have the resources. the challenges are banking. we have one credit union in the state that is willing to provide merchant services. i am actually working on a deal where retailers and maybe other sectors of the market would join an association. would, yet to be named, service the association rather than individual businesses. huge.e bank issue is i'd rather answer questions about what is going on with washington then talk at you. we are moving in the right direction. bumps in the road. in terms of medical, we will be a few medical retail, but it will be general use.

i am concerned about truly medically needy individuals who need a lot and might not be served by the market. i want to make sure we provide for the truly medically needy who consume a lot. they probably ingest. you need a lot of material. that is my major concern. and then locals. one big difference between colorado and washington is we do not have arguably a local opt out. has saidney general locals can opt out come of it that will be litigated. i'm in favor of revenue serine -- sharing. ideologically opposed so much as they want a cut. revenueto provide local to make it a statewide market. it is a pleasure to be here. thank you. [applause]

>> thanks, roger. electedl to have officials here. we will shift and talk about colorado. i want to remind folks, we will have an open q&a. then we will have questions from the audience is. if you have earning questions, please hang onto them. i will have ugly it speak. -- elliot speak. he is the ceo and cofounder of a prominent medical marijuana and adult use dispensary. they have a reputation for being top of the class. incomes from a background oil and gas as well as agriculture. with that, i will turn it to him. and him a round of applause. -- give him a round of applause. [applause]

>> thank you for the glowing review. challenges toand me seem to overlap in this industry. the things that have made us successful in colorado are also the biggest challenges going forward. it.prior panelists covered the cliché is all politics are local. in this industry, we are the political face of the commercial side of the movement as well as, for the patients and people who have helped create this opportunity. here in colorado, we have seen regular change from both legislative and revelatory sides. every three months, once things the first law passed

for the constitutional change. which open the door for the opportunity. we existed as a caregiver model. it was all still kind of four line underground. -- borderline underground. in 2008 elections happened, you saw a lot more people become openly advertising they are running a commercial style caregiver business. that triggered the city of denver to make the first move to push us into a regulated retail outlet and production model. the buildingime, departments did not know what to do. these have existed outside of traditional building codes and requirements. that level overexposure to the regulatory bodies for the marijuana industry is what is defining the go forward path.

we are regulatory management companies in colorado. we produce a product and sell it. we have to manage and provide data to the regulatory bodies to give comfort to the federal government that we are couple sharing the eight old points on their memo. points on their memo. the politics are local. regulatory agencies are the ones answering to the federal government saying we are doing our best to prevent child consumption. that is where the biggest foot dragging will come from. the bureaucracies will not want to readily assume the burden for playing interference with the federal government. say, butig request to these guys produce a schedule

the middle ofin what the federal government considers active prohibition. know who youru to local entities are so you can have comfort with them that your investments and opportunities are going to be stable. you are making good business decisions. have learnedo, we once the rules get rolling, plan 43-6 month ago mental changes. 3-6 month changes. caught sudden you can be buying something that is not available. my answer to the challenge of what could derail this, if we

don't develop good business to government relations, we will slow ourselves down. there is probably no going back, but it is our turn to show we can run a business and work with the government. the government is already there. you are trying to become a business. you need their permission to do so. theare going to have to -- activism is important, but the business relationship is where we are making the changes. have alwaysouse sought to have a strong relationship with our city. that's the person that inspects you. that tells you yes or no. you can be upset that there is a regulatory body we can figure out how to beat participatory. participatory.

the rules change any taxes are high, but here we are doing it. it is going to change. be prepared for change continuously. [applause] >> think so much, elliott. much, elliott. his brief background, he is a harvard law graduate. he was the chief of staff for the lieutenant governor of colorado. theit is the -- is first-ever director for marijuana coronation for the state. let me talk about -- i will let him talk about challenges and

successes from his vantage point. give a hand to andrew. [applause] >> thank you. it is a pleasure to be here. i want to thank everyone. they are big thought leaders in colorado, not only for the amendment, but for the people you see -- to see around corners. they are seeing the challenges they will have in the future. it is that kind of thought process and partners that make me want to come here today. my hope is we are will be -- is that we will be cultivating that spirit. i'm the governor posture of marijuana ordination. -- co ordination. which is a title my law school friends are jealous of. with theas less to do

debate over marijuana legalization and more to do with , we can have the debate is much as we want. i tend to not injure into that debate. the other thing we have to do is implement the system -- a system no one has incremented without federal oversight. we are in a new territory which requires a lot of government work. i consider my role to be a good government role. it has little to do with marijuana and more to do with the kind of business relationships and forward thinking relationships that can get us to a place where we have equitable and fair regulatory systems that protect our youth. protect public safety and public health. these are the kinds of conversations we will have to have. what will not straddle the industry but work here. it is going to be an ongoing conversation because we have never done this before. not done thiswe for marijuana but we have never

regulated and industry just on the state level without also being a federal conversation. what have we done well? i would say the amendment 64 tax ta to put together hundreds of people working onsk force all the places that needed to be regular. business interest mixed with people who are marijuana proponents. and opponents. also legal, public safety people, public health people. saying, what do we need to do? of packages kind that says, here you go, here are the bare-bones. we were ablefor -- to go on january 1. i think that is the biggest miracle so far. the skeleton of that thing and what allowed for a lot of people to calm down, including the federal government, is we had in inventory tracking system that

was ready to go on day one to read -- day one. single cloneevery all the way to maturity into the point-of-sale -- and to the sale.ioof becomes soation important. that was a skeleton. the department of revenue work on that is the home run hit we have had so far. everything we do on the regulatory basis is built off that model. the other thing that i would say we continue to do, will we monitor anecdotes and data, we are hypervigilant at trying to get on top of things.

