then sarah brown, from the campaign of unplanned teen pregnancies talks about corporate efforts including working with mass media marketed to teenagers and later, the university of maryland's crime and justice policy program director previous the obama attendance at this week's summit of the americas in colombia and the u.s. approach to the drug war. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: an unidentified donor has given $10 million to a conservative group with the intent of running a pac against president obama. also in the paper, the government will settle $1 billion to american trial because the interior department failed to oversee concessions from indian land from companies that exploited materials like

natural gas, oil, and minerals and with crude prices going down in february, it is predicted that gas prices will go downward in the summer. welcome to "washington journal." in our first 45 minutes, we want to hear about. -- about the gun laws in this state -- in your state. you probably saw the statements at the national rifle association. for our first 45 minutes as we show you a tape from the meeting, we want to know how your state handles gunnel laws. -- handles gun laws. the numbers are on your screen you can also send us an e-mail -- you could also reach out to was on richatwitter.

there are several stories stemming about the meeting from the nra and this one is about governor romney. we will hear what his thoughts were. it was also michael bloomberg who had made reference about the nra and gun laws specifically. this is what he had to say -- >> it is not clear that these laws have undermined the integrity of the justice system and some real harm to public safety. there is some confusion and police departments about when to make arrests. they have made it more difficult for prosecutors to bring charges in cases of deadly violence and the stand your ground rates have seen a major increase in justifiable homicide. these laws have not made our country safer. they have made us less safe. that is why so many law enforcement leaders oppose these laws. it is why some legislators and voted for these laws are having

second thoughts. it is why today we are launching a nationwide campaign urging legislators to take these steps. reform or repeal these laws were that have been passed or defeat them in states where they have been introduced. host: that is just one reaction. that is from new york city mayor michael bloomberg. we will hear from governor romney when he spoke yesterday at the nra and we are interested in hearing from you about the gun laws in your state. first up is detroit, michigan, on our democrat line. caller: good morning. thank you for cspan. i really enjoy your commentary sometimes.

in michigan, will law has it that you have to give what they call 8 ptp, a permit to purchase a gun in order to buy a gun legally and register with your local police department. i ran into some problems because i lived in the city of detroit and i had crime in my neighborhood which caused me to want a gun. i bought one and i got one for every room in my apartment. i had five guns and i moved back to the suburbs with -- into my family's home and i sold all my guns. i kept one and i did not register where i moved to and i ran into problems with that. otherwise in michigan, it is really difficult -- it is really difficult to understand exactly what you have to go through. you can call your local police department and they will tell you something's but they don't

really want you to have a gun. host: in order to get this ptp would kind of information to you have to offer? caller: i am an interesting case. i had been in a mental institution before innate psych ward. i still have the ability to buy a gun in michigan after that. after i bought all my guns and sold all my guns, a judge issued a mental order against me because they thought that was kind of crazy buying all those guns. where i lived in the neighborhood i live, i swear, pedro, night after night, four months and months, before i even thought about buying a gun, i would hear people kicking down the door in the alley. i lived on the first floor and i would hear people kicking down

the door in the alley to test blocks to see whose locks were unlocked. that's what they do. host: let's leave it there. we want to give a chance for other people to offer their perspective. this is from twitter -- we want to hear from you about the laws in your state relating to guns. but robert, republican line, laurel, maryland, good morning. caller: blahs in maryland -- the laws in maryland -- i am a discharged military personnel and i am able to buy weapons.

the stand your ground laws should be in your home therap. anything outside my home belongs to the police. host: how many weapons do you own? caller: i own five weapons. host: what type? caller: an ak-47, two shotguns, and a pistol, a 357 magnum. host: why do you have such a wide variety of guns? caller: me being a combat veteran, those weapons are necessary for me. if society breaks down, i am able to protect our constitution and everybody else around me. i never take these weapons out of my home. i have never fired them. host: tennessee, are independent line. caller: i was calling because a

lot of people don't understand. they are trying to arm the american people -- 8unarm the american people. the president should have been arrested immediately. they should not take away the arms of the american people. if you are armed, you remain free. once the take the arms away, watch out. we will go down the tubes fast. host: tell me about the gun laws in tennessee? caller: you have the right to stand your ground. you do not have to prove yourself being in danger. if someone walks into your house uninvited and you felt threatened, you have the right to take their life with no threats and no defensive moves. you can't open fire and take the person down. host: what is the process of owning a gun in your state?

caller: they do a background check and there is a 24-hour wait. i dunno how long it is on the rifle. they do the background check and is licensed with the state of tennessee and they do fingerprint and that is basically it. host: how many guns can you own? caller: i think there is a limit of one per. i'm not clear on pistols. i just on a rifle and shotguns. host: do you think there are changes needed within your steak on gun laws? caller: no, not at all people don't know if there is a gun in the house so it keeps people from breaking into your house. i posted signs that say no trespassing and i mean host: that is the kind of information we're looking for this morning as to how gun laws are handled

in your state. we will look at other stories as we are doing that. this is from " the new york times" --

melbourne, fla., this is mark, but democrats line, good morning. caller: i live in florida and they have the stand your ground law where you can use deadly force very easily. i used to live in pennsylvania and there you had to retreat from its threat before you could use deadly force. i guess that is the difference between a northeastern state and a southern state. host: what is the process of getting a gun in florida? caller: you go into a gun shop and you apply for a gun and they do an instant background check and if you pass, as there is a three-day waiting period. host: what do you have to provide to start the process? caller: things like your name, of course, your employer, and if

you have ever been judged mentally incompetent and stuff like that. that guy robert in maryland, i don't see why he thinks he's an ak-47. that is absolutely ridiculous. host: here is south stamford, conn., henry of our republican line. it is an easy process to get a gun in your state? caller: it is a fair amount of trouble. connecticut is a very liberal state. anything you want to do -- are racing, anything is a real nuisance for anyone in connecticut, if you want to buy a gun, you either have to have a hunting license for which you have to take a two-day course which is given free by the epa and they do an excellent job and after that you will receive your

temporary permit and about one month, at least that was my experience, host: what type of gun? caller: any kind of a rifle or shotgun? host: what specific "you have? >> i have a 0.22 and an ak-47. caller: i would like to pick up one or two war rivals because of antiquer value. i should at the local range in dan barry so i keep myself current and i am in a wheelchair. with the political situation that breaks down with the occupy movement, i think we will be in for a bedtime. i don't go out at night unless i have somebody with me. to get a pistol, you have to have a training course then you go to your police station and

pick up some paperwork, you fill that out, bring it back, get fingerprinted, and then goes to a process which probably takes three-four months and then you go to your local police barracks, state police barracks, and you get photographed and get a photo i.d. and you get your pistol permit. host: do you have ever to interstate to change gun laws? caller: i don't think so. you can go to a firearms dealer and buy a rifle or shotgun with a 15-day wait. i was former military but i still went to the training course. i read and i study and participate actively. at a shooting range. i should four recreation and it is a great sport. there are a lot of families out there.

you will see women as well as youngsters, 12, 14-years old. host: that was from connecticut on our republican line. if you want to post a comment on facebook, you may have seen the nra coverage we provided on c-span where politicians including governor romney or speaking on the issue of the nra and gun rights. "the financial times"has a right up of his comments. here is governor romney from yesterday talking about gun rights at the nra. [video clip] attack administration's on freedom of expression and the rights explicitly guaranteed by

the constitution, the right to bear arms is so plainly stated, so unambiguous that the liberals have a hard time challenging it directly. we need a president who will enforce current laws, not create new ones that serve to burden local gun honors. president obama has not. i will. we need a president will stand up for the rights of hunters and sportsmen and those who seek to protect their homes and families. president obama has not. i will. if we're trying to safeguard our second amendment, it is time to elect a president that will defend the right that barack obama minimizes and i will protect the second amendment rights of american people. host: there is governor romney from yesterday. you can go to our cspan site to see other speakers to address the crowd yesterday at the nra, you can go to c-span.org to access our video library and you can see what else was said about gun rights and gun laws.

lowell, mass., independent line, go ahead. caller: i do not own a gun. i support everyone who wants to own a gun. i understand the view of the people who think they should not allow people to have guns. don't be fooled. i would like to comment on mayor bloomberg. it is interesting he would comment as a new york mayor on an issue that started in florida. through alternative media and on news reports, i have seen his own police force is using young women and spraying them when they had no weapons on them, taking other people who are in a peaceful protest and smashing their heads into windows. his own police force was using violent force against non- violent people and he comes out i national stage?

they killed an unarmed elderly marine veteran because of a life alert alarm that went off? i find it very interesting. that is my comment. host: you heard governor romney's comments and "the financial times" highlights -- austin, texas, good morning, democrats line.

caller: good morning, pedro. i think we all need to be afraid when we see these politicians talking about protecting our rights to firearms both democrats and republicans alike. in lieu of the scandal with fast and furious, we now know that our own government was putting firearms in the hands of criminals and drug kingpins. my comment is this -- to is a documented fact when they had gun bans in chicago, the york and washington, they had the highest number of homicides before the supreme court two or three years ago. here in the state of texas, we have a state representative who is rethinking the language that is in our version of the extend

your ground law in florida. some of the language undermines the prosecutors' ability to prosecute these criminals. criminals like mr. zimmerman don't fall below anyway. those are my comments. host: the president in march, 2011, wrote an op-ed for "the arizona daily star." the title of the op-ed was we must seek agreement on gun reforms. these are some of the ideas. he said our focus should be honest sound and effective steps to break few from getting their hands on guns in the first place.

those are just a few of the thoughts from that op-ed from march of 2011 in the "arizona daily star." we are interested in finding out the gun laws in your state. new jersey is next on our republican line. caller: hello, you want to specifically know about the gun laws in the state's. these are new jersey's state laws. from the top, probably illegally because of the u.s. constitution, the new jersey state constitution does not have any right to bear arms or

firearms whatsoever in the state constitution. it is not mentioned. i don't know if that is you make that that is the case in new jersey. in order to purchase a long gun like a rifle or shotgun in the state of new jersey, you must first obtain was called a firearm purchaser identification card. that requires a submission of fingerprints, a complete personal history, a waiver so that the police officials can check mental or hospital records on the individual, on the applicant, and it is pretty extensive. and there is a large fee. host:, it is the feedback? caller: that has been quite awhile since i got mine but i think it is $35. that may not be accurate.

