♪ >> this week, live from london, the ceremony and pageantry of the state opening of parliament until recently parliaments official opening was usually held towards the end of the year. with changes to their election rules, it's now been moved to the spring. wednesday, queen elizabeth will formerly outline the government's priorities for the upcoming year. live coverage starts at 5:30 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> coming up next, we stay in london when russell brand testified last week before a parliamentary committee about the u.k.'s drug policy. then the white house outlines the 2012 drug control strategy released last month. and then later the discussion of the role of courts in the no, sir, and maintaining the public's confidence.

u.n. secretary ban ki-moon will be at the center for strategic and international studies to talk about the role of the u.n. in most conflict situations. you can see live remarks. the cuts required by law as part of last summer's deal to raise the debt cerealing. you can watch live coverage on c-span 3 as the economy marks up the bill introduced by paul ry ryan. that begins 2:00 p.m. eastern. russell brand testified on the u.k. drug policy. he talked about overcoming his own addiction and how society views addiction. then the committee heard from

critics of the drug policy who advocated for tougher laws. this is an hour and ten minutes. >> hello. >> hello. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> please have a seat. giving evidence to the committee's inquiry in drugs. mr. russell brand you gave evidence which members of the committee has read. could i start with a point about what you say in your evidence,

that you disagree with the legalization of drugs because you think that a deterrent effect is necessary. is that right? >> i don't feel entirely qualified to talk about legislation. to me what's more significant is the way that we socially regard the continue of addiction. it is something that i consider to be an illness, and therefore more of a health matter than criminal or judicial matter. i don't think that legalization is something, as i said, if you can qualify to get into. i can see areas, in fact, where legalization may be considered more useful an in those countri. i think this has been some efficacy, but to me it is more important to regard people suffering from addiction with

come passing, and there is an approach in treating it. i think legislatively spiders of addiction and the criminalization of addicted is symbolic. not really functional. i don't see how it especially helps. we'll have a wacky free for all in people taking drugs, and it didn't help me much. >> you were a former heroin addict? >> yes. >> tell us how you managed to get off of drugs and how many years. >> if you can incorporate briefly, that's the question. i became a drug at ticket because emotional difficulties, psychological difficulties, and perhaps a spirit mad di. taking drugs and ex-selfsive drinking involved and they are

sad, lonely, detached. drugs and alcohol seems to be allusion to that problem. once i approached the drugs, and there is an tin against-based recovery. that's what we believe in. if you have the disease or addiction or tackle problem, the best way to attack it is not to take drugs of any form, whether it's method down, street drugs or alcohol. we see distinction between these substances, and an stringent is the best way for people recovering from this someone. to try to get people to maintain recovery, what we want is more research and funding into absence space recovery, and deal

with people shorts this new lifestyle. it takes people who act in criminal habit and gets them. >> was that brief enough? >> very brief.

i did what i had to do. it is not until i had access to abstinence based recovery that i was able to obliterate my criminal activity apart from the occasional skirmishes. >> we have been concerned of the evidence we have received about the number of legal highs that are available. people are able to take legal highs when ever they are proposed to be banned and another one emerges. do you think this is something that does affect young people tax is now the drug of choice for young people? >> i am not young anymore. young people will always want to get high. pragmatic approach.

the legal status of a drag is irrelevant to a drug addict. if you are a drug addict, you are getting drugs. it is probably better to make it simple. as for legal highs, we need to address the spiritual problems and people of all ages taking drugs. we need research into absence based recovery. >> we're working on a program about addiction. what messages are you hoping to get across? >> we are trying to get across that maintenance of drug addiction should be deployed with the aim of abstinence base recovery. we need to start regarding addiction in all its forms as a

health issue as opposed to a criminal issue. we need to change the laws and have more compassion with addiction. these people with access to the proper treatment can become helpful members of society. and this is the message. we do not want to discard people. we do not want to leave them on the sidelines. we want to bring them in and offer them treatment. when to neutralize this threat. would activate them and incorporate them. the message is one of compassion and out tourism in all areas. >> we will have specific

questions. feel free to do so. anything you want to add a? >? >> he is already the puppeteer. >> question for you. you have said that addiction is an illness. would you say that it is fair to characterize it as self induced? >> not really. >> also, it does carry with it the victims, many people who are on drugs commit offenses against other people, do they not? when was looking at the criminal justice system, it does a 1 also have to have some compassion and consideration for the victims of crime?