we don't want things to escalate out of control and have to come back to them. we do it in a way that we are reaching out to industry. health.d people, public we are doing a good job of not being overly reactionary. coming up with smart solutions. the edible task force is a good way of showing it. we see anecdotes and things going wrong. we are hearing a lot about out-of-state users overindulging. everybody is working together. how are we doing? the sky has not fallen. that is the most we will ever be able to say at this point. i caution both sites. i get a lot of, this is the worst thing that is ever happened. there is no data to to support that.

another 5-10 years to work out the exact impact with public health and education. with that being said, we have not seen an increase in crime or usage. the world has not ended. data we want to get ahold of. moving atng that and a speed unseen before. we have brought in about $80 million -- $18 million in revenue through april. ththe ballpark of where we ought we would be. there have been thousands of jobs created. we are working on taking initial data. i'm going to end with, because i want us to get to questions, we

are working on edible's. there has been a task force put together with representatives from industry and public health. the concerned citizens. is, how do weise try to prevent accidental ingestion by young people. the second is, how do we make it taking in my knee consumer without any sort of cultural or public education about it. how do we make it intuitive when they are having one serving? so they should know how much they are eating, anybody -- absent anybody telling how much they said split it? his emergencyee rulemaking that says, a serving therehould line up -- should be a demarcation or stamp or physical product separation.

on baking, we are concerned. i am jealous of washington having a credit union. that is not something we have had yet in colorado. i think we have been working with washington state and the goernor on trying to together to find a federal solution. every other solution will be on shaky territory. that is what bankers are saying. we will do what we can. we passed a bill last session that allows for the formation of basically a credit union style co-op that can go straight to the federal reserve and ask for access without having to get insurance, which is a roadblock. credit unions for to create marijuana only credit unions. any solution is a good union to us -- solution to us. are workinging we hard on is use prevention.

months, i hope we will come out with our youth prevention campaign. it will not be about the legalization debate. it will be about teenage use. we will be working closely with the industry. i think everyone can understand one of the things that would really stop legalization in its tracks is if we see a dramatic increase in youth use. that is not to say that is where we see the data is going, but it's up to us to make sure it stays out of the hands of people under 21. this is an incredibly fascinating field day today. thank you for having me here. [applause] >> think so much, andrew. e governor to see th takes a thoughtful and collaborative approach.

we did not see eye to eye. he campaigned against us. now that the voters endorsed it, it is nice to see we can have a conversation. two quick one or questions. we have many good questions from the audience. i want to hit on what we talked about in the beginning. i will ask each speaker to briefly address this. is there an exit stencil threat to legalization? is there a policy issue you are seeing related to this? how can we grapple with it? let's maybe jump -- andrew, are you prepared? >> can you talk about what you mean by the existential threat. >> the fact that it has only been legal for 18 months. chance that marijuana, the pendulum will swing back and legalization will be overturned? if so, what is the issue that would make that happen?

is it edibles, labeling, banking? business to government relations not being good enough? job, myecond i got this book,iend picked up the smoke signals. it a history of the legalization effort. i will always say yes. there is a complete chance that a year from now, everybody says that was nice but that is done. that is a politics question. i don't have a good read on where the politics will go nationally. i would say, the shaking as we we have iskiness tied up in banking. as the last bastion. that is where i see the most the

various influences coming in. -- nefarious influences coming in. if we can do this as far as -- that is great. if it becomes a big money laundering operation, i think there is a whole separate ground for sharing this thing down. do you have any thoughts? >> the machine that is prohibition did not just go away. there are people that make money off this. industries that rely on this. there are areas of the country where the law enforcement really sees marijuana as a tool to get away with a lot. there are a lot of people invested in the status quo. the pendulum is clearly swinging

in the direction of legalization, but if you don't think those people on the other side are going to try, no matter what happens, spin it as failure, you are wrong. they will spin it as failure. what can we do to help them? we can be lexa days ago about our mix -- lacksadasical about arm exiting -- our messaging. irr responsible -- esponsible. the baking is a challenge. a lot of people are working in an all cash environment. for those who were here for the keynote, the words that were written by steve d angelo about industry needing

to have a soul and social conscience, that is because it is the right thing to do. but also because the downside risk in this industry is not just losing your investment money. it is federal prison. [laughter] clients,er i said with i am obligated to say, what you are doing is an unambiguous violation of federal law. we smile and move on. but i would not be a competent lawyer if i did not warn them every time. swung sharply from the 1970's to the 1980's. there's a major distinction today. since the 1980's, 30 years, the grassroots have taken hold. the people have been heard. constitutional,

in colorado, framework has been established. it was not just cultural and personal references. we have established an infrastructure that is going to be very difficult to dismantle. it is also based on rationality, which is not necessarily what drives politics. i do not think we are going back. we will have bumps in the road for economic reasons. reasons of public safety. reduced alcohol consumption, duis. teens reporting it is harder to get. teen use down, from what i understand in colorado. we will have some incidences. the rapid response on the edible issue is a good example of addressing an issue. it if the industry is not responsible, you will so your sow your own

demise. i have been encouraging cannabis to distinguish themselves from tobacco and alcohol and not market to children. [indiscernible] safety ishealth and our job as an industry to prove we can do it before the regime

and we get into the next wave of legislative battles. i have a bunch of excellent questions. i would add my two cents on the existential issue. the edible issue is a tough one. as someone who wrote the legalization measure and codirected the campaign, we did not see be edible is she -- industry leading to the high-profile incidents. people eating a cookie this big and has 10 doses and they do not realize it. really bringing a thoughtful dialogue that perhaps airs on the side of overregulation, if we want to have a long-term

sustainable industry, we have to look at how this looks right now. in terms of how to keep your business option name, -- functioning, the guidance on this industry from the federal government laid out eight things. always taking the time to look back at that. we did have an audience member share their thoughts on whether there is an x essential thought -- whether there is an existential thought. the individual says, i am concerned about these cannabis businesses going public. a lot of them have had stock trade orders by the sec. you seem to be scams that are fleecing investors -- there seem to be scams that are fleecing investors. tomorrow, there is a panel on the sort of going public. how public company can operate.