this is only for the beginning of the process. depending upon local police, if you have a local police department, they are the persons to whom you applied and if you are not covered by local police you then go to the state police. it takes anywhere from four-six months for the investigation -- for that check to be performed. if the individual is approved, they go in and get their f.i.d. and there is another $2 of paying for the card from your local police. you have this identification card which entitles you to go and buy either a rifle or shotgun which is in compliance with new jersey state lottery and host: as far as where you can buy guns, give the range of places you can buy in new

jersey. caller: the only place in new jersey you can buy firearms is from a properly licensed federal ffl. federal firearms license holder. you have to go to a business place like a gun shop but they have to be licensed. it has a federal license but also has state approval. the state is draconian because they have rules of who can even work in a gun shop. host: thank you for that round up. florida, independent line. caller: good morning, cspan, good morning, pedro. isn't it ironic that romney who was anti-gun when he was in massachusetts and now that he is running for president, he is pro-gun.

as far as gun laws are concerned, if you read the constitution, i think you can interpret it any way you want. i read it as the right to bear arms for a militia not for everybody to walk around with the gun their pocket. look at what is happening in floor vote with the standard ground rules. -- in florida. there was a man that was told not to follow the youth and ended up killing him. this is utterly ridiculous. if i were to get an argument with you and killed you, all i would have to do is punch myself in the nose and say to the police he attacked me and i defended myself. this is an idiotic law. host: do you see efforts on changing that law or her to purchase guns in florida? caller: i rather doubt it for awhile. i believe everybody has the

right of the want to have a weapon in their home to defend themselves if someone comes in. for years, law was if someone comes into your home, your home is your castle and you can shoot a person. if that person walks out the door, you cannot shoot that person. it was against blog. we have a case that was brought up on television where a man saw someone breaking into his car. he chased him for two blocks and stabbed him to death because he was rubbing his personal belongings. i think this law has to be abolished. host: the caller mentioned governor romney. there is an op-ed in "politico."

you can read more about it from politicalonline. what our gun laws like in your state? caller: i was listening to the comments. the gun law in missouri -- you have to take a class, and eight- hour class that you pay for -- it is like $160, if i am correct. after you take this class, you get your certification that you took the eight-hour class but you still have to go through your local sheriff's office whether you are in st. louis or st. louis county to get your fingerprints.

that is $100. you're looking into hundred $60 so far and then you actually have to go and wait between the three-four weeks for a background check to come back. once you get approval, you have to go to your local bureau to get an id stating that you are a ccw certified to carry weapons. some people on their driver's license and some people pay for it as an extra id cards. that is another $12. in the state of missouri, to me, it is all about how much money you can make all of these laws they are bringing up.

there used to be a time when you could have a weapon in your car. in the state of missouri. you could not carry it on you but it could be in your vehicle. you have to actually separate -- you have to put your gun and the glove department -- glove compartment. host: are their efforts in your state to change those gun laws? caller: to be honest, they seem like they say that every month.

if you enter into the state of illinois, you cannot have a concealed weapon in the state of illinois because their laws say you cannot carry a concealed weapon. in their states, that is a federal offense. host: we have to leave it there. we're looking to you to tell us about that gun laws in your state and how they look. the cut -- the numbers are on your screen and you can reach us on the mel, facebook, twitter. this is "the houston chronicle."

host: arizona, next. caller: hi. i happened to turn you on. the arizona senate has just passed a new law to permit the carrying of weapons in public buildings. only if the public building does not have armed security or a

device for locating metal objects. i would like to comment about mr. romney. what president obama did and what he will do what he is president, he talked in terms that he was going to do this for guns. he would legalize this or whatever. the president does not do that. his congress does it. he is just one that signs the bills or not. host: as far as arizona, besides the ones that deal with federal buildings, how long does it take from applying for a gun to actually owning a gun? caller: that is not too complicated. you can conceal -- carry a concealed weapon. anywhere except for public buildings. i have not heard too much about it one way or the other. i am not all that into guns.

the constitution says what it says and that is good enough for me. host: virginia, are becoming independent. hello. caller: how are you doing? i thought it might be something to consider, is right to keeping their arms, a federal law. it proceeds all state laws to the point that until adjudicated by each state, the state rights are there. the federal law is that you can bear arms. i feel, to give people peace of mind, it might be something that would be considered by the federal government to make an amendment and require federally that a person, as a previous caller mentioned, to have some sort of class or past military experience or actually prove that he knows something about

the weapon he is purchasing. somebody -- just to god and purchase a firearm in virginia, you get 15 days to get clearance, to get a concealed weapon. 15 to 30 days and it costs about $30. this thing of making sure that the person who does have a firearm and does carry a firearm has a previous class that he knows the weapon and he knows how to handle weapons and he knows the laws concerning the use of a weapon. i thought this might be something that would be interesting to our representatives to consider. host: if you follow this topic of gun laws, we are. the brady campaign on monday. -- we are holding the brady

campaign on monday live at noon which you can see on c-span as well as what on other platforms, as far as c-span is concerned. see it live at noon. the brady campaign on gun violence prevention which is part of the prospectus on this issue. st. louis, missouri. carol, good morning. caller: i am calling from st. louis where the nra convention is. i wanted to let people know that there is going to be a rally against the stand your ground laws by the arch. there was a fellow who called in earlier and said he inan ak-47 and he said because of the occupy movement? i think that is a really bad thing to say. host: does your state have a stand your ground law?

caller: no. host: is the purpose of the rally? caller: to let people know -- what is the purpose of the nra rally? [laughter] there you go. host: jeni beach. ruby, republican. caller: we have no stand your ground laws but it is pretty easy to have a concealed weapon, which i agree with. a gentleman called in about only having arms for militia. back then, we did not have any army and the only way they had a bearing arms was through the militias and each one of the people had to supply their own gun. we did not have a government that would supply them for us. second, the statement he read about president obama that said he wanted to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, he either had to know -- about fast

and furious. though whole thing is about putting the guns in the hands of criminals. we have a lot to think about. the governor does not picky their way. it is guaranteed in the constitution as an unalienable right. our forefathers knew that. they had to protect themselves. host: massachusetts. rick, independent. caller: in massachusetts, anybody between ages of 16 and 60 was required by state law to have guns sufficient powder insufficient shot. and sufficient shot. if a chief of police did not like to, you did not get your permit. in vermont, if you can purchase it, you can carry it. people need to look at their

crime rate in the states that allow more people to carry weapons. host: waco, texas. patrick, a democrat. caller: i was calling in regard to the gun laws. i think a lot of people are forgetting the spirit of which the laws were made. in texas, we do have concealed carry permits and a different things of that nature. i think that it is unfair for the criminals on the streets to be the only ones that are armed. i think it is perfectly ok for all law-abiding citizens to be armed and -- to be armed in order to protect themselves because the criminals are not paying any attention to any of the laws. they are carrying weapons and i think back to the incidents where people were killed, sitting and having family dinners, sitting in restaurants, and people were killed. i think that it is perfectly ok

for law-abiding citizens beyond -- in order to protect themselves. there is responsibility that goes along with carrying a weapon. now, you cannot feel empowered, as i think was the case with the zimmerman incident. that person felt empowered because he knew he had that weapon and that is why he did what he did because knowing he had that weapon on him gave him a sense of power. he was somewhat hyped up on the power and that is why he made he made.ce at the law abiding citizens should be able to be armed in order to protect themselves. there is a sense of responsibility that goes along with the norm. >> two stories about tax returns this morning.

president obama and his family paid more than $160,000 in federal taxes last year. host: another story about mitt romney.

host: can get. richard, independent. caller: good morning. in connecticut, there is a problem. the state firearm board is a state function, but the ninnis fatality of process -- municipality of process wants to a fee of 30 or $40. you have to refuse the fee and file with the state board f. municipalities will start you as long as possible. then it will call you and say okay, come and get your permit. there are also other political aspects to this. if you have an altercation at toor place and your neighbor

calls the police and they,, there arrest everybody and they charge everybody with breach of peace. on that happening, if you have a gun in the house nor any firearms, your permit has to be surrendered and can only be returned after the court does whatever it does. in my require a psychological -- it might require a psychological profile. when you go back and try and get your permit back, your local police department, in my case, will hassle you about that. they want to remove as many guns off the street as possible. in the state of connecticut, there is another aspect to it. the use of guns, policeman carried guns. we have had two policeman

murdered their girlfriends. we have had the police using the 20-foot roll against what i consider mentally ill people acting rationally. one was brandishing a knife. the other is used illegal force. host: house republicans are back next week and they will tackle issues regarding the budget. representative dave camp of michigan will hold meetings with republicans next week to map out the tax code.

host: on wednesday -- host: join us on this program on monday. we will have two reporters on to break down what is expected in the weeks ahead as congress gets back and debate issues on the budget. a couple of more calls. new hampshire. hello. caller: good morning, pedro. good morning, c-span. there is a 15-day waiting list for rifles here in new hampshire. i do not like dunst, but i own one. i felt as though i have to. when a new neighbor moved in, he

was a convicted child molester and i urge it -- the field for my family. -- i feared for my family. if you are a law-abiding citizen, you have to have a permit. >> many of the callers mentioned fees. host: -- many of the callers mentioned fees. caller: it cost me $30 to get my rifle and i got it from walmart. i do not even want a gun, but i feel as though i have to keep one around to protect my family because the law is not taking care of them. i have to do what i have to do to try to protect my family. i do not like it. host: you go to wal-mart, what you present to them? caller: when i bought mine, it was five or six years ago, i had to give them all of the information.