>> this is a very important question and we need to address. of course be victims of drug- related crimes are important and need to be taking care of. weaver with the chief .uperintendent of sesix sussex it is is a believe that by regarding addiction as an illness, but offering treatment instead of the more punitive approach, we can prevent people from committing crimes. personally, i was a criminal by virtue of my addiction in the way that i am required money to get drugs. other people i have met, criminality is a necessary component. of course not forget the victims but it is better to address the social problem pragmatically.

describing methadone to people, most of them are using illegal drugs. they're not addressing the root problems. we need to approach the victims. criminal behavior needs to be dealt with correctly but the penal system itself can offer treatment. they need to be love and compassion for everyone involved. criminal behavior needs to be dealt with legal but there needs to be treatment. it is the were you hold hands and hog. but you deal with the and pollute -- it is not for you hold hands and hugging. but you do with the problem. generally speaking, they stop creating crimes. it is better for the addict and society.

quite the world of celebrities pay and society is not insignificant. >> i would argue that it is not significant and that is why they play their role. >> what i want to know is whether you think having the cycle of addiction, whether you would like to position yourself as a role model in society for those who might look to you as an example. >> that is a great thing. a role as something people play. model is something people make. they are fake. i want to offer people truth and offenses sissy -- authenticity in the treatment and the way be legislate and organize our society. i cannot be responsible, as you know, what thmy image is used to

in the media. >> your behavior is some aspect of what is the trade about you. >> of course. how is this going to be written up? it could be read up that seat is sprawled or they could say that if former drug addict rambles on. the telegraph will say one thing or the socialist worker will say another. these behaviors have components. what i am offering people a stir thaits authenticity. >> those people who are brave enough could have been a profound effect feared a gives a positive message that recovery is possible. when his book can map, the

numbers are referrals to our -- cament center fo out, the numbers of referrals or a treatment center made a profound difference. i would hope that more people in the public eye, whether they be celebrities, will come forward and have the bravery to do so. it does encourage people. >> it can backfire as well as people make a big fuss about being in recovery. that is unfortunate. we are fortunate that he is maintaining a good recovery. >> do you think more people need to know about things like the committee that went to columbia to look at the harvesting of cocaine and the affected was having on the people of colombia. do you think there is more focus

on where it came from? >> no more than the consequences of oil production. people do not care about the industry. if they care about getting the resources they require. it makes no difference of the nature of origin. we need to address the spiritual problems that may lead to addiction. it has a negative consequences to their nation. they do not think individual drug addicts will be affected by its. >> out of like to offer a summary. this center has have high-profile patience. it is something that was unthinkable 50 years ago. do you think this leads to a de

stigmatization of addiction or wider drug use? >> i do not think it encourages people to use drugs. i think there have been some people that have made a positive -- right in the middle of my answer? >> i think there are certain celebrities who have made a positive message about drug use which has not helped the situation at all. i think most people who get better from drug addiction are a positive influence. they make it look glamorous. they make it look good.

if they stop using, it then they become a very positive role model. people have been influenced by that. >> thank you. i think your absence based work is very effective. i was struck by your comments about the problems of fighting drug use. do you think we do enough? and do you think there are risks that could harm reduction based education?