the check that out tomorrow. check that out tomorrow. will have toes legalize cannabis in some form for the federal government to start to act? basically, what is your prediction on how soon we see action on the federal level? we will start with andrew. >> i have no great insight into this. pass, except last name.ked for my freedman. >> i think there is going to be serious discussion about it in 2016. 016 is the lip -- the world convenes and discusses her national treaties.

-- international treaty. the federal government can't just say, yeah, washington and colorado are behind you. it is a validation of treaty. it has to be handled on an international level. you are going to see become position start their and hopefully will make some progress. my prediction is, it doesn't matter how me states. it is about the treaty. >> i will stick with my seat of the pants prediction that five years from now the federal law of prohibition will come down. i can't believe it is possible. but look at where we are now. there is no movement in congress, so it will be up to the executive. the executive does have the power to reschedule and introduce enough policy

initiatives so the controlled substances act becomes meaningless. >> it is anybody's guess. i wouldn't want to say the power is where you want to follow. the people with the votes, they are the people that will make the shift. my vote is new york and florida will make it happen. i i would note, too -- apologize if i don't get to your question. onre is a panel tomorrow which states are primed to legalize or move forward with medical marijuana. two-minute -- do not miss that panel. a couple of washington specific questions. changes do you hope to see in the 2015 washington legislative session? >> i actually killed a bill at

the end of the last session which was not going to serve patients well. which is premature. amending both initiatives in the next session. the medical marijuana initiative, which was enacted in 1998, and initiative 502. aligning them so patients will be able to -- they will probably have a state card that will allow them to purchase significantly more than a general adult use consumer. retail outlets will need special training if they are going to be providing to medical. just trying to think of some of the others -- trying to accommodate those who are medically needy.

as far as the general use market, there are little tweaks as far as giving liquor control board. but in general, the system isn't laced. we are watching it roll out. but in general, the system is in place. we will watch it roll out. >> we will need to address washington taxation. there will be 2-3 stores open on july 1. the liquor control board wants that. they want to show progress. the prices you will see, you people in colorado are going to chuckle and say, my god i am glad i'm in colorado. the prices in washington are insane. we will have to come back. our taxation is too aggressive. being written more by academics made assumptions about how easy it would be to make.

it would just be pennies a gram to produce which is not the case. to go ining to have and deal with distance relationships. the relationships in the dayiative have to do with care, child care centers. in the federal government, the u.s. attorneys came out and said, when the liquor control kids don't fly. feet. -- a thousand thousand feet. it is governed by a property law. it references title 21. that doesn't mention anything about day care, child care centers. i want to change the distance

relations. we need some sort of regulation for medical. andigure out how medical recreational are going to survive together in the near term until we can get this notion of legalization up. the adult use, general adult use market, needs to first be able to supply the general adult use market before it can be assumed it would be able to serve patients. >> i want to comment on the distances. 1000 feet. the state requires that liquor establishments be 500 feet from a school. politically, that is tough. in a legislature to say we want shops to -- pot

be closer. >> i have high hopes. >> we will work on it. >> thanks roger and john. a couple of colorado questions. this is a point of clarification. you said that through april, the state has brought in about $18 million in taxes. does that include medical marijuana? is that your adult use? licensing fees? >> that is just from proposition taxes. excise taxes and sales taxes. >> this is for only it -- e lliot. what are the pros and cons of integrating legal marijuana with adult use facilities. >> for us, the pros are being able to serve a wider customer base. the restrictions of the medical market also give you advantages.

there are a lot of tumors who don't want to go through the process. are it costs more. you are paying for essentially two licenses at both state and city level, which push your acensing any range of 20 k store, 40 k a store. it is not cheap. every year. thank you. a question concerning hemp. what is the status of industrial hemp in colorado? i can speak to colorado. is the forgotten issue of the legalization measure. we legalized hemp simultaneously. was one of those things where, hemp became very mainstream overnight. everybody was like, what is the

big deal with hemp? the state department of agriculture has thrown themselves into regulating it. there are people growing acres of hemp right now. it is phenomenal. that brings up a possible business opportunities. here we are at the event. hemp is a pretty viable crop for all sorts of things. with the new laws passing, which are fascinating, like cbd only laws in florida. growere an opportunity to low thc hemp? hemp?ow thc could beve that crop.via a hemp can you speak about hemp in washington? there was a bill introduced

that made it to the house but not the senate to create a hemp market. is legal but a new regulated -- unregulated. the republicans in particular are very excited about the hemp market. they represent the eastern part of washington state which is more economically hard-hit. it was a republican bill. it is interesting to see, years ago republicans tended to be against this. tremendouse economic opportunities in their communities. we were going to vote on a bill, but there was a weather problem and republicans could not make it. i thought it was interesting that we had to put on hold the billon a marijuana vote -- two-week for republicans to get to the legislature.