social security number, name, the fact that i was not a criminal. i did not have any prior charges against me. i do not think they even took fingerprints. it was a 15-day waiting. before they let me know -- waiting period before they let me know that i am not good. host: how does new hampshire approached the amoss? are there drives to change it? caller: i have a friend, somebody tried to break into his house. he was on drugs. he did not even know the guy. my buddy shot out the door, like a warning shot, and the police came and arrested the guy that was trying to break-in. they took him down to the station. they confiscated his gun. they did not arrest him. the only reason they said they did that was because he shot his gun.

if you would not, they would not have taken him down to the station. he was in his own house and someone was trying to break in. that is out of work to that. any other laws, i am not sure. i have a gun and i do not want to, but i feel as though i have to. host: that is the last call we will take. if you want to continue the conversation on facebook, several comments are registered there. later on, we talk about that teen birthrate in the u.s. new information from the cdc on that. up next, what the failed missile launch means for the area in for the u.s. we come right back. host: 29 -- >> tonight on c- span, we bring you their reporters to cover the big stories last year including the uprising bahrain. >> everything was normal and

then the crackdown started. the crackdown came in waves. it would crack down on the protectors and then they would pull back. at a certain point, there is a defining moment when there was the final crackdown. when saudi arabia was invited into bahrain by the ruling family. they really did start arresting everyone who was ever associated with the democracy protests. some of them were tortured to death. when that phase of the crackdown happen, that was when it became difficult to work in bahrain. >> we will hear from the reporter who broke the penn state sex abuse story. >> even after the facts were correct, there was still a lot of reporters with in pennsylvania that said, we would never run that story if we had it. people told me. people tell that to my boss. they were clear. they said, he ruined his life.

-- you ruin his life if he is not charged. >all we said was he was under investigation and if it does not lead to charges, we will write that. this is the truth, he is under investigation. there were more than one the alleged victims that have come forward. news organizations did not want to touch it. >> officials from facebook and other technology companies talk about whether government regulation gets in the way of innovation in their field. >> if you look at the 535 people in the u.s. house and sen, i think by generous accounts, none of them have the backgrounds in technology. >> you can watch both events starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> the pope has a very famous way of being determined to be dead. is a cardinal level post. he can picks this person. this person decides when the pope is dead. he hits and three times in the head with a silver hammer and calls out his baptism name three times. that is carried over from the romans. even today, the pope is not dead and tell he says he is dead. >> tonight at 10 eastern, dick teresi describes the business of organ harvesting. also, on "book tv," arlen specter you're on the split between old guard members of his former party and those supported by the tea party. sunday at 8:00 p.m. "good tv" every weekend on c- span2. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: joining us now is josh rogin, a writer for a foreign- policy magazine. we have been talking about the missile lot from north korea. what is the reaction from the u.s.? guest: the president put out a statement condemning it. secretary clinton expressed regret saying it is unfortunate that north korea's that the senate to change its pattern of provocation. the administration is in a bad spot. they spent the last year pursuing an engagement strategy with north korea. that has now collapsed. that was risky for them politically and strategically and the north koreans decided to take the obama administration offer and throw it in the garbage. the obama administration has a lot of egg on its face. they are facing attacks from mitt romney and the gop. they are claiming that they

engaged in appeasement, which is strong, but has a bit of truth to it. there are plans to provide north korea with 240,000 tons of food aid as a pathway toward multilateral talks and those are now gone. host: one of the a row -- editorials this morning says this -- they're proven a nuclear capability is are no joke. guest: that part of the editorial is spot on. north korea was trying something ambitious. they were trying to build long- range rocket than they had ever been able to test before. when the u.s. engaged in a similar endeavor, it took us 10 tries to get it right. this is their fourth. it is not surprising that this launch failed. however, north korea's allies

nuclear weapons and thousands of short and medium-range missiles that threaten japan, south korea, and american assets in the pacific. they have the attention -- intention to do these bullets. things that threaten stability. -- these belligerent things that threaten stability. host: the rocket was said to carry a satellite. could it carry arms? guest: 1 describes this as a kitchen sink. it was not really a satellite, this was a tense to -- a test of their missile rockets. the north koreans want to build a weapon that could be miniaturized and placed atop a rocket just like this one. all the evidence points to that. they have not yet been able to miniaturize a nuclear weapon and put it on a warhead and shoot it, but it is a matter of time and given enough money and enough patience and neglect by the international community. they will reach that very dangerous goal. host: the relation between the

lack of success of the launching of this rocket missiles and the test of leadership of the new leader, kim jong-un. guest: this is the most opaque regime in the world. nobody knows what is going on. analysts and experts and officials have come to the basic consensus that this rocket launch was planned before the death of kim jong il. it was timed to mark the 100th anniversary of kim jong il's father, the original leader of north korea. the bottom line is that it is not clear that kim jong-un, the 27-year-old leader, had the power or the political capital inside his system to stop the launch. it is not clear that negotiator sent to negotiate with the u.s. in its february had their power to stop it either. this might be the momentum of the last administration in north korea playing itself out. with neither of the new leaders nor the new power structures in

north korea's struggling with those leaders, having the ability to take a bold steps such as stopping the launch that was scheduled by there now dead former cheerleader. host: we are talking about launching in north korea. if you want to speak with josh rogin, here is how you can do so be. the numbers are on the screen. email us at journal@cspan.org. you can also reach out to us on twitter. could you trace the line process that goes from when president bush called north korea's part of the access of evil to the point now that we are engaged in negotiations to giving them food? guest: it is a roller-coaster story. it goes from periods of intense engagement to ignoring them.

both administrations have fallen into the same pattern. what had happened after 9/11 when george w. bush declared north korea's part of the axis of evil, he had also taken another step, which was to accuse them of cheating on the u.s.-north korea-greece framework of 1994. they were cheating. the way the administration decided to do with it was to scuttle the agreement. that ended all of the reciprocal visits and confidence measures that kept us relatively assured of that north korea was not doing a, b, or sea. that started isolation. that was broken by the second term of the bush administration with condoleezza rice. they came up with an agreed statement in 2005 that made believe set north korea back. they broke those agreements, leading the bush administration to conclude that there was

nothing they could do. the obama administration decides it is not worth the risk, politically and strategically, to fall for this again. they had a very astutely ignored the north koreans and refused to get into this sort of trade and finally, last year, they fell into the same problems that went back to negotiations. only to be tricked by them once again. host: when it came to the bush administration and this one, guest: why: the idea is that -- wife food? guest: the idea is that you should not -- dacey we are not treating food aid for progress on the nuclear issue, but that is exactly what they are doing. the reason they are doing that is because the one concession you can give to the north koreans that does not advance their ability to threaten the

world, assuming the food aid can be directed to people other than the military. that is what they need. it is the easiest thing to give them. it can be spent on humanitarian grounds, not necessarily political grounds. as soon as the missile moratorium was broached by the north koreans, the administration announced that 240 tons of food aid were not going to be delivered. this reveals a linkage, in the minds of the administration, and that is clear as day. the bottom line is that we do not want to bribe the north koreans to do things, but we will then give them things such as food aid if they will not give us things such as honoring the deals they are signing. host: what happens of another missile is launched? depending on what type of materials are there. guest: right. north korea does this in patterns in paris. we are expecting a follow up. we expect them to fire another rocket or doing a nuclear test. that is what people are watching

for. this will enrage the international q -- committee and force the administration to launch a diplomatic attack, a diplomatic confrontation in north korea. the bottom line is that each time north korea goes through with one of these provocations and the international community condemns it, the condemnation get a little bit less significant and the penalties become less relevant. the airport. the people are starving. there is not much we can really do to them. to make their lives any more difficult. they know that. they're fine with repeating the cycle because it gets you met -- the international community used to them being a belligerent nuclear power and that is exactly what they're in goal is. to everyone's sort of stop getting upset when they -- to

get everyone to stop getting upset when they do these things. host: the numbers are on your screen. if you would hold off if you called in the last 30 days. michigan, this is mark on our independent line. hello. go ahead. caller: hello, c-span. right now, they are celebrating in north korea even though this missile launch was a failure. they had that footage up until it blasted off, and there is no footage of the rocket in the sky, blowing up, landing in the sea. we are all being lied to. this is all covered up. north korea is celebrating. i guarantee you it is not because of two sketches. guest: let me try to address

that. there are 70 because it is the 100th anniversary -- they are celebrating because it is the 100th anniversary. the north korean state media admitted the launch failed on their own television. some people see? as some acknowledgement of new media trends. -- see that as some acknowledgement of new media transparency. i am not so sure about that. their first priority is eating, then falling to government, then going through with the rocket launch. as far as conspiracies, they are all over the place. i hear rumors including that we shot down a missile, it never did get shot down -- there is no way to know.

from the best we can understand, the missile did 5499 seconds, then exploded -- 58 -- fly for 99 seconds then exploded. host: there are some pictures. put some context to these if you would. guest: it looks like the deere leader and the great leader. we have to understand that north korea is a cult of personality. it is ruled by the idea of self- reliance. it is a form of communism. it is not really following the strict doctrines, but it is super-controlled, super

information back in society. it is not clear how much of this is based in the d-like qualities of the people people that have rolled north korea -- ruled north korea up until now, or how much fear it is. host: santa rosa, california, and jeffrey. democrats line. caller: my concern here is it seems no one wants to answer what if a nuclear weapon like the north koreans tried to launch were to make a successful landing? there is this discussion about politics, " what if this weapon

were to -- what if this land were to weapon -- this weapon were to land and that it? guest: did not put a nuclear weapon in the air. they put a missile rocket with a satellite attached. you're right. the potential danger is a nuclear weapon would be put on one of these missiles, and what is the plan to deal with it? basically, and international missile shield the united states has been leading the construction of, and this includes several different components. there is a component that involves ships with advanced radars, swimming around the ocean, get ready to shoot down missiles that pass over them. in the allied countries such as japan, we have a missile batteries that defend specific parts of land and can shoot

missiles as they come at those parts of land. there are other parts developed that include drums and satellites. -- drones and satellites. that is the plan the united states has spent over $100 billion on a. the not -- on. the method is not tested, controversy and, and it is a political football because president obama has scaled down the system even though it is the most over-funded in the defense department. that is the plan. it is not clear if the plan would work or what would happen if north korea put one of the nuclear-weapons on a boat or in a suitcase. the ultimate goal has to be to convince north korea to abandon nuclear weapons rather than catch them before they hit us.