>> i think we're not doing anything enough to give an honest answer to the problems of drugs. there is more about educating people of drugs. and do nothing we address it and take it on board probably enough. -- i do not think we address it and take it on board properly and appeared at the we should be doing more in beginning honest education. we have been educating young people for 15 years. as not have a major influence. we need to change how we are doing this. >> how? >> by giving more honest information. in each of these moves, there will be people using this.

if you do not give people the good in the bad of drug use, they will not listen to you. >> thank you. >> you know there has been working. it shows there was a good evidence fothat it was good for methadone you spirited do think abstinence is best for everybody fax -- methadone. do you think abstinence is best for everybody? >> and not everybody can do its. i think there is a really good

purpose for methadone usage. just to keep people locked into that addiction, it is totally dependent. i think it has involved. i think it's over use. i think we do not do enough to intervene. i think of the admirable for everybody. methadone uses is not a good thing. most people that uses a are also using other drugs. what i do see>> can i ask from , we have finite resources.

if they're going to spend more money on education, money has to be taken from somewhere. one possible solution is that we spent bit less on possession. it is something that you report a? ? >> i think some people share that view. you have to appropriate these resources from somewhere. it is already being brought up here. penalizing people for drug use can be expensive. it would be best on education and the dressing treatment. i think that would be a very sensible use. >> i feel like i am in

school now because i forgot the question. >> thank you for that translation. >> i think there is awful lot of money wasted on a small time possession perrin i think there is awful lot of police time -- wasted on small time. possession. i think there's an awful lot of police time wasted on that. i certainly think there's a massive description between decriminalizing and legalizing thing. i do think we waste a lot of money. >> thank you appears there's quite a gap between education

and addiction. you have this. we need is in your mission -- you have this. what you need is intervention. are you suggesting that we should be removing or spending on those intermediate steps? >> what are your views and decriminalization or legalization? >> i am not a legal experts. i think to a drug addict, of the legal status is irrelevant. if you need to get jobs because you are a drug addict, you get it because of any status. the more money you get from controlling that, there is the utility. >> would you be in favor or not

the? >not? >> there is a willful ignorance. we all know someone who is affected by outlaws them or addiction. some need to handle it. the current legal status since the wrong message. i do not take any drugs. i do not drink. i think they are bad. we need to recognize the distinction. we need to identify those people for the correct treatment. >> i think there is a real argument for decriminalizing it. there's a massive difference between doing that legalizing drugs. you will find it difficult to justify the legal use of a lot of drugs.

the cannot justify the legal use of heroin, crack cocaine or any of those drugs. there's no legal reason. you would be hard-pressed. cannibis is the one you have the chance to put forward for justification. and nothing there's any justification for legalization of others. -- i do not think there is any justification for the legalization of others. >> we have seen the other end were there is a organized crime issue. it ruins people's lives. because of conflicts in countries. advocating the legalization of its. i am saying if there was any at all, you could put this forward.

>> i think we we need honesty and authenticity are round this issue is the people of parliament do not look like they're out of touch. some of the information is already accessible. >> thank you. i think you both referred to a preference for ignoring the more minor ones in relation to drugs. can i suggest to you that a lot of the more minor ones lead to one of the more majors? what one is doing if they are to ignore the eight vances is to make the matters wars -- the advances is to make the matters worse. the offender would be less likely to learn the lessons of

having been arrested and the more likely to get worse. being addressed it is an administrative blip. the disease does exacerbated. what we need to identify is the compassion in which we deal with this problem. you seem to not know what you're talking about. >> what about the victims of the crime? >> i think all parties are interested in the victims of crime. >> of course they are. we're not saying to ignore victims. >> we're running out of time.

