are willing to say we are going to get a result on a farm bill, on immigration reform, on the budgets, on water resources, on infrastructure. we are going to get it done. it takes leadership to say to a , havetee of jurisdiction tax reform ready on november 1 because it is going on the floor of the senate and the house. i'm not indicting anyone in particular, but that is what it takes. if you are leaders -- if you're leaders take that kind of position they can lose support. i think that is something we need to think about. right across the board we need women and men that will say we are going to deal with this. i am from a state where i got three death threats because i tried to help push immigration reform in 2007. i felt like we needed it for our country, not just because of the

illegal immigrants but because our legal system is a disaster. if you have the talent, ability, something you can offer, if you are a physicist from sweden or a doctor from canada you almost can't get in america even if you try to do it legally. here shouldhat are be able to live a life of dignity and so we can control it in the future and we can encourage people that want to come to this beacon of freedom can't get here in a sensible way. that is what we need more of, people that will put their neck on the line. that is one reason, this is a little partisan, but that is a reason why i am a fan of marco rubio. i said you need to do this and if you do it is going to show courage and leadership. but know this, no matter what happens, pass or fail you're going to get hammered from the left and the right. so be it. i think people are hungry for

leaders that will say this is right for the country, i am going to do it. follow me. [laughter] [applause] eric? >> i had the good fortune of working for ambassador's use in public diplomacy. it was there that i discovered who really makes the government work. all the countless men and women who work as careerists and to work in the foreign service. i think we also have to be reminded that there are thousands of men and women who accept the challenge to serve who are not elected officials, who add enormous value. that gave me great confidence in our government and great confidence in the citizens not giving up and really investing

in this great american enterprise. those are a great -- great words to close the clock. i want to thank our panel for being with us today. [applause] we also want to thank the bipartisan policy center the commission on political reform, the national constitution center which provided this wonderful venue for us, our audience here in philadelphia and online. thank you all. we hope to see you this fall for our next town hall for ohio state university on october 15. now we are going to take a short -- take a short break. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] in his weekly address, president

obama presents hisproposal for military strikes against syria. senator john barrasso from wyoming gives the republican address. he criticizes the health care law and its impact on jobs and the economy. almost three weeks ago in syria more than 1000 innocent people, including hundreds of children, were murdered in the worst chemical weapons attack of the 21st century. the united states has presented a powerful case to the world that the syrian government was responsible for this horrific attack on its own people. this was not only a direct attack on human dignity, it is a serious threat to our national security. there is a reason governments representing 98% of the world's people have agreed to ban the use of chemical weapons, not only because they cause death and destruction in the most indiscriminate and inhumane way possible, but because they can also fall into the hands of terrorist groups who wish to do us harm. that is why last weekend i announced that as commander-in- chief i decided that the united

states should take military action against the syrian regime. this is not a decision i made lightly. deciding to use military force is the most solemn decision we can make as a nation. as the leader of the world's oldest constitutional democracy, i also note that our country will be stronger if we act together and our actions will be more effective. that's why i asked members of congress to debate this issue and vote on authorizing the use of force. what we are not talking about is an open-ended intervention. this would not be another iraq or afghanistan. there would be no american boots on the ground. any action we take would be limited both in time and scope, designed to deter the syrian government from gassing its own people again and degrade its ability to do so. i know that the american people are weary after a decade of war, even as the war in iraq has ended and the war in afghanistan is winding down. that is why we are not putting our troops in the middle of

somebody else's war. but we are the united states of america. we cannot turn a blind eye to images like the ones we have seen out of syria. failing to respond to this outrageous attack would increase the risk that chemical weapons could be used again, that they would fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us. it would send a horrible signal to other nations that there would be no consequences for their use of these weapons, all of which would pose a serious threat to our national security. that is why we cannot ignore chemical weapons attacks like this one, even if they happen halfway around the world. that's why i call on members of congress from both parties to come together and stand up for the kind of world we want to live in, the kind of world we want to leave our children and future generations. thank you. >> as a doctor who took care of patients for 25 years, i saw the problems with america's healthcare system every day.

there is no question we needed real reform, reform so that people could get the care they needed at lower cost. americans now know that that is not what president obama's healthcare law delivered. what we got is higher taxes and bigger government without the lower costs or quality care. the so-called affordable care act is hurting middle-class families, their wages, their jobs and their health care. on october 1, less than a month from today, america will hit the deadline on one of the most critical and controversial parts of the obama healthcare law. that is when the government insurance exchanges go into effect. whether the exchanges are ready or not, millions of families will have to start arranging to buy their washington-mandated health insurance. many families are going to have real sticker shock when they see their new insurance rates, even families who get government subsidies. president obama promised that his health care plan would reduce annual insurance premiums by $2500 a family by the end of

his first term. that has not happened. according to the nonpartisan kaiser family foundation the average family premium for getting insurance at work is nearly $3000 higher than it was when the president took office. because of the many new government regulations in the law, many part-time workers are having their hours cut back and their pay reduced. in my home state of wyoming, several county school districts are reportedly looking at actually cutting back the hours of hundreds of part-time workers because of the extra cost of paying for health insurance. this includes substituting teachers, bus drivers, coaches, cafeteria workers and custodians. in virginia thousands of state employees have had their work weeks capped at 29 hours because of how the law was written. even some of president obama's biggest supporters have been warning about the damage that his healthcare law is doing to hard-working american taxpayers.

the leaders of the teamsters and other major labor unions have said that the healthcare law will "destroy the foundation of the 40 hour workweek that is the backbone of the american middle class." even though the president promised that if you liked what you had you could keep it, for many families it is just not true. workers are losing coverage for their spouses while paying higher premiums and deductibles. that means even more money out- of-pocket. despite the higher cost to consumers and workers, many people will still not get the quality health care that the president promised them. that is because all of his talk about coverage does not mean that people will actually get better care. america's is facing a looming shortage of doctors, nurses and physician's assistants. the healthcare law provides for thousands of new irs personnel to enforce the law, but it fails to deal in any meaningful way with the shortage of people to take care of you.

