faith. it will require people to step up to the plate. when i look at the people and bald, i see people who are just in a for the money. they're the most ethical and decent people i've ever met.

helmet you guys can leave this. you can provide a future. it is a we will have drug policies grounded not in ignorance but in science, compassion, health, and human rights. >> no. are not as palaces anthony colson. he was the assistant. he directed the federal government's strategy. director ofly the international.

he focuses on substance-abuse policy. thank you. it is nice to be up here. the other eloquent as speakers. i come from 28 years of experience. there are a number of places around the world. the facts we dispute. i am in a different mode. i was asked to give you a presentation on what the border

of a site. this is not a big picture at all right now. i want to show you what it is. i wrote an editorial this morning. these are my views. i cannot understand a reason why you'd want to add another thing to the mix. and want to work with the both of there. we had a drug one in mexico. just say no. he made jokes about it. it was on said annette lives fit it is the last time i had a

national dialogue on drug and substance abuse. let me show you what it looks like. this is our international border. you hear a lot of politicians say we need to secure the border. as someone who has been on the border for a very long time, our border -- next slide. this is next to impossible to secure. there is some remote territory of the united states. it is an extremely difficult thing to do. could we secure id? yes. is it the answer to our problem? no. i want to show you some numbers.

this is from the center. these represent the seizures that have been made. seizures and not a good indicator of success. they are a good indicator of other things. they do tell you a story on trends and where we are as a country. with cocaine, and it had a lot of an information about cocaine and how it has plateaued, it did plateau. one of the problems messines is a tremendous rise in the number of seizures that have occurred on the southwest border. the special in the last two years.

methamphetamines with the controls that the u.s. government worked out with mexico, we have a tremendous impact on the methamphetamine availability in the united states. a tremendous impact. after that, the mexican cartels figured out another way to produce. we are back to rates and low prices. impurity on the street is high. we have lost ground on the past two years. heroin use has skyrocketed in the united states.

it was rise in the opening of abuse. it is a cheaper high and one that leads to intravenous drug use. which leads to problems. the seizure rate is phenomenal along the border. next slide. this is what the cartels look- alike in mid 2007. after the violence began to occur, one organization attacked the poiret's cartel --

juarez cartel. others went at each other as that broke out. a lot of this was the violence that occurred. brutal, brutal violence in mexico. stuff where you cannot even imagine the inhumanity of it all. next slide. and this is what the cartels like now, where the seven all cartel controls most of mexico and the u.s. border. we have had a lot of mexican government activity targeted at other cartels, not the sinaloa cartel. it is the most single powerful cartel in mexico. next slide. marijuana. dr. nadelmann, congressman

polis, they are correct in that marijuana is the largest cash- generating operation of a cartel. marijuana, if there was no marijuana, heroin, cocaine, in methamphetamines would collapse in on itself. just logistically not enough money for a cartel to traffic in those drugs. you might say that that supports congressman polis and dr. nadelmann's theory on legalizing marijuana. i do not buy into that. after 28 years, that is not a conclusion that i would come to. but as you can see, marijuana i is keen him -- marijuana is

king. this is successful supply side strategies, and it may be counterintuitive to what you see with the seizure raids. but when marijuana is plentiful and when we see spikes in certain parts of the border, of marijuana, it means that we're doing an effective enforcement job against cartels. this is a stress indicator. the more stress you put on an organization, the more marijuana that it will grow and produce, because this buys the corruption here and the things you need in order to struggle against other cartels. next slide. keep going. i want to ask this question, because it has nothing to do with drug-trafficking. this has to do with the theory that if we legalize marijuana, we cut the violence in mexico. this is a great treat.

-- rape tree. that is a black bra hanging from the tree. this is the price that immigrants pay to smuggling groups. it has nothing to do with drugs. i would suggest that the violence in mexico is not a product of our consumption and use although it is a contributing factor. the reason for violence in mexico is because it is something that they have inherited from their colonial masters, the spanish and the french, a long time ago. their provocative statements -- they are provocative statements but i stand by them. that is in the border, along with human trafficking, this is what occurs. hundreds and hundreds of people die in the deserts every year.

next. what controls mexico? not the mexican government. the oligarchy, the few rich 200 families of mexico and the cartels control mexico. again, another provocative statement, but until you impact the only impact we will have his impact on sanctioning the government for not cooperating with us, and sanctioning the oligarchy of mexico. we start affecting their trade in its ability to trade, we will have a positive impact on drug trafficking. next slide. my biggest concern with legalization are these folks. go ahead, next slide. those that come back and return, to medicate, but we have not

done enough for these folks right here. that is the end of this slide show. it is not a good situation. i had great hopes for this administration and the treatment and prevention and it has not happened. i had great hopes for this administration on a number of issues. in the past two years, we lost ground on the supply side of drugs. in law enforcement, working with prevention and treatment partners, we can have an environmental impact on the health and quality of life of the community. working together. so that is what i wanted to talk about, and it has been a lot of years. i have some colleagues sitting in here.