>> there is a reason why she may not show up. >> we have this. you have 4.5 million twitter followers. having gone through addiction and rehabilitation, what is your message to young people who want to get involved? what would you say to the effect that it has? >> my message is for people that have this condition of addiction. if you have a comment there is help available for you. i recommend absence base recovery. i think some people can safely take drugs as long as it does not turn them into criminal.

this has an authentic and honest debate on abstinence base recovery. >> i tend to get very much golds and the legalization. what i tend to do is do with the problem when it exists. i agree completely that when they come into treatment, they are harming four or five other people and their families distress. i tried to prevent that. the best way is when you stop causing harm to families or the public. that is your best shot. at the moment, people are not in abstinence programs and continue to cause stress to families and the public. >> thank you very much. >> thank you for your written

evidence. could we have our next witness is? witnesses? very much forere i coming. they are conducting an inquiry into drug policy. you have been quite critical of successive governments including the reference. i think you have a feeling that

this is not involved in the government and parliament being tough on those who use drugs. >> the simple summary is this. most discussion under a policy is based on following false logic. there has been and attempts on series prohibition of drugs used. the truth is, and it is eagerly examined, this country abandoned any serious attempt to prohibit the use and possession of many years ago. we have a system of

decriminalization in this country. it argues on the basis the prohibition has failed. it has even less of its. it has been unhinged. >> that is very helpful. >> that is the government's overall strategy. >> if we do what they say, i am in dreg education, and stop people from ever taking drugs in the first place, i will be absolutely delighted. if that is altered, i am happy with that. it amidst the change -- it admits be changed. >> i agree the war you would

like to have this. we have got the decriminalization. i think this was reclassified to class b. all we had was a majority. there is not improper intervention. there are not the type of intervention programs following that initial arrests are warning. >> you can absolutely speak against decriminalization. the heads of government also a we have a debate about

decriminalization. >> we have decriminalization. you had in this country since the passage of the misuse of drugs act. in october of 1973, he instructed them to send them to prison for a cannabis addiction. the lease response to the arrest does not even have your legislative seal on it and was treated by the association of chief police officers. they have no legislative forces. cannabis is effectively

decriminalized. i wanted to go into this. we have a situation to argue -- any problem to do with drugs you would need to argue. ies are theagedy' results of self indulgent of drug taker consumers in the western world who happily take these revolting substances and create a disastrous trade which leads to the tragic results. that is not because of

prohibition. it is because of a long-term policy of decriminalization. affectively, they believe these drugs are illegal. cried thank you. -- >> thank you. it is a victim of caution. if you think that is a decriminalized policy, how many should be cautioned each year under your criminal policy? >> it is not the figures of convictions or our rest. it is the disposals when they come about. as far back as 1994, john cannabis has been

decriminalized for some time. let's move on from the situation. in 2009, excuse me while i consult the note to get it right. it is very important. in 2009, there were 162,610 cannabis cases handled by the police. all of these, at 19,137 were dealt with through police cautions. 11,492 were disordered. 20,000 ended in court.

86,593 were dealt with by a warning. that is nothing. >> this goes through the motions of pretending to enforce the law against drugs. it is not actually do so. you can possess a drug that is illegal and nothing would ever happen to you. most people know that. >> there are 162,000 cases, which strikes me as a but. that still leaves 82,000 who are convicted or are cautioned. >> the warning is another conviction. >> i am a drink.

at their 80,000 warnings. there are 80,000 who are convicted or cautioned. you are saying that is not a proper criminal policy. how many people ought to be convicted that are you aware of the monetary center which is across europe and found no association between the severity and the amount of drug use. >> it depends on how you are measuring sanctions. sanctions exist to some extent on the statute books of the countries involved. there are no sanctions being applied. before the 1971 act, a 21% of those arrested were sent to prison immediately. i completely change the laws. there's actually one in full possession. now you're caught by the police,

action in police and they let you go. >> i would like to come back to the doctor. it is very interesting study done by the monitor center. issues and not only drug use is much harder in every european country and problem drug use is three times higher, but this shows the criminalization and the other countries that have lower drug use is high year. the proportion of people that a convicted startlingly in this country is much lower than the netherlands which has a rigorous approach. >> very helpful. >> i think the other two are much more. >> they have said on the bbc

that as long as people in the u.k. here, we will hear more. there is a moment. to reserve of people like russell brand would like us to believe that it is common. it is certainly not comment. if you decriminalize drugs, the chances are the risk you take is greater. i wonder if any has stopped to think how they would feel about 1/5 of the cabinet, 1/5 a schoolteacher's possibly being able to sniff cocaine because this is not irascible. >> the committee has action at the president. it is good if you to remind us. >> i think he has been clear