the president had grand intentions when he set out to reform healthcare in this country, but he made things worse. the healthcare law has proven to be unpopular, unworkable and unaffordable. as a result, people are confused, disappointed and angry. the law is increasing costs and killing jobs and it is no surprise that employers wanted relief. but shouldn't families get the same relief? families will now have to prove to the irs that they have washington-approved and government-mandated insurance. it seems the only folks who still support the law are the ones that don't have to live under its mandates or made special washington deals to avoid it. the american people need healthcare reform, but it must be the right kind of reform, rreform that lowers patient costs, improves health and protects the vulnerable. this means access to more affordable care and protecting quality care for older

americans. let me tell you, my wife is a breast cancer survivor, so i know how important it is to make sure that we help those with pre-existing conditions. republicans have voted to repeal the healthcare law and to start over, start over with ways to truly help people afford the care that they need. the president refuses to acknowledge that his law fails to solve the number one concern of americans when it comes to healthcare, which is cost. instead, the white house and its outside political arm have promised to spend millions of dollars in advertising to promote the law. they are working with celebrities and sports teams to try to convince healthy young people to buy expensive insurance so other people can pay less. even former president bill clinton was deployed by the white house this week in an attempt to explain away the pain middle-class families are feeling. americans want real solutions to

bring down the cost of healthcare, not more press releases and propaganda. we know what the law does, and in just a few weeks we know it is going to start hitting middle-class americans even harder. the american people have a choice. we can embrace the status quo of obamacare for four more years or we can repeal the law and quickly move to help people get the care they need from a doctor they choose at lower cost. that is what republicans are fighting for. it is time for democrats to join us. >> on the next formergton journal," u.s. ambassador to syria edward to reggie and talks about experiences with the assad regime and he feels white military invention will not help the country.

they discuss potential action in syria and its impact on the obama administration, its allies and countries throughout the middle east. is liveton journal," with your calls on c-span. >> democratic caucus chair representative javier becerra is our guest this week on newsmakers. inwill discuss u.s. options syria, immigration policy, the budget and other issues ahead. you can watch "newsmakers" live today here on c-span and again -- again at six :00 p.m.. >> president obama will address to nation on the situation in syria on tuesday evening. you can watch for live coverage on the c-span networks.

>> wilson was so intellectual and he was our most academic, most educated president. he is the only president with a phd. as a result of that i think most of the books that have been written about him have been academic in nature. i think they have missed the very human side of this man. he was deeply emotional, passionate, romantic figure. he had two wives. when his first wife died he courted and fell in love with a woman and married a second time. he wrote thousands of passionate love letters to each of these women. this was a real, living, breathing human being. i don't think we have seen that about woodrow wilson. >> pulitzer prize-winning author a scott berg's biography of woodrow wilson releases tuesday. here more tonight at 8:00 p.m.

on c-span's "q&a." on thursday, the caf development bank of latin america held its annual conference in washington dc. during the conference the panel highlighted the global drug trade and drug trafficking and abuse in the u.s. and latin america. speakers include white house national drug policy director and current and former government officials of mexico, brazil, colombia and guatemala. this is one hour and 40 minutes. >> to the end of this today. ,hank you again to secretary and the team that made this meeting possible.

we have this conversation and the new approach in the americas towards the global problem of drugs. that we areallenge confronting based on real events . a little over four decades since president nixon , thered war on drugs creation of the dea, the zero- tolerance policy of president reagan, the u n convention against illicit drugs in 1998. and a model of shared intervention such as the one --t was used in columbia colombia.

moment.a good the question today should be whether it should be criminalized, if we deregulate and that this paradigm requires action and a response from us. made, therogress international conventions and the report from the civil society, their reaction of businessman that looked at the thatbility of a world decriminalize his drugs and that globallyhave to spend to fight the war on drugs that has evidently failed and that

makes it even more interesting for the discussion. thirdly, the oas report on drugs sosassion to secretary and about a year ago at the summit -- summit ofenna this place is it? on the crime and violence generated in central america and that poses this question during his first speech during the summit of the americas. the report was somehow, as stated,ysulsa has

analyzes more than once in our .rea since the presentation during the last four months, it has been analyzed in guatemala and they have worked on a roadmap. i would request that each of you make a presentation for not longer than seven minutes so that at the end we have some for a topicnd a that is as relevant as this and to think whether this paradigm can change and i believe it can. fromg and shifting away the ban on drugs, we can start mr.nsulsa, the

secretary-general. much.nk you very those of you who want to listen to me again on the topic, i appreciate the time. do first thing i wanted to that this request was asked by the president. dialogue,eparate just on the contrary there was consensus, first that we have a very serious problem in a theinent that uses half of harrowing used in the world, half of the cocaine used in the world, a large amount of marijuana and a host of other drugs. the problem is enormous and it has not decreased. right now we contemplate the which isof drugs

responsible for about $150 billion per year, half of which is spent in our countries with a number of deaths much greater dying in the fight against drugs than by the use of drugs. if we do the comparison of deaths by accident or being killed because of the use of drugs, justin that number of deaths in the war against drugs it has the largest amount, so the violence has not decreased and people that have been in , about 3.5 million people -- aboutners in jail

half of them are there due to drugs. half of the cocaine produced yet ther was seized and problem persists because producing drugs is not expensive. what is expensive is what comes after production. , jobs are thises large problem. the repression was not enough. was thought among the president's that had us to this report, yes, every country has the same problem of drugs. hemispheric,s not but the countries have a drug problem that is different according to the country. we don't have to say it more has very lowla

drug use but most of the violence takes place there. it is not the same for a country that some of the countries from the south -- it is not just a .ealth issue for all countries other countries have to seize the drug problem as a crime problem such as the countries of central america. the wary faces issue is different according to the country. i want to say there were two mandates that the president charged us with. they wanted to know what the -- how was the problem. and then they wanted different scenarios. so two reports were drafted. of course they're interlinked but they are two different reports. since we have this difficulty is that the drug problem is seen

differently, this report goes planting alllem of the way to drug use. so to draft a report with that entire process, this is the only continent where every single stage of the drug problem since ,he cocoa plant is grown although it to production, although steps happened within this hemisphere. paste production mountains, the city, the ports for transportation, all of them we can see damages caused to the population, to the health of the population and to things that are very important as well.