host: is there any sense of how much of the stockpile their lives in north korea? guest: we know they have done one test that detonated at a nuclear weapon-like level. they have at least enough material to build one-to-6 bombs. we do not know if they have been built. there is no way to now. the only way we will find out is if north korea decides to test the weapons or invite inspectors back into their facilities. host: we have the ability to ask questions 3 twitter. -- through twitter. here is monte.

guest: ok. it is hypothetical because their entire mantra is it they are threatened by us and their neighbors. they keep control simply by exaggerated in the foreign threat. that is their whole package. is there a scenario whereby we could do enough to convince them we are not threatening them? yes, but it is not likely because it would involve moving military forces from south korea and things we are not prepared to do. this regime survives based on hyping the foreign threat. they will continue to do that. we have to factor that into our decisions and understand that we will always be the bad guys for

their own domestic political purposes. host: lexington park, maryland. republican line. caller: could you explain to me how the people do not have agricultural skills to fix their own food and where does the money come from to support their military complex x guest: it is a great -- complex? guest: it is a great question. there are families connected to the military. they have various ways of stockpiling millions of dollars. most of these are illicit crimes that include exporting technology. it includes selling drugs, counterfeit medicine, you name it -- counterfeit u.s. dollars

is a huge business. any list of ways they have tried it. the're flaunting international legal and criminals systems. they have an economy in tatters, but it is productive enough to keep the ruling families and the military in relatively good stead. it is not productive enough to do anything for the 25 million people who are literally starving, but it does not take as much money as you might think to keep 250 families fat, and as long as the military stays fed and loyal, they should be good. host: off of twitter --

guest: i do not think we can call it a successful launch. they are in the process to make progress. if they learn, i guess it was productive. as a propaganda tool, and i do not think they can call less successful. they invited 100 foreign journalists into pyongyang and there were there for weeks. the journalists were not aware of the launch. they have to find out from washington. this is a propaganda mess. i do not think we could call it successful, but if their goal was to free to everyone out -- free to everyone out, then it could be successful. host: pennsylvania. tom. democrats line.

caller: sorry. i have a little bit of a horse this morning. to me, it is the same old stuff. i'm a twice-wounded in vietnam veteran. i'm not worried about korea invading this country. the republicans want to get rid of social programs. they claim they want to fix them, but they do not want to do away with military spending. host: wire you're not concerned about north korea? caller: they will not damage me. we have all kinds of rockets pointed at them even if they get a rocket. i'm not one of those people scared about every other thing. guest: i think it a couple of

good points. even if the north koreans were likely to get one of these dangerous weapons that probably would not fire it at us because doing so would prompt massive retaliation that would signal the beginning of the end of their way of life. that is true. you also made the point that we are not directly threatened. that is also true. i would say we have foreign assets that are threatened. we have tens of thousands of troops within range of the missiles that they have today. we have an international security system based on shared responsibility and country's living under the security umbrella. if we want to change that, and city 3 a, japan, you're on your own, that -- and say south korea, japan, you're on your

own, that is fine. we could have that debate. but had this missile than successful, it is possible it would have been able to reach alaska, hawaii, maybe even the coast of california. the idea is not to give in to that position before we get there, and that is not going well. host: an e-mail -- what is japan think? guest: we have the six-party talks. they involve russia, china, south korea, japan, us and north korea. japan is the one that is most opposed to the north korean position and most reluctant to negotiate with them. there are a few reasons. japan invaded korea in the early 20th century, and this

north korean country is largely a response to that. historically, they do not like the japanese. the japanese position is very clear. they are hawkish. they do not believe that negotiations or dealmaking is productive. the attitude in japan towards these actions is just about as negative as you could imagine. host: this e-mail -- guest: that is an unverifiable conspiracy theory, and i have not seen evidence to say the chinese have said that touched it, but we know they were not happy with the launch. -- sabotage it. we know they were not happy with the launch. clientorea is china's

state. china has leverage over north korea but they are reluctant to use the leverage, and one theory is if they try to use the leverage it does not exist. just because north korea depends on them for food, it does not mean they will do what they say. the north koreans could just tell them to stop bothering them, then the chinese will have lost their influence. the chinese priority is stability, not to have a crisis that resulted in millions of refugees. china would prefer to have been no prius north korea that a stable than a peaceful north korea that is unstable. host: this tweet guest: it is interesting. they are kind of working

together. there is a lot of evidence of north korean, iranian, and for that matter, syrian cooperation. they all benefited from pakistani exports of sensitive technologies a few years ago. so, in a way, they're kind of on the same page. again, the north koreans have achieved the development of a nuclear weapon. the iranians have not. they have more missiles that have been the mustard to work than the north koreans, so it is a -- that have worked better than north korea, so it is a mixed bag. host: is this based on a cold war ideology? guest: it is based on korean war ideology.

the north and south are still a war. they take that seriously. i cannot say it has diminished because the stakes keep getting higher. millions of south koreans live within the range of north korean artillery. at some point, something will have to give. either the north korean regime will collapse, or south korea will decide they are too much in danger of to let the status quo be maintained. that could go to the doorways. there could be unification, which is what -- thought there could be two ways it could go. president obama talk about unification. host: democrats lied. -- line. caller: who was the united states to custom iran around and

tell everybody what to do? -- run around and tell everyone what to do? guest: there is a question of if we did not do it, who would? who would fill the gap? i am not saying the united states always does it competently, constructively, or well, or with the support of the international community, but somebody has to lead. if you look around the world, where the other actors? do we want an international order led by china, russia, europe? these are valid questions that could be debated at length, but for now we have an international order lead to the extent we can choose when country by the united states that has some very

positive and some very negative implications for our interest, but that is the way it is. there are many people, and i would put ron paul among them, that it is a ridiculous state of affairs and the united states should look out for its own interests. that would be a different world. i am not sure if that would be better or worse. host: pat. new jersey. republican line. caller: you keep saying that north korean is the most heavily sanctioned country. there are other countries doing business with them, and why are they not responsible for food aid, and why are they not been told if they do something stupid, you will be responsible? gee, that is an excellent point. many of the -- guest:. that is an excellent point.

-- guest: that is an excellent point. there is burma. they have deep ties to north korea. iran. russia has taken it vantage -- has taken it vantage the north korea has not been able to do deals with the west. why can't those countries be pressured to do more is exactly the question the obama administration and the bush should administration has been asking. for china, to simply prefer north korea the way it is to the risk it might be if the force change. other countries are profiting off of the illicit activities north koreans are able to

participate in. host: are there those that support a school of thought dead says north korea has eight -- that says north korea has a program, let's live with it? guest: what is ironic is the as we see them working toward a nuclear weapon, obama says containment is not an option. what we are seeing is we are forced into a policy of containment, not through our own choosing, but simply because of our inability to do anything about their nuclear program. obama officials will pavement privately they do not believe north koreans will give up their nuclear -- will admit privately if they do not believe north koreans will give up the nuclear-weapons which leaves the option of regime change and containment.

whether we like it or not, you must implement a policy of containment, and that does have negative effects because it allows a machine that is abusing its own people of -- regime that is abusing its own people to continue. host: republican line. caller: my question is for josh rogin. i was wondering what he thought with regards to north korea obtain nuclear technology during the clinton administration who signed off for a defense company with the american regional coordinator heading up the transaction of information. i am not sure what we had gotten back in exchange. this is not a theory.

you might have been developed using conspiracy theory in previous calls, but on this call, i would like some confrontation on why we would not expose the fact that they obtained their nuclear technology during the clinton administration threw -- through abb defense. guest: i will admit that i never heard of abb. it is true that the united states did support the events of civilian nuclear technology in exchange for certain concessions during the clinton and bush administration. one of the ideas was to provide them with light water reactors which would be used for energy, but that would not be able to be used for weapons.

there was an infrastructure, a business infrastructure and economic infrastructure built to provide north korea with these light-water reactors and that went on for years, they violated the commitment and the international community pulled the plug on the program. i do not think we can blame the west for north korea getting their technology. i think that blame goes to pakistan, maybe china, and as for attempts to give them technology in exchange for abandoning their program, that has been the basic strategy and it has not worked. host: alabama. clinton. republican line. caller: i do not understand when will be democrats learned --

learn? i was responsible for food aid going to mozambique in africa, and all the time, but, go to -- they go to socialist, communist countries. if we did not give them food, but those countries would fail. socialist countries, marxist countries, the government would fail, and a free market would come out of it because the people would want that. why is it the democrats and liberals like to prop up socialist governments all over the world? guest: let me separate your thoughts about food aid from why

do democrats and liberals do a, b, and c, because both democrats and republicans have supported this idea. as to your point that food aid usually goes to the leak, or the government, that is true, and it is understood. a big part of this was putting in monitoring mechanisms that would allow international community to have confidence that this was going to the people who or not been used for their festival, which is a food- intensive set of events. so, there are a lot of ways to do that. summon all the international monitors, and some involve giving them food the military cannot use like a baby and

vitamins or child biscuits. there are detailed plans that go into trying to make sure the food is not manipulated. the obama administration claims when they canceled the food deal they did it because the monitoring base set up would not be honored -- monotremes they set up would not be honored. -- monitoring would not be honored. your argument that the government would fall, that might be true, but the bottom line is these markets are not exposed to the free market, and waiting for them to fall could be a very long wait. host: chicago, illinois. gene. independent line. caller: 1 i heard you say it is