that to like to have discussions. he sees it as a way to reduce its. >> he was very clear about the discussion he would like to see. >> it is clear on whether they look at these scientific evidence. are you all in favor of the idea that you should have evidence based policy? >> of course i am. >> i am. it is very obtuse. it can be scientific tunnel vision. the methadone trials, the doctor says this is plain evidence picket they demonstrate if you

get free opiates, you rolwill retain an instrument for a while. other evidence shows that methadone drug does have gone up dramatically since this type of medicine was being used. we have to be careful about what counts. >> my particular surname of -- concern of cannabis. the information is inaccurate. it is misleading. there is the information. there are grave omissions in the information. a lot of this is being ignored.

>> do you think the success or a failure? >> there are some very good bits. there was a survey in 2010 by an action that found only tends arm childrenen -- 105% of would look to frank. i have had negative views. >> thank you. >> i think he referred to the self indulgence in the use of drugs. notld you support th only those that are being self

indulgent, do you except that many people certainly are lonely and an adequate tax when they get into the first use, and they need help. they are victims. sizable uppers' need to be made toward rape debilitation -- to rehabilitation. >> taking drugs is the wrong thing to do. there is a good reason for a law against it. they should be punished. if we held to that, we would still have the levels of drug use which we had before the 1971 act. i do not think drug users should be in dulles. >> i have to say i do differ. i agree with what he said about

abstinence. i do not agree on the legal state of drugs. i think drug have six need confrontation. the follow up should be for supportive. there are hugely successful. they have simpson hist absent -- sentenced abstinence treatment. this and how it would increase to the level of osmosis. the committee should think about that.

we have searched this. are you making the assumption that they are in favor of this? >> this is basically legalizing out lobby. that disturbs me. they were widely discriminated in the press up incorrect figures about drug use spiraling out of control globally. it shows quite clearly that it has been stable. new direction of travel may have been influenced by those who are very much in favor of decriminalization. >> we will go to portugal.

we see many witnesses. i think it is fair to say that's every person has been figures. >> you either have to accept the statistics [unintelligible] that is in a huge report every year. the global commission has likely miss use these figures. term in theces 30's case of hard drugs. that is my only -- 30% in the use of hard drugs. that is my only point. >> the committee has not taking a view of any of these issues. that is why we are seeking evidence. at the end of the day, we will

publish the. >> i want to hear what you thought was the most effective way of schools warning children about the dangers. >> i think if you have a properly enforced law, where cannabis possession is punished when detected, one of the most important things is that people who are under strong peer pressure will give them a good reason. they say i will not do that.

i do not want to risk never been able to travel to the united states. i do not think it is worth it. one of the purposes is to strengthen people against the sort of pressure. i think it to be enormously useful if we enforce it. >> i agree. this is the thing that makes the most difference to children. the most thing i found most difficult with my sons was to find that cannabis has become declassified. i had a son telling me it was not against the law. it is against the law. parents in the support of the law in order to very clear what their children.

this is my own experience that has been borne out. this absolute clarity about the wrongness of doing this. i think we have lost sight of that. >> you had said that prevention has no place. we said what he meant by that. >> it has its place. you can reduce the dose gradually. you have 32 of them their pit this has been harmed for the last evidence.

reduction systems that children take it any way. there is no guaranteed safe way. the other thing that keeps popping up is the choice. they are not being properly informed at the moment. we do not give them a choice to pilfer. seven year olds have extremely mature brains. they are completely incapable. [unintelligible] the children are most likely going to take this.