is concentrated in the the drugs pass through. in chile and uruguay where there is a little more it drugs now the violence is increasing as the drug problem increases. the other issue is the government's. can they approach and faces problem? crime issues are also another problem. , impunity, although seven a lot to say on the topic. then there's the other issue of the economic problems. that is another large aspect of the drug problem. a kilo of base in bolivia or 500 to columbia may cost $700 a kilogram of cocaine.

and it goes up. you can see it written in the it goes up to becoming not only doubling in aze, so it is two kilos at 33,000 kilos. multiply that by 500 in the cost and size, so it is an enormous amount of money that is being made in the latter stages. everybody is making money with undoubtedly the final stage where the most money .s made this of the data i could share -- what we did for this report is read at specialists in the area. .ne lead the process area.lists in every

community leaders that have worked near the drug problem, teachers and professors, law enforcers who combated it. we ask all of them to tell us how they solve the drug problem based on their view, their we decided on what the report was going to the like. so we decided that it will be always a security problem. many realities joined to make this more comprehensive, but if there's is not enough law enforcement to fight it, if the court system is not enough, the methodology or the techniques to just in prisons are all difficulties. so we come to the conclusion how can we together solve the issue because we are trying to work together against this drug

problem. we are not saying that law enforcement activities should not be made, but we have to improve the strategy because the strategy has failed. the drug problem cannot be handled exclusively through law enforcement methods. things have to be approached differently. that is where we come up with the issues of decriminalizing or legalizing it. prevention so on that the scenario itself is different. acknowledging that many of these things can work jointly or together. the first issue is emphasizing the social, economic and cultural aspect of drugs. work made inhe

communities at grassroots levels and communities. came theese debates risk of nothing happening. so we see every one of the scenarios is presented effort if you are telling a tale. this is what is happening here and what happened. for example the general assembly of the oas in the year whatever, it means that nothing has happened. some countries are saying we have been waiting for five years , respectfully submitted we're going to do what we want because we have a major crime problem. that scenario is very serious, so it is a possible scenario. it is not that it is likely -- a likely scenario. , but itot anticipating will happen. reports have said the impact

of the report has been surprising. i was mentioning this to somebody from the media right now. much has been spoken of the oas that it is not faring well are faring little. just at a glance i would say that half of the headlines that have been written about the oas in the last year have been about the drug topic. haveof the things said been positive. that just means that a date on the topic was needed. onope this debate will touch our conclusions because we all have to do the same. all the countries have to agree about how we're going to approach it. i countries are going to have to do it according to the conference reality. all of them are different. the words that come before are conclusion is that flexibility is needed.

applied.ng don't agree that resolutions have to be imposed or treated. i believe we have to leave it to decriminalize nation for example. we have to lead toward the evolution in the country. our conclusion is one. if you're going to deal with the ,rug issue as a health issue people that are sick are not jailed. so that means somebody who is sick and needs treatment. we cannot have jails full of people because they use drugs. consequencegative to that individual and it just the involvement with crime. >> with regard to to the point you just mentioned.

i think that all the elements like the cities and the police in the cities where there are troubles in in columbia and medellin and others, all the work and investigation which is one of the greatest activities and how we see the future -- he has spoken about the magic wand that he mentions if localized crime will and because of the fact that this is legalized, let's do it. from the point of view of someone with your experience and speaking about security, what would you say and in this regard what is your vision? >> thank you for the inter- american dialogue in the oas and for all of you that give us this opportunity to share with you our comments and reflections on what today in the americas this

key issue is to debate about the drug problem. why i'm understand soon sitting here besides the secretary and why i am so close to the secretary beside me. this debate has a different as the other secretary mentioned. we have established a platform for syrians debate which has been set aside from an old ideology and biased. nowadays we are debating because thenesidential mandate and after as the secretary has mentioned, the technical political effort with a very people.e group of it is a serious debate and it is

the beginning of my comments. i believe that we need to look at this problem into the future and not be stuck in the past. we need to look towards the future, why? because there is a serious contribution that allows for .his debate and understanding secondly, it is surprising to see how the reality in the withcas is somewhat hidden regard to publication of the report. once it was distributed there was a note that there is a way to identify what could be called some agreement. number one would be that it is necessary to reestablish the andcies -- to rewrite them it is essential to have public , as secretary in .osa just mentioned

it should not be criminalized. the four agreements begin to come up as a kind of consensus in the americas on which there are not great difficulties in agreeing. also it is become clear that .here are those who dissent they are finding a methodology and points where discussion can take place. americas are showing signals of a humanitarian attempt to handle the violence. particular isin eight percent of the world we have between 36 and 42% of the homicides on the entire planet so there is a debate on drugs generating violence and there is difficulty in determining to what point drugs and violence are related

structurally. and how this affects our population at such high levels. also there is this disagreement as to how in the americas where andinal economies flourish mutate at tremendous speeds. some of us agreed, saying that we need to be careful about developing high hopes as to whether this policy will be like a silver bullet to solve the problem of violence and also to eliminate the criminal economies. colombia for example. columbia has the lowest level of crops, cocaine, statistics and yet he was a tragedy that we are facing? we have crime in columbia that mining deleteld-

this leads to a structural .iolence that there are so many people who are dedicating their lives to illegal production. now a very methodological point which is not necessarily a it is a very, but exhaustive extensive debate which includes the general subject of drugs, but also with the understanding that the spectrum in this regard of drugs that are consumed by humanity are of many different natures and have many different effects. one from the other. so we have a debate, a general debate about drugs. to take on inng the americas a more correct

approach which would be to focus on handling marijuana. fernando cardenas has a very and uruguaytheory has also. this is where there is some disagreement. something which confuses public opinion. it will begin to eliminate this confusion. in order to attract attention to this debate, what has been done recently is to speak generically about legalizing drugs. this is a political and methodological and technical difference. we are talking about dealing and establishing political policies that will deal with decriminalization, legalization and other aspects with regards to drugs. generally, talking about some drugs that are moving across our borders to an extent that is

incredible. so i would say that now we are facing a world that thinks of this report which unifies and converges the points of debate is left outd what in the past. in other words, information, which is valid regarding the history of drugs in the americas . leaves much to be desired. there is a lack of information and conceptualization which does not allow us to have a true foundation for our debate. i would like to give you an example. when you add up, for example, the amount of drugs that are seized by the authorities in the world, it is something like a circus in a way. the amount often that is given is more than what is produced in the world.