for the unit -- it is which it when i heard you say it is ok for the united states to be the police of the world, or it is not all right for others to have weapons, but it is ok for the u.s., it sounds like you are a spokesman. all they're doing is in reaching americans, -- in reaching americans, and causing 84 the united states because -- hate for the united states. guest: let me be clear. i am not advocating for a system where america rules the world. i am not arguing that america does rule the world. i believe they're the most powerful country in the system that is changing rapidly and is trending away from american

power and influence in many ways. i am now making a judgment. i'm just telling you the way it is. there are positive and negative effects that resolved as part of the multi-decade time of unprecedented world power and influence. you seem to be unhappy with those results, and that is valid, but i am here to tell you what is going on as an objective reporter without judging it one way or the other. if you are against the system, i encourage you to become politically active than work toward a change in that system, and that is the magic of america -- citizens have the ability to effect the future of their government. host: one more tweet before we - guest: a functioning nuclear

weapons is a complicated term. do they function the way they want them to, now. -- to? no. they do have nuclear-weapons. they do have delivery systems. even if you take them apart, it is still dangerous. we should not go out about the failure of this launch. the point is they have the intent the will, the money, and the time to increase their threat to the world, and that is a situation that despite the failed launch yesterday remains. host: what do we learn about kim jong-un from this affair? guest: exactly nothing. we do not know if he was for or against the launch, or if he will use this to consolidate power or if this represents he

does not have power. we do not know if the launch was supported by the military or by the foreign ministry. there is no way to tell. this is the impossible question of this and possible problem of north korea. for so many years it has been ruled by a single individual. that seems to be changing. experts say that no matter what kim jong-un at 27 will not have the political power or mythical image of his father or grandfather, so he would be more reliant on the institutions of power. what that means going forward is anyone's yes. for now, it seems the status quo is changing. it seems that we will not be dealing with north korea directly, and it is likely there

will be no progress in their status as a pariah state for the foreseeable future. host: josh rogin, "foreign policy magazine," thank you. later we will look at the drug war when it comes to latin america. up next, a drop in the teenage birthrate. new figures from the cdc. we will have that discussion when we return. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> it has been nearly 10 years since the release of the third volume of "the years of lyndon johnson." in two weeks the fourth volume will be published. here robert caro in 2008.

>> this is a book not just about lyndon johnson, but about robert kennedy and jack kennedy and the interplay of their personalities. it is a very complicated story, that i do not think people know, of two complicated people, robert kennedy and lyndon johnson. i had to go into that and try to explain that because it is part of the story all the way through the end of johnson's presidency. i suppose, launched the -- i suppose, chronologically, johnson is passing the voting act. >> watch appearances of robert caro online at the c-span video library and watch the "q&a"

interview with robert caro said become a sixth. >> -- sunday, may 6. >> power specific mission is to make sure that when we are evaluating foreign policy moves, human rights cannot be the only consideration, but it has to be part of the dialogue. >> katrina is the president of the foundation. >> when we abandon the values, and talk about the recent issue, with russia, or the accountability act, which we do not need to go into the details of, but whether or not we will stay on record as saying human rights matter, the matter in russia and china. >> more with katrina lantos

swett sunday night at 8:00 on "q&a." >> april 15, 1912, nearly 1800. >> once the look of the los -- the lookout bells sounded, it means there is an object ahead. it does not say what kind of object. they went to a telephone and called down to the officer on the bridge to tell them what it is that they saw. when the phone was finally answered, the entire conversation was -- what do you see? the response was osborne read ahead. the response from the officer was thank you. >> the truths and the midst of

that night sunday night, part of "american history tv." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by sarah brown, the ceo of the national campaign to prevent teen and unplanned pregnancy. cdc figures, what do they mean? guest: the teenage birthrate is the lowest since we started tracking that in the 1940's. host: where do the figures fall? guest: it is about 34 births to teenage girls. guest: -- host: does it give the context of why these numbers are dropping? guest: the rates are a numerical

calculation, but the issue of why it matters is really the key question. what is so important about it? teenaged pregnancy and birth are serious because of their educational and poverty implications. a young woman who becomes a mother too soon typically drops out of high school. very few of them complete college. if she was courts to begin with, she is likely to stay poor. if she was not corps, may be marginal, she might bridge -- poor, may be marginal, she might become so. i think the recession has put a sharp edge on this. we see how talk is in a knowledge-based economy to get a good job. we are thrilled these rates have gone down, not only because of

the individuals involved, but for the larger issue of u.s. competitiveness, workforce preparation, so forth. it is an expensive problem for taxpayers. host: because? guest: because they consume public services. the estimate is that about 11 of in dollars in taxpayer money goes to caring for the teenage mothers and their children every year. host: the birth rate fell to 34.3%, -- 34.3 per 1000. guest: that is right. the number of actual babies born is the lowest number we have had in years. this rate has gone up and down, but think about this 44% decline

since 1991. i think -- i say to people, what else has made that much progress? it is extraordinary. when you looked at some subgroups like african-american teenagers, their rates have gone down 50%. there has been a profound change. host: our guest is with us to talk about the issues of teenage birth rates. if you want to ask a question, here is how you can do so -- host: we also have a phone line for teenaged parents -- does the drop in figures mean teenagers are having less sex or using more protection?

guest: the great good news is they're doing both. there has been the argument about stressing not having sex at all, or more contraceptives, and both of those things have driven the rate down, which is an important concept. young people are delaying sex, in particular, teenaged boys, and the young people that are having sex are being more careful. it is really both. it is not either or. host: is there a reason for the change in these mindsets? guest: that is the key question. why they've been more cautious? these are both prudent, save for things to do. i think there are a bunch of reasons. in particular, there has been a profound shift in social norms and expectations. we see this in every state, every racial and ethnic group.

it is not just a particular thing. an enormous amount of messages have been put out. it is not all coordinated. there has been a steady drumbeat that pregnancy and parenthood is not for teenagers. it is an adult activity. i think the hiv aids epidemic has caught the attention of young boys and young men, as well as young women. possibly, the recession has had something to do with it. things are scary when people are losing jobs. you might just be a little more careful. the media has focused more attention on this topic. we do polling of teenagers, and they say they have noticed more attention to this issue. the list goes on. whatever it is, it is one of

the great good news stories in the u.s., although i did not mean to be a downer, but the u.s. still has much higher rates, even with this decline, 44%, than comparable countries. it is not just a little bit higher. european countries, france is that 10%. just one third. host: we want to get in some calls. illinois. democrats line. you are on with sarah brown. caller: i noticed when you said something about the african- american subgroups, but what about people that are mexican, porter written? did you come to an index -- you include that? people use the word illegitimate, but there are a lot of celebrities that do not use the word.

are you only counting people that are rich to have children and not married? guest: thank you for the question. first of all, these rates of teenage births are for all american teenagers. it is not just white, hispanic, so forth. so, to your question, who are these people, this is data collected to birth certificates. it includes everybody. as i mentioned before, it is not just the overall rate. african-americans and hispanics in particular have gone down about 50%. to your point about celebrities, i agree with tear. we do not -- i agree with you. we do not use the word illegitimate, but this notion that everyone can have a baby and get on the cover of "people magazine" with no commentary

about family structure has been a big change in the u.s., and i think it is unfortunate. we do know that children do best in stable, two-parent families and extended families as well. the notion that it is a fashion statement is very offensive to a lot of people. i appreciate the comment. host: you mentioned the media twice. i want to talk about some of the shows such as "16 and pregnant pickup this is a clip. [video clip] >> i noticed that i do feel lonely because i am and home all day, but i do not feel as lonely now that she is more alert and i feel like i have my best friend with me all day. it is kind of nice. i miss having someone to be able to talk to all the time.

i almost forgot how to socialize with my friends. whenever i see them by do not know what to talk about. i feel like all i should talk about is being a mom, and while they act like they care, i know they do not want to hear the my baby ave. that is why i do not have friends. it is just me. host: that is one example, what is the message? guest: i think she is explaining that obviously she loves her baby and her child, but her overall life has changed, and disconnected from friends, probably with a tenuous relationship with school. it is a complex issue. that show, incidently, i think has made a contribution to this decline.

it is quite recent. it is not as though the show has been going on for 20 years. we of the and public opinion polling of teenagers and ask them what do you think about this show, and about eight in 10 teenagers will say this really showed me how tough it is to be pregnant as a teenager, and how to be -- and to be a teenage mother. these are reality shows. it is not a scripted series. it is real life. it is important as a way of educating young people about what this really looks like. host: here is s.i.. john, republican line. caller: i want to make the suggestion to you. i am close to 60 years old. during my young adulthood, high

met very -- i'm not very many young women from of the one backgrounds who knew about contraceptives, and many of them became pregnant with a new how to not get pregnant. i believe there is a short circuit that happens in the brain in a moment of passion that people just behaved irresponsibly. these young women behave irresponsibly no matter their education, their level of a flow once or economic condition and so on. -- their level of affluence or economic condition. i am glad to see the rates are down. it is been a bad thing for the social future of the united states, but once again, i believe there is a component to their behavior. there is a short circuit. i'll listen to your response.

guest: it's nice to talk to someone in my age bracket. i have that perspective as well. in a moment, as we stay on family television, it is hard to make careful, rational decisions and fall plans they might have made -- and fall plans you might have made four early -- follow plans you might have made four hours earlier. it is very hard to do. it is not because of a short circuit, but emotion and biology takes over. that is, the species going for millions of years. -- that has kept the species going for millions of years. people talk about using methods like and ied or a patch that you could use totally separate from "in the moment, " is it is true

that knowledge about basic biology, careful thought about planning, does make a difference. these rates are going down in large numbers of teenagers and young adults because they are thinking more about this and making better choices. the rates would not have gone down if biology always trumped intellect, but the two always interact. this is not just a question of knowledge. it is not just cognitive. it is emotional and personal. host: queens, new york. democrats line. caller: how much of the decrease can be attributed to wider availability of abortion? guest: it is an important question because in theory we could drawdown a birth rate at any age by more abortion, but

the good news is the basic pregnancy rate is also going down. the birthrate is not driven by an increase in abortion. it is being driven by fewer pregnancies in the first place. interestingly enough, a lot of people that do not study these numbers all the time or do this every day when they think of abortion -- i am not saying you said this, when they think of abortion, they think of teenagers. in fact, fewer than 20% of all abortions are teenagers. they contribute to the overall abortion rate, and it is largely an issue of women in their 20's. incidently, about 15% are to married women. it is not just equal of 16- year-olds. >> -- host: sarah brown is our

guest. colorado springs. republican line. richard. good morning. caller: recently there have been reviews where an author has researched dimensions of morality and one of those is chastity, and he illustrated the idea that one car had a bumper sticker that said chastity, and then another had a bumper sticker that said some believe their body is a temple, i believe mine is an amusement park.