30 or 40% of children may try them. you should not assume that they're going to take it. [inaudible] this is the amount of mushrooms that people use. this is all reduction. it is a green light for children. they have gone on to the web sites. they looked up the a vice. >> i think the statements about the position is this.

one of the problems of giving advice that is not accurate is that if we can all a part of the message, [unintelligible]. >> and drug education is them properly, i am the biology teacher. -- a drug education is taught properly, i am a biology teacher. i researched cannabis for years. i keep it updated. if you talk to children and explain it in a scientific way

but age appropriate, obviously, they're interested. if you give them the truth, don't exaggerate, do not patronize, it just talked to them as equals and given the scientific truth, and they will not take drugs. people get children wrong. the vast majority of children have no intention of taking drugs. that is what reliable information so they can say no to their peer group. they used to tell me, give us more information. they take it so they could talk to their children. if you do it honestly, clearly, willing to be a challenge, you

are '90s term there. -- 90% there. >> if you have a hard-line policy, the governments that were taking drugs with substantial the fall. >> i think that was the case. the arrival of cannabis was a slow business. the number of victims and the whole united kingdom was four. in 1960, 235. even in the mid-60's a was only at a level of 1000. it is since the 1971 miss use of drugs act, which was a seldom implementation, which was a

decriminalization, the numbers have gone up immensely. 1972 before the act, at 12,005 in 99 cases. now we're up to 160,000 are arrests a year in england and wales alone. the campus some of that down to change. how much of the social change and the increasing unwillingness of the system of police to ?rrest, prosecute or punish ta >> they show that some 2.2 million people were using cannabis. 1 in 6 young people took it. can you say that if there was a

harder policy, a large number of those people would simply stop because they would be frightened of being convicted? >> this has been a long, slow process of change. it has been very good. the interesting thing is that it contains various mechanisms. they're putting provisions under constant review. it is set up to be reduced again and again without legislation of the warning. there's been a long slocum their belt. -- slow conveyor belts. the police have found the time wasting too enforce the law. if you could immediately be expectced thit and

revolutionary change. he should not think of reducing the penalties further. you're going to make everything better. it is clear that during the time, things have grown worse. some people argue. the say over and over again that you have a serious problem of over enforce prohibition. to this is failing. we must resort to total decriminalization. it is not logical. the facts do not support it. >> if there was a firmer policy by governments, what would be the position? >> you certainly would have much

less drug abuse in this country. one european country that and not generally in the position as a result of low words it. >> what would be your response to the view that prohibition clearly grows? do you think there's some comparison? >> you can certainly but those words into my mouth. there's an enormous difference.

this is a drug with common use with hundreds and thousands of years. introduce laws prohibiting. laws which i might add had the same failure. the prosecuted supply. but not possession. to say that bailed therefore any attempt -- that failed and therefore any attempt to discourage the use of drugs, because of that one particular individuals failure, we can never attempt ever again for the rest of the history of the human race to try to prevent the spread of dangerous drugs seems to be a logical.

>> there is another view which i assume you do not accept. we do our best to encourage people -- with that not the key this is their argument. the drug dealers would be rather upset to say the least. >> i do not believe so. of all and cigarette above legal in this country. unless to make drugs free of charge and give it away on

streetcorners, but it's still be plenty. they would be unable to afford them. the chances are that there would be an opportunity. there is no reason to suppose so. what may be the case is that if you decriminalize it entirely, they would increase activity because of this precise problem. government still some the tax payers. we're told this is some type of advance.

>> richard has a quick one. >> and tobacco as i did on other drugs. very little time for anything like this. but i used to talk about alcohol in the same way and explain whate does to the brain, the body and everything. one thing that used to amaze the children when i talked. and i did this in year nine which is 13 to 14.