we will get him done. >> -- hemp done. follow-up, speaking about the cbd specific marijuana bills. being passed in various states. there is some thought these could be a box canyon. as a place like florida passes the bill, they have done enough and will not do more. they have helped the sickest of the sick. could you give your thoughts on those bills? >> is exactly that. you are seeing these used as reviewed --you when you read the polls, medical marijuana poll

slightly destined people that have a favorable impression of thanlls slightly higher apple pie. that is a fact. the republicans and democrats are seeing this. even those people that are invested heavily in the status quo, as many politicians are, they have been propping this up for 30 years. they have financial backers. people that like the status quo. they are using the cbe only only thing to say, you don't need medical marijuana. we have cbd. marijuana in itself is not just cbd. it is not just thc. lots of research has to be done

on it. bills are ways to prevent the inevitable, which is medical marijuana. >> the short version is we are trying to freebie plant, -- free plant, not one tiny fraction. if we allow cbd only, we are talking about big pharma and molecular grade science versus legalizing a plant. theuestion concerning backdoor threats to legalization. by that i mean, we see things like water. the water reclamation board not haveing marijuana grow to

water because the water is being held in federal facilities. or threats against power companies. i have a number of clients in the columbia river basin were freaking out about the bureau of reclamation's position that water cannot be used for -- to grow a federally prohibited product. the bureau of reclamation -- this is one example -- is not an enforcement body. they can say all they want that they will take your water right away. is the u.s. justice department that initiates those actions. there is a match going on within the federal government between bureaucrats who don't like this and i am not concerned about the bureau of reclamation threatening to limit water or to take water rates way. -- rights away.

it would be up to the justice department, and they have given us guidance that they will let it go ahead. i'm sure the other backdoor i am trying to think of other backdoor threats. >> there is speaking and taxes -- banking and taxes. >> we have indian nations in colorado. akima tribe has filed suit to prevent cannabis businesses on its trust lands, which includes a third of washington state. it will not be successful. writing and crying -- griping and crying. our attorneyknow general and governor will go straight to the federal government.

they might be backdoor threats, but i do not see them bringing down the system. the real cutting edge of the war right now -- if you ask sam patrick kennedy's group what they are working on -- banks. . they have their heels dug into that. they don't want to give on banks. once we have banks, we have legitimacy. that is one of a lot of their strategy is. yhere have been man statements made to that effect. >> the final question i would like all the speakers to speak on -- if you look at the talking points of the opposition to marijuana reform, is interesting to see of a shift. for a long time, this is your brain on drugs.

now the talking point is, this is big marijuana. just like big tobacco. they are trying to hike up the thc rates to get your kids addicted. they are marketing this incoming bears and trying to destroy the fabric of american society. is,uestion for the panel how do we as an industry avoid of a net calling this big marijuana? withith elliott -- start eliott. >> some of the legislation has driven it to be bigger money. i don't know about the big per se. as in the push for, vigils, normalization. we are people who choose cannabis over wine or maybe with wine. we are choosing something.

it is adult choice, adult use. medical is one aspect of that. tois about freedom of choice use a plant as part of your lifestyle. that normalization is what is going to push back. and do you can show up your job and still consume cannabis is going to help much fear.p this we are not bad people. we just like cannabis. >> that should be on your gravestone. [laughter] >> i think messaging is really important. citing evidence. i am assuming that there -- beer consumption will go down. that kids find it harder to get and use it less. that people have access to medical treatment they did not have access to before. thisting that good news -- is what i am doing.

i am running for reelection. people are telling him he, what about this legalization? i say, so far is working out and we are bringing in revenue. reporting that good news hopes to dampen concern. jen i was with amy carter -- the invited washington state and colorado folks. they were taking us to task for take -- destroying america's children. i kept saying, this is about regulating a market. it don't you want to regulate the market? they got uncomfortable. they knew it was a rational argument. another thing is to put the burden on you as industry members. not to market to children. to message properly. to be big marijuana. in washington state, we have

legislated not to allow for big marijuana. we do not have vertical integration. you can only have a certain number of licenses and grow certain amount. that is the legacy of the liquor control system from 1933. a three tier system. where we encourage small businesses rather than large businesses. >> big marijuana. coming to get your children. let's talk about big prohibition. when we got into this preparationss alongside with heroin were available without prescription at pharmacies without age restrictions whatsoever. smoked cannabis was almost unheard of. citing homicidal maniac, marijuana was made illegal.

prohibition begun. in that time, from when cannabis was almost unheard of and widely available, we have grown to a society in which we are a little population% of the and use 25% of the supply. sow was prohibition doing -- i prohibition doing? in countries like holland, where adults can get a regulated supply, their youth rates are less. portugal as well. when they decriminalized drugs, the usage rates for children went down. that is in itself a good thing. let's look at what else went down. youth use of other drugs went down. youth availability of other

drugs went down a lot. addiction rates, overdose rates, you name it. they went down. we regulated. business is regulation. you want to talk about big marijuana? let's talk about big prohibition and what has not worked. to put are going to do some regulation in. we are actually going to decrease youth use. thank you. [applause] >> >> we have a very nice woman in the back who has been waiting a stop sign. i am going to be quick here. our goal on this one is youth prevention, which we measure by healthy kids colorado. in the last 30 days, we have public safety which we are going hospitals,by

accidents. people losing their jobs from alcohol, tobacco, marijuana substance abuse. those are the things we are going to measure. we don't have to call it anything. we just have to have statistics. >> let's give a round of supplies to a fantastic panel. [applause] great way to start the conference. thanks so much. >> take a look at your agenda. we have a half-hour break and then we are moving into track sessions. tracks two through four are on the other side of the hall. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> on our facebook page, we're asking if you think marijuana state.be legal in your now our interview with gina carbone of smart colorado, the keep marijuanao out of the hands of kids. this is 30 minutes. a we have heam reporter and from an industry group. perspective,er gina carbone what the group smart colorado joining us from denver. welcome to c-span. much.: hi, thank you very

host: could you tell our audience about your group, how it was formed, what is your purpose, in particular in the topic of her relational marijuana? smart colorado was formed after the passage of amendment 64 which legalized marijuana in colorado. main concern really is how the legalization of marijuana is going to affect our youth hearing colorado. we have -- here in colorado. we have an awful lot of people in the state who are just at to make money in this is this and make this industry as big as possible. but we feel that there has not been due consideration to what this is going to do to our communities and particularly our kids. so that is really our purpose. we have been working at the state level, the local level on legislation to tighten restrictions and to really try and prevent the unintended consequences that would adversely affect our youth.