let's say four countries participated in this and that ,or record what was seized another lesson learned from the past is the following. good practices, public policy, to handle the matter of drugs is not to efficiently document. it is not credible. the idea was sold under the political prism to sell success without properly handling the challenge and led to failure. ,hen we look to the future which undoubtedly this is our thesis and i agree with the report in the sense, that any decision made by the world, whatever decision that is made in the americas with regard to the issue of drugs, will require a new institution now the which

is more legitimate, efficient and capable and also closer to the real world of drugs. we cannot imagine a new based on thosey that lead to a lack of confidence and trust and that are weak and out of date. in the past the system the police in latin america for example under a huge crisis of confidence and credibility -- necessaryrs to be a imperative in order to perceive an advanced into the future with more success in the past. >> thank you, you touched on several topics that have to do with consensus and violence, perhaps.

we can catch up on a little bit discussed drugt trafficking linked to peace negotiations linked to the eradication of cups you just -- link to the eradication of cops. uponld like to touch we are looking at decriminalization and what is oas.osition of the there are conflicting reactions on one hand. public policy by the state. from lasta memo thursday that communicated to the states of washington and colorado that was against international conventions with

due respect. some so authorized to state its stake to continue with the policy of approval or liberalization of the use of purpose other the than medical. it seems that this is domestic policy that is directly opposed to the status quo. i would like to hear your in that regard, mr. secretary. oas and to caf and the american dialogue. i appreciate the invitation. i could not agree more than with ,hat general novato mentioned

that drug policy reform is certainly a global issue. i don't think there has been any stronger partner or any stronger advocate for drug policy reform over these last four plus years than the united states. i would like to reflect on that for a few minutes. we produce in our office and as we advise the president, the president's drug policy and drug control strategy. are drug law enforcement agencies involved but perhaps more importantly, looking at our drug problem is a public health problem, as a prevention problem and certainly reducing the demand. when i took office and was confirmed by the senate over four years ago, i made it very clear that to continue to talk about a war on drugs and to utilize that metaphor was just a huge mistake. we all know, not only you and

the audience, but certainly people in all of the countries that are represented, we all know how complex and difficult the drug problem is in the world. tobelieve that continuing talk about this as either a war or a law -- a long career in law enforcement. none of my colleagues talked about the war on drugs. in fact the phrase it they would most often use was that we can not arrest or incarcerate our way out of the drug problem. recognizing our responsibility that was echoed by secretary kerry at the oas meeting that was also a part of secretary clinton's remarks recognizing our shared responsibility to reduce our demand is an important part of that. along with that has been our responsibility also to be helpful in looking at drug prevention programs that work

and treatment programs that work. a great deal of the world's research and both of them is either conducted or funded by the united states. so when we look at being a good global partner, we certainly understand that responsibility it is more than just information sharing and interdiction and law enforcement. it is a different approach. neither a single approach of the i'mon drugs or an approach legalization begins to address as we know the complex drug problem in the world. is often going to play a very vital role, but we know here in the united states through drug courts that many of you know through the drug court that have been instituted in other countries, that people often go into treatment and they can be quite successful. as a result of the intervention of the law enforcement agency,

the first part of our strategy is really about prevention because we know prevention works. we know prevention is far less costly to the life of people. comes to an .mportant role in public health it emphasizes important treatment. millions of americans will be able to access important drug treatment programs that can be successful. drug effort has given prevention on treatment. methods of drug prevention treatment have been developed here in the united states

including these community-based organizations. oftentimes i don't believe it comes as any surprise to anyone here that someone like myself coming from washington dc is andg to california or texas telling people what to do with the drug problem. it is not received well. resonate to very high degree our voices of local people. when those parents and coaches and teachers are armed with information about drug policy that is science and evidence- based, it can make a significant difference. we have seen that throughout the world as others have demonstrated in some of their work. the exportation of these kinds of programs is particularly helpful. the important work that we do

together is reflected in reducing the demand for drugs for example, here in the united states. our appetite for cocaine since 2000 seven is down dramatically. it is down by over 40%. that is by every measure that we ae, and delete maybe is tremendous number of measures, but we have reduce our demand for cocaine and we would like to do more. we have produced in the united states in that same time. art demand for methamphetamine. we aim to continue to do more and utilize all the resources that are important. i think the report that the secretary-general talked about that the oas reported is one that we were very supportive of. some of the ideas that are experienced in that report can

certainly be instituted under existing urine treaties i think that is an important distinction to make. we don't think in the united states that legalizing drugs is going to promote public health. neither is it going to reduce violence and crime. i think the very distinguished journalist in mexico reflected very well in a lengthy interview on the news hour how important it was that people recognize that the cartels have numerous funding streams. quite often the funding or revenue streams for the cartels involving such things as ,idnapping and extortion, etc. are often far greater funding streams and what can be gained from drug trafficking. i think it is important to keep that in mind. it is also important to keep in mind that even with the changes in washington state and colorado

that marijuana is still against federal law. there are also criminal selling to someone under 21. i think the oas general assembly in guatemala and senator kerry's remarks and i was privileged to accompany him to that, was an important discussion because wein it was mentioned that are very much all in this together. there is no such thing as a production country or a transit country or a consuming country. we all have great difficulties. we produce a lot of marijuana in the united states. we produce a lot of methamphetamines. as many of you know prescription drugs is a significant problem also within our country. looking at how we can deal with this problem holistically without finger-pointing i think is an important step in the