it seems the libertarian views of my body as an amusement park might be driving some of these things and dissolved moral capital-letter might be better for society -- moral capital that might be better for society. host: we will leave it there. guest: this issue of values, faith, morality -- it is an important part of this conversation. the best majority of religions around the world teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong and immoral. it is a widely shared value. while we do know from the data we have is that very few people do under this notion. 98% of people who are married will say they did have sex before marriage. we have tension between

teaching and actual behavior. the notion of taking sex seriously, thinking about the larger impact, obviously what it means for children, who you get pregnant with under what circumstances and when, those are important parts of this conversation. one of the reasons these rates have gone down and there are so many, but one it is there has been conversations about sex having meaning, consequences. think about it. think about that in your faith traditions and in terms of what it means for children. i think those issues have become more part of the public conversation. host: where do federally-funded abstinence programs fit in? guest: there has been some funding for abstinence programs

and more comprehensive ones. the way our organization and i think a lot of people think about it is the important thing is whether they work or not. the good news is over the last 10 or 15 years there has been good research on abstinence programs, more comprehensive ones, and we have a fairly robust list of about 30 programs depending on how you draw the line, of programs that do help young people delay having sex and if they do begin having sex to begin -- to be better at contraceptives. the focuses on what works. i am very practical. i believe most americans are. we are concerned about putting programs in place that have some evidence of success.

there are a couple of streams that are pumping $175 million a year nationwide through a competitive process is 40 effective programs. some are abstinence, some are used development. host: indianapolis, indiana. eleanor. hello. caller: i worked in the field for many years and there were teens and adults. i was horrified that i learned some of my teens starting on drugs and nine, 10 years of age, gravitating to sex, group sex. many refused birth control.

i think of one woman who was 42 years old, and i was really upset because she was pregnant again, having heard 10th crack cocaine pregnancy. i ran into her and i said what does daddy fink and she said she does not know who daddy was. there is this insidious side. the people that i work with, many of them have wonderful talents that came from a teenage mom and just come from a fourth

or fifth generation of this mess. guest: the trouble of -- with in dealing with rates is you can lose the individual human stories. what you're describing is something that happens around the country, and i do not know what portion of the problem is, but the overlay of drugs and alcohol with unprotected sex, teenage pregnancy, is generally significant. even though rates have gone down nationally in every state and every racial and ethnic group, i meet people that say that in my part of the city or school, we still see an enormous problem. i think the key concept is there has been great progress, but the wrong answer would be to say this is taking care of. it is not to say that every

teenaged pregnancy and births is what you described -- pregnancy and birth is what you described, but there are people that struggle with this enormously and we cannot neglect this because the bigger picture is in the right direction. host: here are the five states with the highest teenage birth rates. they are mississippi, in new mexico, arkansas, texas, and oklahoma. the lowest rates are new hampshire, massachusetts, vermont, connecticut, and new jersey. any reason why? guest: it is a great question, and the answer is we are not sure. it might be the makeup of the population, larger numbers of higher-risk groups.

the cdc report took data from 2007 through 2010, a and said where was the biggest progress, -- and said where was the biggest progress, and i look at the report and i cannot see any pattern. we have states and a largely rural, largely urban where we saw a deep decline. states that have high concentrations of poverty like mississippi and massachusetts, and they have enormous declines. we have enormous variation in the progress which is one of the reasons all lot of us think this is not about particular explanations like the tax base or particular medicaid policies, but something to do with an overall cultural shift in what young people are coming to understand is their best

interest to say nothing of their children's best interest. host: alabama. catherine. democrats line. you are on. go ahead. caller: hey. good morning. what i would like to ask about is the mail responsibility and accountability. it seems the female bears the brunt of an unwed pregnancy. guest: i appreciate that comment very much. everywhere i go people say it takes to the will to tango, and you are right. i think a lot of the reason why this focuses on women is because of what you suggested. it is women who bear the children come and who end up with the majority of the responsibility. it is also the case that every single method of reversible

contraceptive is used by woman -- women except the condom. involving teenage boys, young men and older men is critical. one of the extraordinary pieces of news in this decline of the last 20 years is that if we look at data from 1988, teenage boys were asked have you ever had sex, and 50% of them said yes. the number now is 30%. they have gone down in their sexual activity, 15, 16-year-old boys, an enormous amount. it shows that teenaged boys are being more careful, as well as these young women, but having said that, i think this country as a general matter lacks an adequate focus on boys and men. it is always women that get the

attention and the scolding or the shame, or whatever it is that they get, and the boys and young men somehow get a tax. i do not understand it, and i think it is wrong. caller: i would like to say thank you for the work you do. i feel the work you it is at the root of the most important problem facing today. crime and poverty. in the late 1970's and early 1980's, there was a lot of discussion about teen pregnancy

and the single head of household problems we were having. the sociologists at the times said in 20 years, we're going to pay for this. we have 5 million people in prison today. i think the work you are doing, i pray you are -- your success increases as time goes on for the sake of our nation. guest: what a lovely comment. i appreciate that. what you are alluding to is the key point. the reason we work on reducing teen pregnancies and births and unintended pregnancy in general is the long-term impact. the fiscal impact is significant, but what it means for work-force quality, educational attainment, levels

of poverty, and family structure. these are big issues we're all aware of but do not know how to get a handle on some of them. we can take up these things after the fact, but one reason people work on reducing teen and unintended pregnancy is we feel we're going upstream. we are going back to some of the source of the problems. if we could get the rates farther down, we would still have a large number of issues to confront, but we believe there would be less. we know that from research projections. it is one efficient upstream way to work on a wide variety of social and economic problems in this country. host: is more of that conversation happening?

guest: parents know they should be talking to their kids about sex, love, and relationships, but most of them will say that they do not know what to say or how to get started. there has been more conversation, but i still do not think there is enough. i do not think we have been clear enough with parents about what we mean by a conversation. for sure, it is not some awkward 45-minute talk on tuesday night when someone is 16. it is an 18-year conversation that starts at a young age about relationships, future plans, what children need, appropriate behavior, and so forth. one thing we need to encourage parents to do is understand the media their children and teens are consuming. at a minimum, those provide

moments to start good conversations. watch tv with your kids for 20 minutes and there will be something to talk about. host: one about this? -- what about this? guest: i think talking about value-based education is important. talking with ken people about what is right and wrong and why -- talking with young people about what is right and wrong and why is an important idea. the concept is to have statements about what is expected in our family, what is our face teach, what is our community standards? almost as important, why? a lot of young people will say their parents do not do that or do that, what ever it is. but they do not going to the

important conversation of why we feel that way or why we know the advice is smart. host: sheffield, illinois, you are on with our guest. caller: i think the numbers are misleading. i am in online blogger. i am in tune with the social world. some of these statistics, i do not think there accurate. sexual behavior is up among younger people in general. the pregnancy rate is down in the united states. i think there are a lot of explanations, but there are not positive. relationships are down in the united states. when a kid is born, it is not born into a relationship. the kid is more likely to be raised in a single-parent household. the trend is increasing.

the only thing is the access to birth control is what is changing the numbers. these kids are having sex at a much earlier age. they are not falling in love. it used to be couples would meet, fall in love, have a baby. they may have a baby right away but eventually would get married. host: this is from twitter. guest: lots of different issues. the caller pointed out an important thread in all of this. that is marital stus there was a headline in the "new york times" for five weeks ago that got an enormous amount of

attention. we know from census data that for babies born to women under 30, 50% are now non-marital. for women of all ages, the figure is 40%. if you look at the under adults in their twenties and teens, the figure is -- if you look at the younger adults in their twenties and teens, the figure is 50%. that is important to focus on. what we think are the best circumstances for babies to be born into and what does that number mean to us? the age of first sex has not been dropping enormously. i think 16 or 17 is the average age of first sex in america. contraceptive use has improved. we have many fewer pregnancies and births. the caller may be pointing to a particular community in a state or particular subset because the

overall averages include people who are higher and lower. you have to get into the specifics. with regard to the issue of contraception being accessible, one thing i realized clearly in the last few months because there has been a lot of controversy over contraception is that i think a lot of people do not understand contraception is not just one thing. it is not just condoms and pills. there are about 70 methods well- recognized to reduce the risk of pregnancy -- there are about 17 methods well-recognized to reduce the risk of pregnancy. i do not think we understand that to reduce the risk of

pregnancy for a young woman at any age, she needs to be on a very good method of contraception. most women spend years trying not to be pregnant and only about five trying to get pregnant. these good methods are not cheap or easy to get. if you have good insurance and live in a community with loss of services, it may be. for the average person who may have limited insurance and wants to get a good method, it takes effort. a lot of people do not do this for a living and do not understand the complexity of it. our group has bought about doing a guide on how to get, reception. on how to get contraception in america. -- our group house thought about doing a guide on how to get

contraception in america. if you are reducing pregnancy, you are going to have to lay out serious money for some of these methods. host: donna, we're running out of time. go straight to your question or comment. caller: this is such an important issue. i want to weigh in on the question about, the previous caller made a reference to so many women in the heat of the moment who did not make a decision about contraception. the caller after that did make reference to the responsibility of boys. i want a fuller response to that. the answer had to do with fewer

teenage boys having sex between 15 and 17. i am a therapist. i work with young girls and boys. what i get from them is that the males often do not think about it. host: we will have to leave it there. i apologize. go ahead. guest: a c will all agree we need to find better ways to engage boys and men -- i think we all agree we need to find better ways to engage boys and men at all ages. we do not know how best to communicate with boys and young men about the topic. i often think if i were in charge of the big behavioral clinic or research thinktank i would say this is one of the

most important things to figure out. we're good at communicating with young women, but we are not very good at conversing with teenage boys and men of all ages about their responsibilities in the area of pregnancy and family formation. host: the next caller is from cut to -- from kentucky on the republican line. caller: i work with a group called man up. we'd do what you are talking about. we work with young men, especially those about to have children out of wedlock. what resources would work with a group like us? we have had incredible interest. when we have men talking to other men and boys, it is very effective versus mostly women talking.

we have men talking about responsible sexuality. guest: i have thought a lot of the programs for boys and young men, if you get the overall feeling of them, they still feel like they are designed by women. it is like a field program printed on blue paper. i did not -- it is like a female program printed on blue paper. i am glad you are doing your program. what we need from you and others like you is good research on what your impact has been. i am sure it is a good program and you are dedicating part and wind and resources to it. for these things to spread and get larger investments, people want evidence it helps young men postpone sex and irresponsible.