whatat an -- host: intended consequences, such as what? guest: primarily more youth use. the concern is, even before legalization happen here, we had a robust medical marijuana industry. denver's youth use in particular is much higher than the rest of the country. for example, eighth-graders in denver, almost 20% in the last healthy kids survey that was done, almost 20% of our eighth-graders are using marijuana and that compares to the national average which is about 6.5%. so across all of the age spectrum's, denver's youth use where we have had a lot of commercialization with first medical marijuana and a recreational marijuana, we are going to see those numbers change, too. but we are concerned already

that so many of denver kids are using marijuana. previousa carbone, our guests said that the new rules put in place, first and foremost, you have to be 21 to buy. there are other restrictions and rules put into place. wouldn't that cover concerns you might have? guest: again, you have to look at the medical marijuana industry and how long that has been going. we have seen a big spike in youth use since 2009. infractions at school, expulsions, suspensions, that type of thing. when you look at these actual surveys and you look at the areas where there is a terminus amount of commercialization like enver, -- like denver. have 343 hot shops in denver alone. the state has chosen only to have 21 shops.

the sheer fact that we have so many stores that are selling it, it is very accessible. and medical marijuana is available to 18-year-olds. so that is really the avenue of how it is getting into the hands of our adolescence. we have recent stories since the legalization of fourth graders selling it on the playground. --have had a huge increase in fact, there really haven't -- several years ago, when you look that adolescents getting a hold of marijuana. now at children's hospital, it is a huge concern because kids are being admitted for accidental ingestion. it is mainly the edibles that they are finding. we are also seeing adults being admitted. about,ity hospital talks recently, dr. zane who is the

head of the emergency room, there are 20 of adults who are checking themselves in because -- there are plenty of adults who are checking themselves and because these drugs are very potent and very easy to access because we have so many stores in denver in particular. host: michael elliott talked about the governor, working along with others, are working on finalization of some roles regarding thc and other products found in animals. are you part of that -- in edibles. are you a part of the process? guest: yes. what we have in our stores are bite-size pieces. if you can imagine a small rhesus piece -- a small reece's piece. they don'ters come, know that they are supposed to cut that into 10 individual pieces. edibles don't start to work for

an hour or sometimes two hours after you adjust it. so the real problem is that the stuff is far too potent in individual servings. we have had these tragic deaths due to edibles. a student from the congo who was ate oneng came over he cookie and started hallucinated and jumped over a balcony. the only thing he had in his system was marijuana from the one cookie. there was a man who ate and edible and ended up shooting his wife. she was on 911 saying that he hallucinating because he ate and edible. so the state is turned to do something about it. how many more deaths do we have to have before things really change in colorado? because right now, there is really no restriction on --

go-ahead. host: what would you like to see? would you like lower content, better packaging, more disclosure? guest: the idea is that it is going to be 10 milligrams for each individual serving. so shrinking down the amount of thc in an individual serving will help tremendously. smart colorado is also pushing that each individual serving could be packaged individually. i think people, especially if they have to open another package, they realize, oh, i am having a second serving of marijuana if they choose to do so. but right now, you can get a pack of gummy bears. you put 10 of them in their. if it is not a marijuana product, most people who see a small packet of 10 gummy bears assume you eat all 10 gummy bears. that's why we think extra cautions need to be taken, that

each individual piece would be wrapped and that might help consumers, guide consumers, that they should not ingest too much. we really need to do everything we can. people not the marijuana of my generation or older saw decades ago. this is very strong marijuana. everything from the actual buds that people are smoking to now we have all of these concentrates that can be put in the e-cigarettes. baking is very popular here -- vaping is very popular here. i think 40% of the medical marijuana market is in the edible market. it is far more potent. people need to be educated about this and primarily our youth. i will get back to our youth because that is our organization's primary concern. our youth use is very high. and now we are starting to see these studies saying how

damaging marijuana is to a developing brain. that is really the concern. have 14, 15, 16-year-olds using this because they think it is medicine, it will help them concentrate, it will help them with depression and anxiety, these are some of the reasons that high schoolers are telling us why they are using marijuana, but it is very confusing for our kids and we have not done an adequate job informing them of the facts and how this is a very harmful product for adolescents, for the developing brain. and people -- and kids really need to stay away from marijuana. that is our main message. host: gina carbone talking about recreational marijuana here to answer your questions. the phone lines are divided by region and you will see them on the screen.