right direction and i commend the oas study for their work that they have accomplished. thank you. >> your comments were very good. that theven say ago,ments made 14 years that the obamas government and your office are looking for alternatives and not only closing the report of the oas. at some point we have to try to and thesolution guatemalan government president and minister of foreign affairs have been very categoric in calling their attention to an area where the figures that we heard from general naranjo are

being seen violence and the failure against organized crime, against violence, against the youth. what can you say to the topic. thank you very much. our friends for the invitation. maybe i should begin a little bit earlier in history. part of what encouraged this decision had to do with the feeling that we had a problem with the strategy that was being implemented. the president was in charge of the fight against drugs since the beginning of the 90s. he came back to government 20 years later and found out that what we were doing was exactly the same, but the problem was

greater. hadlaw enforcement decreased its power and the criminal had increased his power. factual. government had to do something. we couldn't just sit in a room and try to think of solutions. found theed how he drug problem 20 years later. he said it had failed because there was no solution found. the efforts to combat the problem the way that it has been and, it is the same manner yet the problem is increasingly worse. he wasn't just referring to violence and crime, he was also thatring to the strength the criminal organizations had gained.

apparently our law enforcement strongreasingly not as as the criminal groups. something has to be done. >i come from the economic field. we always have difficulty economic troubles but we always had the opportunity to say something whether we agree with the political monetary policy or not and for me, if somebody was saying that something was wrong with the drug problems, nothing should be said and you had to remain silent, that it was wrong to give your opinion. strange.ry the drug policy had to be kept aside from public debate and that is rare for countries like watch a model and the rest of

latin america and the u.s. where we have a democracy. we should discuss in public everything. we do not have censorship to media. we are not limiting freedom of there was ad yet, feeling that you should not encourage debates against the drug policy. realizethe fact that we that there was almost no discussion on the drug rob lum, that was the first thing we wanted to handle. -- on the drug problem, that was the first thing we wanted to handle. you might be attacked if you thought something was wrong. there could be politicians or academicians who would come into your party and you could not say that everything is a failure. that was the first thing to do. the president was and is

convinced that a discussion is get consentorder to of other latin american presidents and we arrived in car to hang the last you're looking to a problem. year.tagena last we had no answer nor did we pretend to have one. we believe we have a legitimate question and concern and it had to be addressed. from all heads of state is where we came up with the task to be asked of the secretary general of the oas to give us a report to tell us what alternatives are what other possible responses we can have for the drug problem. the report has already been

discussed here. we had the general assembly of the oas to reflect on this. as the secretary-general knows well, the drafting of the declaration was already a very good exercise before we ever started talking about the report itself. the discussion started in february and by then, we did not have any studies or investigations. at the permanent council, we started talking about what we can do and what should we look for. some things have been mentioned and many people have begun discussing it. there is a social problem approach that has to be addressed. maybe it will be addressed differently than the health issues. will we see sanctions for drug- related crimes? they are different.

those who are in jail are the poor and minorities. those are the jailed populations but they are small and we have to find out why is it minorities and poor people that end up in the jail, a why is it a crime exclusively related to that? saying there are other dimensions that go beyond the issue of security. that was the one topic we were able to confirm, that the drug problem is the most multidimensional problem. approach wherean we have to have enforcement, legal enforcement. it cannot he the only strategy. we have to break with the paradigm that legal enforcement is the only answer to the issue. i think there is other things that fall into life. this has been the most

productive. aspect of lawer we have to address. we have to combat crime networks. that is a responsibility we have towards our citizenship and their security. if we only look at the drug problem through their chrism -- criminal prism, that is limiting it. then we went further to think we have to look at the social issue. things thatg many should not be criminalized -- small use of drugs should not be criminalized. is notn some places and in others. there is levels of behavior, drug-related behavior, but they are small-scale that you can solve through social policy.

the drug-hat most of related criminals are young. we have to bring those people back. the president has said more than once that this fight is also a fight to recover or keep our youth. the criminals cannot win them over. we must keep them with us. the declaration also mentions this. we are at that time, the threshold where we have to make decisions now. i think decisions can be made in the hemisphere without having to discuss conventions. at some point, we will have to talk about the conventions but i think many things can be done without discussing the conventions or revisiting them.

we can discuss and see how we can do things better and that requires our alignment. one of the alignment things that has to be done is what kind of cooperation will be given in this area in the field? be justion should not 90% for law enforcement and 10% for the restaurant i think the percentages should be different. should ben assistance done with enforcement of the law but also so that the youth can soe out of drug trafficking the population in the cities can develop. we have to talk about human policy, social policy so that that youth can recover their own lives. thank you so much. moving onto the experience of law enforcement, i would like to who has had. jobim

this experience from the other point of view, not just illegality but justice. a recent group of ministers in your countries in brazil sent to congress a law that i believe is handling mandatory hospitalization of drug abusers. to receive treatment and to use amountpersonal of drugs with regard to the law. we have other experiences in colombia and other countries. how should we handle the subject law according to colombian experience and brazilian extremes in many of our countries? withs been expressed regard to institutionalization, with regard to this aspect of

drugs in general. extent can we carry out toebate that will lead us conclusions so that it does not end up with organized crime? see that we need to the situation with regard to treatment of drug abusers as a forth issue, not traffickers, but those who abuse or consume the drugs -- this has to do with all the aspects, the legal aspects from planting to harvesting to production and sales. total legalization of drugs aspect from planting and harvesting to abuse or consumption. we need to look at treatment,

criminal treatment of the traffickers and health treatment for those consumers who are addicted to the drugs. it is essential. you can have two types of treatment. consumers who depend on drugs, who are addicts of the drugs, and those who make their money that way -- those who use drugs but are not addicted will have certain administrative consequences or should we leave it as if nothing happened? the person who is not addicted which could exist because there are many different relations with drugs. which of these drugs will we legalize? marijuana, for example. if we legalize marijuana, then the consumer who is not addicted to the drug or dependent on the drug -- what are the treatments will we provide? will we allow them to use the