again, i go back to the ag's comments on the fact that you do not city addicts to appear -- you do not see attics and people in recovery talking about legalization of drugs. you do not see prevention and treatment folks and you do not see the law enforcement officers on the street to have to deal toh our country's inability invest in fixing people, healing families, and inoculating our children from the drug use. we do not invest enough. countries like portugal and the netherlands, we can do those things, but we have not invested in those enough to do that. you cannot flip the switch on legalization at this point. one, there is no evidence of it. they are still waiting for data

to show that marijuana is a medically accepted drug. and we are not prepared because we have not invested in getting the beds and the people to fix those people in the cycle of addiction one should turn that legalization switch on. that is it for me and i'll look for your questions later. [applause] >> i asked panelist to please come up and take their seats. " we will have now, we will have 30 minutes of debate which i hope to direct it in some meaningful way. then we will open it up for 20 minutes to the audience after that. the first thing i need to do is apologize to dr. nadelmann for forgetting that dr. when i introduced him.

the first question -- why marijuana? an argument is often posed against the legalization of marijuana, as a gateway drug. however, it seems unequivocal to most people that alcohol is even more of a gateway drug. why then is alcohol and should alcohol be tolerated and marijuana should not? not only as alcohol tolerated, but welcomed in most social settings, even political fund- raising, advocacy campaigns -- why marijuana? >> to you want me to start? let me first of all say, it is interesting -- the sheet that i passed out is that at the same time that marijuana use by teenagers is increasing, underage alcohol use is decreasing. one of the other studies that i brought with me here is one that

has recently come out about the correlation to adolescent marijuana use an early onset of psychosis. that is not the case without off. i think more research needs to be done, but based on the materials that i supplied to you and the doctor from harvard medical school, i think you will find that as she points out some differences between alcohol and marijuana that are significant. i am not about to suggest that our alcohol situation in the united states is a good one. it is terrible. it is incredibly costly to us. in fact, it is something we should take note, and others say we will tax this and use money in treatment. the cost of alcohol abuse in this country are 10 times what we take in in revenue. we should fully expect the cost of drug abuse, including

marijuana use, to far exceed what we will take in in revenue. >> let me say a few things. the gateway theory of marijuana, there is an ounce of truth embedded in a pound of gold. -- bull. the majority people who use cocaine and heroin use marijuana and on our call, and for that matter, milk first. you do not have an effective gave way. this was the objective institute of medicine very trying to prevent hair one addiction by focusing on adolescent marijuana use is roughly analogous to trying to reduce motorcycle fatalities by preventing young people from learn at -- learning how to ride a bicycle. that is roughly the analogy.

[applause] and with respect to alcohol, we tolerated because the consequences of prohibition are so horrific as we know. we have seen the failure in our society. on the other hand, when we compare marijuana and alcohol, there is no associated reckless sexual behavior or violence, as there is without fault. with respect to driving under the influence, you smoke marijuana and dry, but when you look at the dozens of studies done on that, driving under the influence of alcohol is clearly a dangerous thing to do. but there are many people who are experienced marijuana users to drive and they cannot be distinguished. in control studies from people who are totally straight. if your anonymous marijuana true -- user, that is not true.

it is -- alcohol is the double that we know. >> i do not know if marijuana use among young people has gone up. what is possible in this environment is honesty has gone up. that is probably what has occurred. use may not on of: something has a criminal sanction, people are still using marijuana but they tell some pollster that calls them that they are not. it was interesting, and i have no idea if it has gone up or not. if that has an alcohol use has gone down, that is interesting because there is a substitution effect there. and i represent university of colorado-boulder. i can tell you that there are out of-related deaths every year. there is heroin-related deaths. i have not heard of a strictly marijuana-related death. of what kills people every year. i am going to be a father hear

about a month. in fast-forward 16 years, i hope that they would not use of all our marijuana. but if they are using one, it is a close call which one you would prefer them. it is easy for a 16-year-old who does not now have a drink to kill themselves without all. it is a lot harder to die from marijuana. >> you guys need to get out on the streets more. i talked to hundreds and hundreds of mathematics -- matt attics -- meth addicts. they are vehemently exposed to marijuana legalization because of the tendency to move on to other drugs. also check out the headline tomorrow morning, there was an incident in florida were young man was expelled from school.