if you live in colorado and you want to give your perspective, here is a line for you. the first call is from felicia. say from aanted to 15 years ago, well, my auntie was dying from cancer and marijuana was a demon drug. 15 years later, she is a strong survivor of cancer. marijuana is maybe for the use. -- people get sick off of candy. have overdosed on meth and pharmaceutical drugs in your country -- in your

county? and i want to say people are so busy taxing marijuana. how about the war on drugs and how it has devastated the african american community? host: gina carbone, do you take anything from that? guest: i guess i would just like to say, too, i would like to discriminate -- distinguish between criminalization, legalization and commercialization. commercialization is where we see the stars in the advertising and the tactics we have seen from big tobacco throughout the years that are really influencing our young people. and making marijuana seem extremely mainstream in our communities. for people that have cancer, certainly,y, if -- if their doctor is prescribing a

certain strain of marijuana and it makes them feel better, you know, that is not my business. again, we are really concerned with the commercialization of marijuana and how it is affecting our communities and our kids in colorado. that is really what we are seeing. host: carl from crownsville, maryland. caller: good morning. i keep hearing that there has never been a study, there has never been a study. president nixon authorized a two-year in-depth study to find out the detrimental effects of marijuana. when he found that there were no detrimental effects, he classified the study. i would suggest that these two people have deep-seated psychological problems prior to the ingestion of marijuana. actually, to your latter point, i don't know exactly about that study that nixon did. that is interesting.

but the latter point, i am here in colorado and from everything that i understand it talking to the families and friends, these two individuals actually did not have psychological problems prior to this. really, really, really tragic, tragic accidents. host: so is it in both cases they simply ate too much of the product? is what -- yes, what the investigation and the toxicology report is pointing out. i know for a fact that the 19-year-old did not have anything in his system aside from the marijuana. of marijuana is a lot of marijuana for someone that has never ingested it. guest: jeremy from catskill new york. good morning. caller: good morning. this is already in line with the

last question. the federal government holds a on -- what is it, patent 663057, which is a cure cureuana and cbd as a for various diseases. and the second part to my , here in new york, we just had the medical marijuana bill passed. one of the things on the news was cuomo had actually suggested from confiscated marijuana arrests as a source for the medicine that they would provide for the patients, which is obviously in my opinion absurd confiscated,d take unregulated medicine and then hand that out to cancer patients. so if you have any comment about

that. host: we will finish it there and let our guests respond. guest: yeah, i would agree. really, for those few people that are really using medical marijuana for medical purposes, i mean, sure, it needs to be monitored more carefully. it needs to be administered like a regular pharmacy. we don't have that going on in colorado. there are a lot of abuses in colorado. are seeing a huge spike -- even though we have recreational marijuana here in largedo, we are seeing a increase in people getting red cards which allows people to get medical marijuana, print to gillooly the 18 to 20-year-olds -- particularly the 18 to 20-year-olds. they are finding a way to get marijuana via our medical marijuana system. tose kinds of abuses do have

stop because the cancer patients or hiv patients, the very few patients that are actually using it for truly medicinal purposes and not just to get high like the vast majority of people in colorado that have red cards, that is what the recent audits said. many, many people are using it for general pain. we do have a recreational market that is taxing it and those people should go to the recreational market if they just want to get high. gina carbone, there is a story in the paper today about a recent sweep by denver place of shops to make sure they are not selling to those under 21. the story suggested that it seemed to be ok or everything seems to be on the up and up. does that come for you at any level? guest: again, our young people are not going to walk into a store and try to get medical marijuana. a lot of these places now have security guards standing right there. as i said before, many high schoolers have the right cards

and that is how it is getting into the hands of teenagers. neighbors, siblings, whatever, it is extremely easy to get a medical marijuana license in colorado. 46%, well over a 40% in the last year alone, of 18 to 20-year-olds who are now getting medical marijuana cards. so that is how our youth, our teenagers are getting it. date is from other siblings. sometimes it is the parents marijuana. not storing it properly. a lot of these are -- a lot of these items have to be refrigerated. we really need to educate kids about the harms of marijuana for young people with a developing brain. that development goes into your mid-20's. 18, 19, 20-year-olds

need to understand the harm that can come, the cognitive deficits that can come from using marijuana as an adolescent. adolescents are more prone to becoming addicted. are theone in six numbers we have seen versus one in nine for addiction for an adult. so i get back to kids and parents need to be aware that this is a very unsafe product for young people. host: we had a chance to go through the medicine man dispense rate while we were in colorado a few weeks ago. we had a chance to talk about, for those leaving the store with candies and other types of products, the kinds of levels of regulation that deal with the products and the packaging and how they leave the stores. i want you to listen to a little bit of the interview and respond to it. >> this packaging is a completely white pill bottle, tamper-resistant on the top. you cannot see the candy like product that is in their.

it might be sweet and tasty but it contains a point as well. you definitely don't want anybody under the age getting a hold of this. >> so this is a childproof cap so to speak. thehis company has taken extra measure to put a chucker of cap, but the regulation is to absolutely make sure you cannot see through that bottle. they would not know it's candy by looking at. inwhat about candies packages? >> this is a pageant you cannot see through. instead of a plastic see-through, they are making is no telling a child looking at that candy that it would think it was candy. .nce you have a pill bottle >> when people walk out of here, they walk out with these white envelopes. what is this? >> it is required now by state

packets child safety law, it needs to be in a resealable, tamper-resistant container. >> you can hold up for folks to show. >> the zipper sits on that tab. when it is closed, it is not moving at all. host: you probably did not have the benefit of seeing it, but he did say that there are child and when they leave the stores, the white bags have some type of locking mechanism. guest: i am very familiar with that. host: can you respond to it? guest: i am actually familiar with what he is talking about because that is part of the regulations that smart colorado was involved in last year in the legislative process, trying to ensure that it was invisible. that particular company that we you -- that you are talking about might have childproof

packaging on their product. not all of them do. there is something called exit packaging, childproof averaging that, if someone buys six different items at the store, it will go into -- it is similar to a ziploc bag. but it is more difficult to get into. after i think two or three openings, then it he comes -- then it just becomes a ziploc bag. but it is supposed to be more secure than other packaging. that is a great start. we pushed for that. we wanted that. we will -- we think the labeling is very important. booke also confirmed -- what we are all stashed what we are also concerned about is we do not have a public education campaign. there are banner ads and social media telling youth not to use this product and that it is damaging to developing brains.