drugs freely or handle administrative issues like treatment and public services? these are administrative punishments, a type of punishment. does -- who's not addicted to drugs but because of a licitrries out activities like robbery and burglary and whatnot -- the fact that the person uses drugs is an aspect that makes the crimes more serious or not. we have to ask if that combination should be considered as making it a worse crime. we have two possible paths. either we should have a voluntary intervention, a person shows their will power or will or a non-sted

voluntary intervention which is mandatory. if we could bring someone in in a mandatory way, who would be able to do this? would it be the faculty or the authorities? who can decide? doctort be a judge or a if this should be accepted? if is -- if it is a physician, this person could believe it -- that the responsibility of this position it could decision -- be prosecuted as well. this would not work. it has consequences, legal consequences. so now, if the dependent or thect commits a crime

factor of this person being an addict to drugs, would that be the same as the person who is not an addict? it considered a worsening of the crime if the person has proven a have a will to change? addict,on who is not an it would be an aggravating factor. for the non-addict, consuming the drug alone is not a factor that makes the crime more serious. how can we solve this problem? i believe what has been mentioned with the work of the oas and my friend oscar working andsome time in colombia the minister and secretary -- we

need to find solutions to problems that are consequences of this aspect. we need to make a decision and see what the results of these decisions are. andlize when and how much what does this mean as far as personal use or not. if it's personal use, what is personal use? is this according to the judge or absolute security? is this a decision of the judge or security? if it is the judge's decision, there has to be a public defender to make sure this person has his rights defended. what is this as far as decriminalizing? we can have tough treatment or a lighter treatment. how do we do this? how do we decide? i believe that the decision on a is already clear but

how can we make the micro decisions? to make a easy uniformity on a macro level but when you come to the micro decisions, it is much more difficult. in brazil, for example, it was very important to carry out investigations of criminal tods infiltrating people place a police officer and the criminal gang. -- in the criminal gang. what are the crimes this officer can commit? if you put an officer in the middle of a criminal group, what crimes do they have to commit? if they have no right to commit crimes, he will be killed by this criminal group. it becomes very complicated than. another interesting

problem which i think is very interesting. if we say that drugs are transnational, we will agree with that. country,n is in one manufacturing in another, consumption and another but in latin america, if we look at different treatments -- how to deal with these different points in the development of the drug -- one country, let's say, legalizes four kinds in anothertwo - what will happen with this? we will have issues not only with sexual tourism but drug tourism. what are the problems that will arise out of the different handling of these issues? legalized drugs will be a commodity and what will happen there?

will be a commodity. look at brazil. brazil has atax among the states for merchandise. handle drugs moving throughout the country? how will we tax this? we have to put this on the table to discuss this clearly among politicians are they consisting was between the subjects. having a begin without total design of the whole matter. problem itself, defining the problem is part of the solution. brazil thatear in the poorest neighborhoods in brazil was the work of the miers because they had no other work. - miners and the drug traffickers that controlled financed therhoods

handling appeared all and treatment for the drugs. we had something that was called gato net - in other words, it tv like a net linking direct and drug traffickers distributed this throughout. this is a group of problems that needs to be faced and discussing the macro aspect is known so we need to go on in more detail about the micro aspects. thank you. we will be closing with jorge castaneda. hoping that mexico does

not become like colombia and vice versa. ande is 60,000 people dead if we look at the policy of administration and what is happening there with the war on drugs, problemsve had similar and we have lost several generations in the process. after theyou close with so we have heard many similarities? thank you to the oas and the dialogue. all the dilemmas that we have heard are very valid and we upon them, not

necessarily before we start, but we should keep them in mind and we should also reflect on the as well as looking backwards. lived -- experienced living hell during the last six years, not just the political debate -- 7000 dead, 25,000 disappeared, $25 billion in addition to what is being spent before. it is to terri ration of the country's image -- it is a deterioration of the country's image in the world. last year, foreign direct

investment in mexico as a percentage of gdp was the lowest in the last four years. nafta. lower than pre- that has something to do with wants00 dead and nobody to invest in a country in those circumstances. over thatus to get and then we will look into investing. would we have not seen other results? this is something we will have to deal with. there is a current state of in the country. we spend a lot of money but we don't have anything to show for it.

something that has to do with cardenas.governor war and he can not say it was someone else. he'd started it on december 10, 2006. at the request of the governor . --s is open to questions present opinion is it started his policy of war on organized crime by sending the army. years of the calderon wars, it is worse than ever. not according to the critics that according to the new government.

of -- what's the use of having the army for six years involved? the second example is the government takes pride, for good 72 of, of having captured the 129 liters --leaders. great, but the previous government took pride in the same thing so i don't know how they could both have captured all of the bosses. leaders sot have any we could declare the war being won and go home. that would be even better. to finish up -- this is the debate in mexico. there is the high cost of this war with wrecked a clique no

results. trendis also another within mexico and it may not be the same as if you are in the u.s. which is three things happening at the same time. growth of thejor u.s. states that have legalized marijuana for medical use. is very wide from the streets of new jersey and others very general like california. i would rather live in california than new jersey. all people can live wherever they want. the onset of the legalization for recreational use in the case of colorado and washington and

thirdly, a position that i admire and applaud by the obama fightingation of not not to allow it or condone it but not to fight it or resisted. i think this is a very wise and bold position. at from the mexican border on our side, what is the sending our soldiers to burn the fields of marijuana if the marijuana that makes to the u.s. can be purchased at a 7-11? some of the cartels have told me a routey are looking at

from tijuana to denver directly. what is the logic behind that? there is no logic. it is absurd. i would like to finish by paraphrasing someone who i think was going to be a speaker here -- could not attend what can we tell to the last u.s. soldier that dies in sineloa fighting drugs before he does? to be the last one because we will legalize it. who is going to say that? i was talking about secretary kerry speaking about the vietnam war. [applause] thank you very much. i think we have half an hour.