-- and be responsible. that may be true with your program. i do not doubt it. what would help us is if we had a great data on the impact so we to say to other states, here is something that has evidence of success. use it. do not just make your own. results matter. we need more programs shown to work for boys and young men. host: let's finish with this. guest: i wonder about this. we are communicating more but connected less. it is great to tweet and facebook, but talking to people and knowing the well is very different. for any number of reasons, the issue of families being only

one, we can continue using technology and machines, but we have to remember the power of human relationships is face to face and real. host: sarah brown is the ceo of a national campaign to reduce teen pregnancies. in our final segment, we take a look at latin america. our guest will be peter reuter from the university of maryland. we will be right back. >> we asked students to create a video telling us what part of the constitution was most important to them and why. today we're going to oklahoma to talk with the first prize winner, a senior in high school. how are you? >> i am doing well. how about you? >> why did you choose the topic of the power to declare war as

it relates to the constitution for the topic of your documentary? >> we wanted to choose a topic we thought would not be covered by a majority of other entrants like freedom of speech or the right to vote. at that time, this was a very important issue to the conflict in libya. it was personally important to my partner because of his background. he was legitimately concerned for the fate of his country. we thought it would be an appropriate topics. topic. each of the interviews, especially with the history teacher, offered a different perspective on who has the power to declare war. the teacher gave us an interesting perspective on why

the founders of our country had given the powers to different branches. the other two interviews gave us a good understanding of why it people support the power of the president to declare war and some people support the constitutional declaration of who has the power to declare war. it offered us different understandings of people's reasonings. >> how did your research of the understand a different perspectives of your topic? >> through our research and through the supreme court cases, we saw how presidents and congresses have dealt with the issue throughout history. we were able to understand the reasons they felt they were justified for declaring war without congressional approval. but what was your favorite part of creating the documentary? -- >> what was your favorite

part of creating a documentary? >> my favorite part was creaking knee motion graphics. it was the first time i have got to use my skills in a project such as this. i greatly enjoyed creating graphics to make the bill more interesting and dramatize the scenes. >> what was the most important understanding you took away was to request the thing i gained most from making the documentary is that it gave me greater insight into the importance of research when it comes to making decisions that will affect a great number of people. i saw how a single decision could have grave consequences for a great number it has made me better understand when making large decisions to cancel the others and try seeing things from another person's viewpoint. >> thank you for talking to us today, michael.

here is a portion of his documentary. >> the president is given the ability to the commander in chief of the military. he is in complete control of the military. the civilian control limit telerate -- the civilian control of the military was something the founders were interested in. they wanted the civilian leaders to be in control of the military. the commander in chief was important to them. as a check to that, congress would be the only entity able to declare war. he could order troops and movements, but congress would be the only ones who could declare war. administration, he sent the navy to deal with the barbary pirates in north africa without a formal declaration of war. the first formal declaration of war came during madison's of frustration. he reluctantly was drawn into the war -- the first formal

declaration of working during madison's administration. he was reluctantly drawn into the war. >> you can see the entire video and all the winning documentaryies at studentcam.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is peter reuter. the president travels with other leaders. one expected topic is the drug war. why is that? guest: for mexico and central america, there is probably no more important issue than the drug-related deaths. those are related to u.s. consumption. the president of mexico, guatemala, and other countries have raised the issue of possibly legalizing or

decriminalizing drugs. host: is that a new phenomenon? what do you make of it as a mind change? guest: it is uncertainty about what they should do rather than expression about extreme unhappiness of the regime of dealing with drugs. they know what they do not want. that is the current idea of being tough on drugs rather than we know what we should be doing instead. the president will walk in there with the view that toughness is necessary, but i think he will have trouble defending that. the president of columbia said doing the same thing for 40 years has resulted in the same

problems. host: is there a general idea of what we have gotten the results we have? guest: drugs have caused a great deal of damage to society. it is easy to see the problem is the drugs and we must be as anybody possible anon micelles or uses them. that is an instinctive reaction in this country. the notion many of the bad consequences of the drugs are the culmination of the drugs and the policies we have is not part of the dialogue in this country. there is a movement that presses

for reform here this is the problem is not the drugs, it is false -- it is the laws, but that is a very weak voice outside of marijuana. host: what does it mean that other countries are changing their approach yet the united states is saying to our approach is going to stay the same? guest: the other countries in the past have muttered to themselves about it. occasionally, a president would say something suggesting maybe we should legalize or decriminalize but within a week has said something else contrary to that. over the last three weeks, more of these presidents have said to

legalize. now they see this as a topic they can legitimately raise. it is a combination. i think what has driven this is the extraordinary violence in mexico and central america. the homicide rates have driven -- risen dramatically. it is all related to drugs and drug trafficking. this has made the issue more urgent. it is very hard for them to see how better implementation of existing policies is going to solve their problems. host: our guest is here until 10:00 talking about drug efforts related to latin-american. if you like to ask questions, here are the numbers for republicans, democrats, and independents.

you can send an e-mail or send us something off of twitter. the first call is from phoenix, arizona. frank is on the democrats' line. caller: good morning, c-span. i will tell you how i feel about this. i was very successful for many years but m.l. a recovering heroin addict. it makes so much sense to legalize illegal drugs. first of all, it would relieve pressure on law enforcement tremendously. it would relieve pressure on the penal system, families, the medical community. it would probably create employment, generate more taxes.

it would reduce the need for social programs. it would eliminate the mystique of illegal drug use. that is how many people initially get in trouble with the stuff. the list goes on and on. what are we afraid of? i think it would be a great idea. in a controlled environment, the whole system would benefit. guest: what is most conspicuous now is how much damage is caused by our provisions. most of the things we care about we labeled as a heroin problem are a heroin prohibition problem. crime, a chevy, degradation of life on the streets, etc. -- crime, hiv, degradation of life on the streets, etc., but you

have to expect the number of people addicted would rise substantially if it were legally available. in a book i wrote 10 years ago, we argued if you look at the ability to create effectively controlled regimes of distribution for drugs, gambling, or prostitution, government gets interested in the taxation possibilities and the regime becomes lax. we argued there was likely to be a substantial increase in heroin addiction. the trade-off of big reductions in crime and disease with possibly large increases in the number of people addicted, that is a hard trade-offs to make. there is not any way of

competently giving a rough estimate of how much heroin addiction would increase. 50% or 500%? there is no way of doing that. there is the difficult task for people who argue legalization. most of the things we label as heroin problems are heroin prohibition problems. host: from florida, mike is on the independent line. caller: the prison system is filled with 80% non-violent drug offenders. i was wondering what your guest thought about how the former head of the d.a. for latin america is on record stating how the cia and brings drugs into this country.

you can document this on youtube. the former head of the administration under the clinton administration admits this on "60 minutes. " i wonder what your guest feels about the united states bringing in drugs.abo youtube, d.a., latin america, mike rupert. we have a secret cabal or some part of this government that has no problem bringing in drugs to sell to the people and locking them up. guest: i am shocked to hear that. it is not something i know about. if it is going on, it is terrible.

i do not know what to make of that. a lot of the government is trying to keep drugs out. i do not know anything about that. host: lincoln, neb., richard on the republican line. caller: this country was formed for freedom. if people want to destroy their life, they should have the freedom to do that. we should not get in the way of them destroying their life. they will never stop it. it will be continual war. let people make their own choices. if they put a gun in someone else's face to do it, lock them up. if they're only destroying themselves, let them do it. guest: the latin-american problem is not the problem of

large consumption down there. one of the fascinating things is mexico has been the source of marijuana, heroin, cocaine. they have had a very modest problem of consumption of the drugs over a long time. it seems to be going up now, but is tiny compared to the u.s. their problem is what to do about the violence generated by the huge market that comes out of u.s. consumption. from their point of view, they are big winners if the u.s. would legalize the drugs. they know that is not an argument they can make. it is a u.s. decision and will not get made in that direction, but their problem comes from the fact that a few billion dollars

of value added occurs between colombia and the southern border of the u.s. that is worth fighting for. it is the fighting over the u.s. drug market that causes their problems. host: it is a lead it to the meeting this weekend with the president. there is this insight. it suggests legalization and allowing drugs without restrictions would be profoundly irresponsible and an absurd proposition. guest: nobody is arguing for unrestricted access to the drugs. people come up with clever schemes of how you contracts --

you can tax them heavily enough the prices would not fall and there would be restricted access. these are feinstein's until you look at the historical record. we note -- these are fine schemes until you look at the historical record. we know that cigarettes are dangerous. we have not been able to restrict them and tax them heavily enough. if you look at the experience with of all -- with alcohol, taxes are minimal. the supreme court has held advertising cannot be restricted and for the rights of corporations. in this country, you worry whether a clever regulatory scream -- scheme would provide

the politics and legal interpretations the courts have provided. you can design these things, but i am not sure you can design them for systems that would make these things available in a decently restrictive way. i do not think you could make them work in this country. host: the democrats' line, hello. caller: if we had a better immigration policy, if this is a problem on the border, that tells me there is a bigger problem than just drugs. guest: it is true the border is permeable.