and, i might add, washington state has not quite opened their stores yet and they already have that campaign going. we have 340 stores your. we just haven't gotten a rolling it. guest: we will take a call from sam in iowa. i am glad they are protecting juveniles from this. my problem is the 18 to 21-year-olds. they can hold a gun and fight for our country at 18 years old. but they are not allowed to smoke a plant because they are still considered children. we have had the edible marijuana in california for years. crazy't have any of those things you're talking about where people kill themselves over it. host:. i will let our guest respond.

guest: -- host: the age of 18, basically, an 18-year-old still has a developing brain. with that agent that person shouldn't be using it because they are entitled to fight or they can carry a gun or anything. an 18-year-old is still developing. their brain is not fully developed. that is just the way it goes until their mid-20's. that is the reason we are saying that, even 18-year-olds need to be cautious about. they, too, can suffer from cognitive abilities, cognitive deficits, should say if they are early and persistent users. caller: good morning to both of you.

i have a couple of points. forgive me if i misquote you. you mentioned something in the that thiswhere, now has taken effect in colorado, we have people that just want to make a buck. and i have to say that is a bit prejudiced-sounding to me. when anything new in america everybody wants to get on the wave and make a buck, especially if it is legal. guest: sure. like toalso, i would say that i really appreciate what you are doing for the children as well. guest: thank you. i appreciate that. i just think we do need to look beyond money. we really need to look at how this is going to affect our communities, our public health policies, our safety going forward.

drugs and driving has gone up in colorado. unfortunately, we have seen that. we have seen marijuana being diverted outside of colorado. we so have a lot of issues to work on. the industry likes to say we are getting rid of the black market yet colorado has become the black market at least for the rest of the country. a gentleman called from new york earlier. i was just recently in new york and i know that colorado pot is going to new york. it is going to florida. it is going all over the place. it is very potent and people want the high thc. so colorado has become the black market. but thank you for the compliment about what we are doing for the kids. caller: jodi talks about thc. would you say that thc levels, if they remain high, would education be enough to cover it

rather than lowering thc levels? >> there are even people in the industry that have talked about proofing marijuana come if you will, similar to alcohol, so that people know how strong this is. just -- because marijuana has become so much stronger over the years, there ,s an education for, again people my age and older to realize that this is a very strong product. there are concentrates -- this is what a budtender told me today. you can take one hit and you are high all day long. that is not how it was several decades ago. but when kids are using these vaper pens in the classroom and having these edibles that are like regular food items -- any food item can become a medical product in colorado now.

it is hard for schools and hard for parents to identify this. that is something that colorado is looking into, to make sure that the marijuana product is identifiable and looks different. unfortunately, those rules probably will not go into effect until 2016. the vaping is very popular in high school and with kids cook, too. very, very is strong. host: we have been showing some of these edible products. --y have a can of our look they have a candy bar look. do the rules with amendment 64 talk about the style of packaging involved with the edible product? guest: the packaging itself has to be opaque. you are not supposed to be able to see through it.

the item itself though, like i said, anything pretty much under sun right now can become a marijuana product. so it is beyond the brownies in the cookies and the candy and soda. get pizzao, you can and ice cream, salad dressing, pasta sauce. the list goes on. there really is no limitation in that regard and that is troubling because it is just becoming so prevalent. a lot of people that supported amendment 64, we hear from people all the time that said i had no idea it was going to be like this. it has become so commercial here in colorado. part of our denver post newspaper has its own section dedicated to marijuana. our colorado symphony is hosting talk concerts -- pot concerts. we have the denver fair.

events,have marijuana plantn grow the best pot and joint-rolling contest and things like that. it is becoming such a way of life here in colorado and frankly people that even voted for amendment 64, the legalization, had no idea that it would look like this and it would become so commercialized. a lot of people felt like it was just for small amounts of marijuana for adults in the privacy of their own home. yet we have open and public use all over denver. whether it is in our parks -- they are try to get a handle on it but it is very difficult. host: plainview, texas. this is james. caller: first and foremost, i believe that it is the parents responsibility to be able to monitor their children.

i am a psychiatric patient. marijuana, use of they would cause me to go out -- homicidal and it's a frantic. host: james, appreciate the call. gina carbone. guest: first, i wish you good luck and i hope that you are in the care of a good doctor. regarding the responsibility of the parents, sure, parents have to educate their children and look after what they are doing. but one we live in a society where the marijuana industry is hosting events and we see people openly smoke in the parks and having these huge for 20 events, food trucks that are driving with foodh marijuana

like they did that weekend, there comes a point where, if we are going to be selling this and it is going to be available in our community, it also is the responsibility of elected officials to ensure that it is implemented the way it was sold to voters, which is it won't be used in public. it is for private consumption. it is to be used only by adults. it is not to leave the state. coloradoose issues really needs to still work on. we are having issues with all of those points. host: ultimately, as far as the rules are today, what more would you want to see? guest: there is still clearly the regulations on the edibles. i thinktypes of edibles is an issue that we need to look at.

really, should we allow every and any kind of food to become an edible? we don't have the fda looking after these food products. we still have problems like salmonella and botulism -- well, various health problems with these foods just because they aren't refrigerated. they are past their shelflife. there are others at -- other issues besides the thc. so that would be an area, the edibles. is like i said, this vaping quite a big deal particularly for our young people. it has become very ocular. the -- very popular. and make concentrates are very potent. desperately need this application program that the governor is working on to rollout. we should get a curriculum in our public schools go, to.