i have a comment from everyone. i think this topic is interesting. everyone here would like to participate and ask questions. it is frightening because we have the two scenarios -- the health problem, the legalization, decriminalization. i think we have made some progress. useful.this roadmap is we have a roadmap where we can talk about this at oas. you sort of have what actions to begin. we have not stopped. andreport was not delivered

it was on somebody's desk. it seems like it is being worked on. this is for the benefit of everyone. together is happening with everything that is happening. it is a roadmap as to what to do. other than that, we still have the issue of organized crime. it is two sides of a policy. what do we do? how can we do this? policys have domestic that starts becoming different from what they do in other - that you let it go and that's what the prosecutor general said -- foreign affairs or foreign drugs has beeng

vindicated. in colombia, for example, progress has been made. we went from receiving assistance to providing assistance in colombia. so we can have some comments from the secretary, if you could? i think there is an important distinction to make from what the former secretary of foreign affairs, mr. castaneda said. a much up to mexico and my visits to mexico and looking at the cartel violence, for example, it is so much greater than this discussion around marijuana. i've looked at over 50 people that were incinerated, killed by inel violence in monterey a casino, it had nothing to do

with marijuana. it was not the war on marijuana. it has nothing to do with drugs whatsoever. it was a crime committed by an organized criminal group of extortion. drugs, talk about war on and we specifically focus in on marijuana, i think we are making a mistake i concentrating far too heavily on that. governments have a duty and responsibility , as general naran noted, to protect the people where they have taken an oath of office to serve and to protect them from all types of crime. i think,on marijuana, does not add to the debate. i don't think this concentrates on marijuana.

this might be links to some of the issues that have been discussed. this is all encompassed in the same group. if things are bad, you cannot talk about it. there was a report [no audio] [inaudible] what were they talking about? there was some insulting questions years ago. i think you have to consider the 100 $50 billion generated by drug traffickers a lot of money. this is business. are like anys

other business. probably, other crimes that are committed in countries are linked to drug traffickers they generate the money to do these things. that is the fact of the matter. human trait is very clear. there are connections. we have opened the discussion. it's very clear that violence is not the answer. i think we should deal with the problem of crime. there are reports coming out on that. -- and i think we that just police and violence and counter action is not the proper response and we have to report on other matters.

this has to be countenanced. there are drugs that are more damaging than marijuana. alcohol is one of them. everywhere i go and i present the report -- the last time was an assembly of religious ministers. they started talking marijuana and then they ended up talking alcohol. a legal drug that has treatment. it is forbidden to sell to young people. there are treatments and all that. saying i am in favor of legalizing marijuana but alcohol was illegal once and that did

not work. to a legalize alcohol does not work. treatments.milar if you want to legalize any drug, [no audio] assume that you have to be very precise with everything. that is not the point. the taboo and begin working on that? consensus is possible. in the audience, we have four officers of the report.

many of them disagreed in the report. even to some extent whether it was necessary to include some chapters or not. him and you robbed find there is common ground because people are afraid. they want solutions. thank you very much. i just wanted to make the comment that all these things are good discussions. progressed and the first person who raised their morning, what time did you smoke your first joined with george soros today? [laughter]

>> we would have to discriminate between the two worlds that have to do with this problem of drugs. the world of the consumer and the effects it has on people and economythe criminal that, in some cases, leads one to see how this world operates and which breaks down the states. in the colombian case, to be clear, in colombia, we have not resolved the problem of drugs itated to abuse of the drugs what we have been able to ago, a is -- two years

had had alombia checkmate with the criminal bands that had funds that were affecting the country seriously. and the firstn consideration is that one and then to fight criminal colombia which is derived from drugs is to use democratic values. if you were to ask me what is the most harm done by drug trafficking and latin america, it it destroyed my credit values and installed mafia values. corruption became a part or is a part of this mafia mentality. which weremations

clearly described for citizens. it is difficult to understand --n we speak of seizing capturing the king pens. truth is, it is evident that experiencef criminal the rule of law. society has a clear view that this crime is not allowed and the first success will be that the life of crime does not pay. in latinher hand, america, we have delay quince -- some of these kingpins, who have been working 25 years and have never been captured and they have been untouchable. if people do not receive the

message that the kingpin who has been working for 25 years is a friend of politicians or as bribed police -- it creates a lack of confidence in democratic values. it creates an imbalance because of the anarchy that exists. in the end, when you compare trust in democratic values vs. criminal economy processes, there will be a direct relationship. flourishingis a criminal economy, it affects the politicians and the people who should be representing the population. the waye points -- things are today, looking toward the future, we will need to have two tactical challenges and one we are not seeing

the strengthening of the prohibition strategies. assembly in, in the vienna, the convention of vienna, there are positions in other areas that indicate that radical prohibition is a result -- a solution for some and this contrast with legalization and these politicians to defends democratic values, it is essential. i got to some nations and i say how can you explain that you don't have crime or drug trafficking or attics? it is easy. in asian countries, they are orn -- they are either shot have a death penalty or life in prison so we must not lose sight of the fact that in these areas, this is the case. the other point we would like to bring forth is that if this debate does not progress for

making decisions for a reasonable solution, the debate will be overcome by the trends of abuse or consumption of drugs. there are designer drugs and others vs. production of natural drugs. the truth is, designer drugs have attracted the consumer and brought to them a type of drug that is not shameful. they don't have to hide to use them. they don't have to hide to inject heroin or sniff cocaine. it is like a little pill. the question we have to ask in a practical sense is -- what authority and what state is going to look into our pockets and purses looking for designer drugs which could show us the truth of natural drugs and anthetic drugs, to set forth

against synthetic drugs. practically speaking, we will begin to have a de facto legalization of designer drugs versus natural drugs. thank you very much. we will turn to adrian and we have time for five questions. fernando, a quick conclusion. >> i think it is essential to information that we need to be clear that at this juncture, we have learned and that we know how to control the

drug problem but not the drug trafficking. we have cleared data in guatemala. we have dismantled seven of the main areas that were a threat and there are others that are more powerful. we need to bring them under control. continuesrafficking as i was saying. to the secretary in london. we know how to dismantle criminal networks but we don't know how to put a stop to the drug trafficking. we have to admit that with transparency. also, admittedly, the first thing that surprised me about the war on drugs is that it was not allowed and the use of a substance, to curtail it, the

only path would be to prohibit it and it did not make sense. if you want a product not to be society, intly in can incarcerate that person. that will increase taxes because of the expenditure for society. i treat it as an injurious substance such as we did to alcohol in the past. regulateid we need to tobacco with alcohol. we had done nothing to decrease alcohol use but we have done that with tobacco. we need more strictly regulations, a better campaign to regulate it. prohibition itself and the idea that it works is a very weird idea.