lots of drugs come across the border. not for lack of trying. the number of border agents has grown tenfold in the last 15 years. it is irrelevant as to whether the mexican border is sealed. heroin used to come in from asia by air or sea. an increasing share of cocaine probably comes in on submersibles straight out of colombia. it is convenient the border is permeable, but it is not essential to the trade. a lot of it does not depend on illegal immigrants. host: you say mexico's problems do not stem from drugs but by

the organized crime made possible by prohibition. guest: mexico has always had a problem with gangs. they have become much more powerful because of the money they get from the drug trade. that has been generated by prohibition. that is not a point anyone would argue about. people do argue the gangs have become so powerful now that the drugs are central. if we were to remove the drug market in u.s., they would still be doing a lot of killing and have corrupt government at every level in mexico. it seems to me the drug market still dominates the incomes. host: harrisburg, pa., is next. caller: you mentioned you were

worried about people being on heroin. you are thinking on the fact is street grade heroin. i read someplace heroin was the least damaging physically to the human system than say alcohol, tobacco, or any of the drug. if i could make a point about the gateway drug being marijuana, the reason it is a gateway drug is because you have to go to a drug dealer to buy it. thank you for taking my call. guest: your comments about heroin are well-taken. when you see a list of of the problems that come from regular use, constipation is high on the list. it is and pleasant but not a threat. nonetheless -- it is unpleasant

but not a threat. nonetheless, people who use it regularly are likely to be less part of our communities. they are poorer fathers and workers. addiction to heroin is a problem even if the medical consequences are not serious to the user. on marijuana being a gateway, you raise a reasonable point. there is research that suggests one mechanism by which it works as a gateway is access to dealers. people who have used marijuana have had experience buying from dealers and that has focused them on other drug -- exposed them to other drugs.

if marijuana is illegal, yet broken that link. when they set up the coffee shops in the 1970's, they were very much trying to break the gateway connection. it is possible that is the key to the gateway, the research does not allow you to tell if trying marijuana in getting a taste for intoxication leads you to experiment with other drugs. there is a good possibility part of the gateway is exposure to illegal dealers. host: a tweet asked about the experience amsterdam did have with legalization. guest: long and complicated, i will try to boil it down. you can have access to small amounts of marijuana done

through back street clubs. you had to know where it was an want to get it. it did not increase use up all. in the mid-1980s, the dutch government allowed it to be regulated at the local level and to be commercialized. the coffee shops are now distributors. even the coffee shops were not supposed to advertise. it was pretty easy to tell from the adornment in the window which were the marijuana- selling coffee shops. there was an increase in the use of marijuana when it became commercialized. since then, it has gone up and down like the rest of europe. what is striking is that despite the access, the easy access in the netherlands, the dutch have

a lower rate of use of marijuana than most of their european neighbors. the british and french have much higher rates of marijuana use than do the dutch. if the notion is you open this and makes our assets -- if the notion is to open this up and make access easier for more use, that is contradicted by the dutch. the dutch do not have much of a taste for it. host: drug consumption and trafficking should be subject to global regulations. legalization does not mean it liberalization without control. guest: that is right. nobody is arguing it should not be controlled.

countries that do not have a supreme court that is as protective of the rights of corporations can do a better job of regulating than the u.s. my comments that we would end up with a loosely regulated industry are specific to the west. in western europe, they have been more likely to put into place a sensible control regime if they did legalize. caller: i was wondering how congress could approach attacking u.s. drug policy when large portions of the economy are sustained by it. there is a large impoverished rate in mexico at least. guest: if you were talking about

afghanistan, you would be right. the drug trade is central to the economy as a whole and certainly to the rural sector. mexico has $1 trillion gdp. drug accounts for probably less than 1% of that. it may be more important in some areas than others. it is an important myth to dispel that this is the central activity, economic activity for mexico. it is an important source of instability but not an important economic activity. host: $49 billion over four years for law enforcement, $6 billion set by the department to expand by the department of defense since 2005.

will that stay the same? guest: there is no sign the u.s. is changing its view about the importance of interdicting drugs on their way into the country or of reinforcing -- supporting the military and police in mexico and central america. we spend $1 billion here and there for these things. those numbers are probably reasonable. in the context of what the american government spends on drug control, this is small. the u.s. government federal, state, and local spends close to $50 billion on drug control.

it is an impressive number. less than $5 billion would go to interdiction efforts in latin america. host: minnesota, darren is on with peter reuter. caller: i was wondering if you could make a comment about portugal. last month, i saw an article where they did not decriminalize it made it into an administrative office -- offense for possession in 2001. drug use has gone down 10%. guest: portugal is the poster child for drug reformers. in 2001, the portuguese government shifted from a traditional prohibition regime to one in which the possession of small amounts of drugs, any

drug, was subject not to a criminal justice section but a sanction presided over by a certain commission. someone from law enforcement, education, health care. these three people with the. -- these three people would decide appropriate sanction for someone caught with a small amount of drugs. they could send them to treatment, require them to take an education course, or nothing. it is clearly softening of the efforts to punish people for the use of drugs. i think the short summary is that nothing bad happened.

you can argue about whether drug use went up or down, but have to put this in the context of changes in western europe. the use of drugs -- some drugs went up or down. portugal had a small drug problem when this was put into place. drug problems are wealthy country's problems mostly. you cannot make an argument that anything that happened in portugal as a consequence. that is an important finding. it is well known if you use drugs in portugal, you face minimal penalties. there was not a lot of drug tourists into portugal. there may have been some increase in the transit of drugs for portugal, but i do not think it is related to the legal

changes. it provides a credible piece of evidence that decriminalization is not very dangerous. but let's be clear. decriminalization is different from legalization. legalization is removing all penalties or making them just civil penalties for drug use. it does not reduce the prices of drugs. it does not increase the availability of drugs. legalization of the kind that california voted on for marijuana in 2010, that is very different. then you see much lower prices and greater access. that has not been tried anywhere but in the limited cases in the netherlands.

the prices are high because the dutch are still hard on the producers. host: if all drugs are legalized, with the market collapse? region would the market collapse -- would the market collapse? guest: if they were all legalized and prices were not high, it might increase. the cost of heroin is staggering. it costs $500 a gram. that is as compared to a gram of tobacco. heroin is not much more difficult to produce than tobacco that costs 5 cents. marijuana costs $10 a gram compared to 5 cents for tobacco.

prohibition is one of the wonders of the world. you can make this dirty. fabulously expensive -- you can make this dirt cheap weed fabulously expensive. the total expenditure may collapse, but consumption is the opposite. host: new york, william on the democrats' line. caller: i would like to comment on's comment shift from being -- i would like to comment on president obama's shift on drugs. he has increased the raid on dispensaries. and showed a change. guest: ok.

i am not happy about that. i think it is not hard to explain why we have seen a transformation. the gains from a president taking any kind of bold position on drugs look slight. the population is more willing to consider marijuana legalization than ever before. on every other drug, popular opinion is tough. from the right, you would get attacked easily. just as bill clinton was. after the election in 2000 in his last couple of weeks in office, he gave an interview to

rolling stone where he talked about how he regretted he had not taken a stand on marijuana reform. in the last weeks of his administration, he finally thinks about it. the risks for a president on this looked very great and the gains look modest. i am not surprised the president takes the historical norm. the only reformers' really have been jimmy carter, the only one was jimmy carter, and he was not that interested. he did not do anything. he just muttered some reform sentiments. host: jerry is on the republican line. caller: it seems like speaking

on abortion. i googled that matter and down the increase was from the late 1960's. it seems drug use follow the same trend. they are not connected except a lend to to -- both people doing whatever. have you studied that aspect? do you think better education at younger stages would reduce drug consumption? guest: ok. there has always been enthusiasm in this country for education as a solution to the drug problem. if you prevent kids from starting drug use, we do not have a drug problem.

we do not have effective drug prevention programs. i do not mean there are no programs that look promising, but when they get out in populations and schools with drug problems, they do not work well. schools with the biggest problems are not the ones that infant programs well. prevention looks like a week tool -- weak tool at the moment. we have less drug use among 18- year-olds than 30 years ago. the peak of marijuana use was around 1980 among 18-year-olds. it fell in the next decade and

picked up again in the 1990's. the big event in 1992 was bill clinton's most famous line before he met monica lewinsky. even my students who were barely alive at that time know the line. "i did not inhale." even they agree it was not likely. marijuana use has gone up and down for reasons we do not understand. maybe the fashion, techno music, the length of skirts. it is difficult to understand why the rates go up and down. host: we're almost out of time. go ahead.

caller: i will try to make this fast. the last gentleman brought up the subject of psychology. i was thinking about the rates of consumption with pedro psychology -- with behavioral psychology and schedules of reinforcement. with regular reinforcement like getting paid on friday, you tend to work harder on thursday because you are going to get your paycheck. you work harder during the two weeks because you know the paycheck is there. commission sales, you work pretty hard to get the commission. you will take some days off on slow days.

you know you will get the commission but do not know when it will come. it will come after you have made a sale. purchasing illegal drugs is similar to that. you know you are going to be able to purchase them. you do not know when. you do not know the quantity or quality. host: leave it there. you can comment if you wish. guest: i could not work out the question. in the statement, i am afraid. host: will this be an issue in the following summons? -- summits? guest: i think the latin american leaders are looking for an agreement from the u.s. that it will allow for international debate on this over the next few years. everyone agrees this is a long- term issue, not talking about making changes right now.