and alot of them know that alcohol can actually kill them. they can overdose and the respiration muscles are suppressed and they can actually die. again, you give them all the facts, the true scientific facts, whatever,. you throw in a few social things and so on. i've just approached all the whole of health education, i was in charge in the same way in the same scientific way speaking as equals and not patronizing them and just explaining exactly would happen and that has a huge effect on children. if they know how exactly alcohol and drugs are going to affect the body then they're with you. they should be dealt with separately. the fact that some drugs aren't

illegal should be repeatedly stressed. and to confuse the legal and illegal drug is certainly confusing theer child. -- the child. >> i think the risk of removing those sanctions would definitely be a significant increase in use. and as paul haze said to your committee the other week at the moment not .4 six percent of population that means 99.6% do not. the demand would impact on countries abroad to which we also have a moral responsibility. i find extraordinary that you would be for low usage that you would be thinking of putting the white flag to use and risk

it rising to levels which is something like smoking. i find this sort of strange way to think about it at all. and certainly with education for children on can biss i think the most important thing is we should be focusing on the domestic stock market that is within our power to deal with it. we have blindly stopped protecting children. we know skunk causes psychosis. we don't know what's happening in gangs in south london and who role psychosis is playing there. this is something that should be a pressing concern of the committee. this is stuff question deal with here at home. >> committee is going to deal with all these issues. this is a long detailed inquirey and that's very helpful. the final question. >> thank you, chairman. if along the lines of this debate more people have been convicted in the prisons, one of the problems we have the

usage of drugs in prison which is reported and rumored. now, i understand the policy exchange published a report in january which claims that one of the big problems was corrupt staff in particular alleging that around 1,000 corrupt members of staff were involved in this issue which is about seven prison officers at the prison. do you think that this is accurate? do you have any evidence to support these things? >> the center for policies studies prior to that, we also published our own paper about keeping drugs out of prisons. there are number of issues that could be addressed. one very big one would be the comprehensive use of sniffer dogs at the moment that there are not that many teams of dogs. there are so many holes in the system of keeping drugs out of

prison. what we've done in the last few years is spent more than $1 million pounds of introducing methadone as being the treatment. there are huge worries that it's putting prisoners at risk. we should or maybe you'd like to ask the question, how would it have been in those years that 100 million pounds was spent on plugging the holes which is lack of control of mobile phones. if the money had been spent to toughening up all those things, it would have been interesting to know what would have happened in prison since then. >> thank you. >> if it's a measure of the moral and legal obligations of this country, it tells you more clear than anything else how

far the drugs have gone in this country that they are prevalent in our prisons. >> prisons are one of the areas that this committee will look at very, very carefully. . do you want to answer to ms. black burn's questions? >> not really. >> could you get it through it quickly. i have the home secretary outside. >> you're putting me under pressure. >> you could always write to us with these points but the main points you can tell us what they are >> can i say a few points about cannabis. one is the strength. there's a lot of myths about the strength of it. now, the last proper home office potency study was in 2008. at that time skunk which is 80% of the drug from the cannabis market was 16.2% c.h.t.

cannabis in the 1960's and 1970's wr 1%, 2%. skunk is two to four times stronger than her ball cannabis. the other 20% of the market is hash which is about 4% to 6%. now, with this huge strength, t.h.c. strength with skunk, this is doing and awful lot more damage. the dutch have band any d.h.c., 16% because they are looking at skunk as a hard drug. and we should be doing the same. >> that is extremely helpful and i think on the other points that you have raced to us if you could write to us that would be extremely helpful indeed. i'm afraid i'm going to to call the session to a close because as i said we have other witnesses. but thank you very much coming in all three of you and we may

well write you again. and please feel free to write to me if you think the committee is going off in the wrong direction. we want to make sure this is a very thorough inquiry. thank you very much. we now switch subjects and we have the home secretary. >> this week, live from london, the ceremony and pageantry of the state opening of parliament. until recently, parliament's official opening was usually held towards the owned the year, with changes to their election moves, it's now been moved to the spring. and wednesday, queen elizabeth

will outline the government's priority for the upcoming year. live coverage on c-span2. last week white house drug control policy gil kerlikowske said we cannot arrest our way out of drug control problems. this it's strategy emphasizes treating substance abuse as a chronic disease that can be prevented and treated. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> good morning. i'm glad you can join us for this very important and timely event. i am pleased to welcome to the center gil kerlikowske who is the director of the office of national drug control policy at