they uncovered a plot where he was going to blow up the skill -- the school. he wanted to see -- he had columbine-type of pipe bombs. notice what else was found in the house. >> talking about getting out a little more. when you open with a comment about advocates, let me tell you something. i let the people and there is an organization called mothers united against the war against drugs. they have seen the worst about this and they are on our side and support legalization. there is now an organization, hundreds if not thousands of retired law enforcement officers, many former narcotics officers who went up against a dangerous drug traffickers and dealers. they say the policy is a value per you look in congress right now. it is not just barney frank

guard ron paul supporting this. charlie rangel, he is now on the fight with us. jesse jackson, now on the side with us. african-american members of congress, the leaders and many state legislatures, people of color, latinos who of seen the drug war, what the drug war has done to their community, and they are against it. kandahar gathering in los angeles. you'll see people that have fought for 20 years and said they did put my people behind bars. i have two brothers, one as a heroin addict and the other is marijuana. why does one get prison and the other get treatment? you need to get out more. >> another huge myth -- these 850,000 arrests for marijuana is , it can be as little as a petty

find. many are there for possession or use of marijuana that had been played down from more serious offenses. on a first offense, the people that are rare for drug offenses are either our total non- violence population. >> 850,000, and each one you talk about the nose. each one represents several thousand dollars in adjudication cost of the system. i have to respond to a couple of things that the attorney general said. it is the first time in making an argument, that someone quoted what the meth addicts think to

me. when you talk about people that use marijuana, is there no such thing as someone who is like their whole life ever covered marijuana user? there are regular people that use marijuana and now they are politicians and lawyers and doctors, and many of my colleagues in congress. our last couple of presidents. look, and we are all, john, talking about this from our personal experience. in many cases, they themselves had used marijuana and are talking about it. i've had family members of dealt with this issue. i had a high school friend who died of a heroin overdose. i have had people deal with cocaine addiction. you're coming from an experience space where we all live in this country and deal with this issue. >> one last point about this myth of what we're doing with people who are using and

possessing drugs. 90% of the people in alcohol and drug treatment in the state of colorado are there at corporal. they did not walk in off the street. part of the basis for this is that our drug addicts the result from legalization, we have all kinds of money to treat them, and they're going to voluntarily walk in off the street. >> millions of people show about a na without being forced thereby law enforcement. others are seeking help. programs that are worth something, people do show up at them. most people with a drug problem to not go to a program for that go to their personal doctor. one of the advantages of the health-care plan passed a couple of years ago is that at least people can obtain treatment not by going to isolated in segregated clinics. but they will be dealing with this issue is a part of the ordinary health-care system.

>> 90% of the people and treatment -- >> a lemieux onto a street topic. how does come to a different conclusion. we have -- i want to move on to a different topic. i want to ask this question. what alternatives are there debt will not include legalization but would also decriminalized medical marijuana? are there approaches other than prosecution of marijuana possession that might prove more effective than treating the use of marijuana as a criminal matter? >> there are. but states struggle with funding to create drug courts and a comprehensive manner. in arizona, you have drug courts in tucson.

but not in the outer counties, the rural areas. drug courts are great, great places to be where you have set up a structure like that. the biggest thing with the criminalization -- decriminalization and portugal, it is still too early, but they spent a lot of people to get people to present themselves for treatment. are we prepared to have higher taxes to pay for those folks that will present themselves for treatment? i personally, yes, i would pay any amounts of money to help that somebody, and that is one of the issues that we have. drug courts need to be more well-financed, at the federal

government needs to get behind them, make sure that they are comprehensive. that is the best decriminalization program that we have. >> portugal as a model, they decriminalize of possession. there is no drug testing. people are given an opportunity to deal with their problem without the coercion of the criminal justice system. drug use is more less stable. but the negative consequences in terms of criminality have all on them. go to the cadence to to report and our website. -- the cato institute and our website. but the notion that with this area of addiction, with illness, that we need the criminal justice coercion?

doh website and read the report that drug courts are not the answer. you say that they're not producing the reports that our claim -- the results that are claimed. when you see that people relapse and people fall off the wagon, the notion that those people then have to be incarcerated to get clean? heroin addicts routinely say that the top this drug to quit is cigarettes. 50% of all smokers now have quit cigarettes and they did it without the criminal justice system being involved. they did it without that coercion. they did it because of taxation and regulation and peer pressure. that is what we need to rely on, drug education and treatment. we do not need to criminal justice system front and center unless people are actively hurting other people. >> but, dr. nadelmann, a high percentage of people and drug courts are there for pergola,

that, forgery, and whatever. and there refer to the drug court because they have a drug problem. >> and to the extent that those people would otherwise be sent to jail or prison for criminal like burglary or theft, then we do not have to disagree. but when you see drug courts taking people not for those activity but overwhelmingly for people whose only offense is possession of a small amount of drugs for their own use, that is not an appropriate use of drug court. it is not an appropriate way of doing drug treatment. it is not and that -- not a good policy. [inaudible] >> their people that have serious problems, major crimes behind them. >> you are wrong. the evidence is