nobody can demonstrate that it can be done differently. ago, theee weeks legislation passed a law against synthetic drugs because there is a de facto legalization. have now comes into the world of regulation. they are being regulated. >> i have a question sort of related -- with the negotiations of the colombian ever meant in the last 20 years, they show of violent of previous insubordination, armed conflict ofether with the cultivation illegal drugs.

both of these phenomena work together. they have to be included in the conversation. i would like to ask you and the general your opinion about this topic. i would be glad to respond. that is the a topic public discussion that has to do with the general agreement signed last year between the government of colombia. there is a compromise in their to find a solution, a formula for solution of the colombian problem. thaterit of that agreement they came to is the topic will be included in the negotiation and that it is a solution to the drug problem. negotiationot be a

other than looking for a way to to the illegalm crop cultivation of drugs. say to adhereld -- to add here is that maybe this is one of the topics that andther with the land issue the illegal crop issue, the fact that ecuador did not want to concernse hague about strength that gives us an of the possibilities there

could be of some kind of an agreement, maybe a partial agreement, that could be one of reachys in which we could some kind of consensus. for the region, it could be the eric -- it could be very beneficial as well. i think there is another question. >> i have a question. toremove cancer, you have extrapolate it at the root. it is the sacred leaf of all this which has to be education. >> i think that is very important. we have to teach the plant growers that history has misled

these people in those nations. history has been used improperly by the nations involved. i think it should be a very good point for a few folks to educate these folks out there in order to eradicate the problem. think technology is very important. technology right now with the use of law enforcement, the corruption that is happening now -- i just came back from hannah montana columbia -- i just came a --from and called on the panama and columbia and they have some issues. >> i think our debate has gone very well with regard to the subject. i believe we have modified. in the beginning the u.s. was very radical in this view of the

sacred leaf and this idea has been modified over time. bolivia had not done anything with regard to chewing coca leaves. this is accepted by most people in peru which is the other possibility. it is produced naturally and this request has ever been made. >> there is a mystification. >> thank you very much. as a representative before the

to remainuld not like silent. i would like to explain our experience which is still being debated in parliament and we be added details will that are suggested by minister jobim but this is a dialogue involving and enter american concern and worldwide concern. i would like to join in the thoughts presented by fernando uruguay is notat trying to express a new regulation. it is a change in the current regulation of drugs. regulatedn currently arehe penal code and we discussing whether this distorts the problem.

another thing i would like to mention to the participants -- i have heard many times about the criminal economy. i carefully listened to what castaneda said. i have been listening to him for some time now and i would like to establish this idea. there are no criminal economies that live in the air. they are economies, criminal economies, that operate based on the connection with formal and i would like to show a key example. corruption -- the phenomenon about drugs and drug trafficking -- i would like to give an example to join in on the expression. when the drug traffickers come out, they don't need to go back through the tunnel. they will have the opportunity in a totallyeapons

which also market would have to be included in the analysis of violence in our continent. [applause] >> before we close the session, there was a question from ivanco . thank you. i am from the human rights watch. questionike to ask the of the drug czar,. . government should and as taking multiple measures acting as a disincentive to drug use that are injurious to health. absurd tot seems

incarcerate people for using drugs and i'm not just talking about cannabis. if they are trying to improve their own health print i would like to ask -- how can you logically, to criminalize and incarcerate apprehended when they are in possession of drugs for their own use and not just speaking about cannabis. for a behavior of that kind, but government is seeking to protect their health. >> the point of the united

states on this issue -- very few people are in our prison or jail system for merely possessing drugs for their own use. as some discussed here, there are drug traffickers and i think that was the point made by the minister. we cannot tolerate the trafficking and organized crime involved with drugs. there are other people that have committed other types of crimes but they also have a drug problem and for those people who have that addiction, we are working very hard to see that they have treatment programs whether it is part of the criminal justice system or to move them out. >> would you like to close? >> this conversation reminded me of nitsche. the problem with truce -- with

truth are not lies but convictions. >> quickly, i have three comments. there are criminal organizations and mexico that are no longer or mostly tosively drug traffic. the question we should ask yourself in mexico and central america as well -- are we better off if they continue to traffic drugs or if they deal with extortion or murder? we are happier if they legalize it in the u.s. does not have a comparative advantage is a country to deal with kidnapping or extortion.

why mexico reason should have more extortion -- people engaged in extortion than any other country. we do have a comparative advantage for two illicit activities. nobody else in the world, colombia's one of them slightly once they bring drugs to the u.s. through the border it is illegal. have atwo, we can also business of bringing people into the u.s. and that is also illegal. those two,galize organized crime in mexico will be like any other country because we don't have a comparative advantage for all the other illicit activities.

a comment about federal prisons in mexico which are the majority and on which we have solid data. 80% of the inmates in federal crimesare therefore against health. 60% for marijuana. [applause] thank you. here and you for being your comments. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> today on c-span, your calls and e-mails on " washington journal," followed by " newsmakers." foreign affairs committee about military strikes on syria. in just a moment, we will be taking your calls and looking at today's headlines followed i the former u.s. ambassador to syria. he talks about his experiences with the assad regime and his view of what military intervention will not help the country. then a roundtable discussion with jay solomon.

they will talk about potential military action in syria and its impact on the obama administration, its allies, and the middle east. " washington journal" is next. >> i know the american people are wary after a decade of war. even after the war in iraq has ended and the war in afghanistan is winding down. that is why we are not putting our troops in the middle somebody else's war. but we are the united states of america. we cannot turn a blind eye to the images like we have seen out of syria. host: good morning, the president's comments in his weekly address, particle -- part .f an intensive media campaign at the white house tries to build congressional support for mili