schools, too. well, the data collection is extremely important. we really haven't been keeping great statistics on marijuana use in terms of people going into the er. they are starting to do it now. but to really create sound public policy, we need accurate data. i would argue that is very important going forward also. host: gina carbone with smart colorado. there is a website if you want to find out more abo

>> in the beginning it was hot.

and as the universe expanded the heat was spread out and it cooled down and you can calculate how cold it should be today and it's about 2.7 degrees above absolute zero. that's the temperature of deep space. if you're in deep empty space that's the temperature. but you can go one step further and not just that calculate the average temperature. you can calculate how the temperatures should vary from place to place and the map shows it should vary by the order of 1/1000,000 of a degree. and you can do these very precise measurements and indeed see the temperature variation in just the pattern that the mathematics predicts. >> what do you mean when you call something the fabric of the coss mos? >> it's a hard question. is space really a thing? or is it just a useful concept in order to organize our perceptions of reality? you're over there.

you're further away in space. the tables get further. is space merely the vocabulary that allows me to articulate location? or is space really a thing? and nobody fully knows the answer to that but in einstein's general relatively -- and different people interpret it differently -- i see space as a thing in einstein's theory. >> together? >> space and time are stitched together. >> and they would exist even if nothing else exist snd >> that's right. and there's been a lot of debate about this. if you were to remove everything from space, the moon, sun, earth, what would be left? would you have an empty universe that still has space and time or would you have nothing? if you take an alphabet and start to remove the letters, when you remove that last letter, what's left? is it like an empty alphabet? not really. it's like nothing because the

alphabet comes into existence with the letters that make it up.

>> good afternoon, everybody.

thank you so much for coming. i am arthur spitzer. my day job is legal director of the local office of the american civil liberties union. i am here wearing my hat as a volunteer for the d.c. bar. we apologize for the lack of adequate food for which you all paid. i understand that more sandwiches are being made as i speak. nobody should hesitate to get up and get some food during the program. nobody will mind. welcome to the 26th annual supreme court review from the press gallery program sponsored by the d.c. bar section on courts, lawyers and the administration of justice. ponsoe administration of justice and the court's lawyers. i have a few other preliminaries before we begin. thanks to arnold and quarter in the spacious quarter room they are gathered. they are hosting us, i don't know, for the eighth or tenth year. thanks to marcia tucker the pro bono coordinator for helping to host us.

thanks to c-span which is in the back for covering us again this year. you will be able to see the rebroadcast of the program at various odd hours for the next few days. it will be in the archive where you can watch it on your computer at your leisure. if you don't want the back of your head to be on national tv, you are welcome to slink to the side and avoid that. thanks to to this man to being the coordinating and coordinating within c span. he's not responsible for the food situation. '03. the section on the d.c. bar tells me that i have to announce that this session is on the record, but you need the bar's approval in advance if you are going to record it. c-span has the bar's approval.

if you do not have the bar's approval, you are not authorized to record. the section on court's lawyers and the administration of justice is one of more than 20 sexes -- sections of the d.c.'s bar which they are done. that pertains to court administration and rules and the relationship between the bench and the bar and all aspects of the lawyers relationship to the profession including ethics, discipline and the mission standards. improving access to justice for everyone in d.c. ten other sections are cosponsors of today's program, they cover the range of legal practice and i would encourage all of you if you are members of the d.c. bar and not yet members of the session, to become members. to many of you are future members of the d.c. bar, when

you get back, you should think about becoming active in one of the bars sections. it's a great way to get to know lawyers outside of your own firm and practice and to learn about the interesting areas of the law and to make a difference in the the profession. if you are not a member of the american civil liberties union, i have membership forms in my briefcase which i would be happy to give to you after the program. we have a panelists who are covering the supreme court by my count 107 years. i will introduce them briefly in order for how long they are covering the courts. beginning with tony. he's covering the courts since 1979. he joins the legal kinds in 2000

and continues with the merger with the national law journal in 2009. his undergraduate is from rutgers. david savage has been with the los angeles times since 1989 and covering the court since 1986 and covers the court for the "chicago tribune." he's the author of turning rights. he's authored the latest edition of the quarterly guide to the u.s. u.s. supreme court. he has degrees from chapel hill and northwestern. joan covers the court now for reuters. she has covered it since 1989 before joining reuters. she covers the court for u.s.a. today and the walking post.

she's a regular panelist on the glenn iefel show. she specializes in supporting the supreme court through a biography. she has written sandra day of conner and the life and constitution of supreme court justice anthony scalea. she's within weeks of finishing a new book, breaking in the rise of sonya otamorio. robert bond next to joan joined the "washington post" in 1987 covering politics. he's in charge of domestic issues. national political.

and the paper's metropolitan editor. he began to cover the supreme court in 2006. he had been planning to go to law school and changed his mind after he took a course at the university of florida. his buy og biography says that d not occur to him that he could do both. a better explanation is he realized he didn't need three years of law school to not practice law. kimberly is the washington bureau chief. a nationwide group of special and legal journals including the massachusetts lawyer's weekly, the wisconsin law journal and a dozen others. previously worked at daily

newspapers including "the boston globe." before launching her career, she was a litigator in boston. a graduate of wayne state university. boston university of law and the colombia journalism school. i learned from the internet, she's also a fashion designer and the owner of kim's designs creating special bridle -- bridal wear. if you need advice or a gown, go to kimberly. and he took that beat over six years ago. he has a long history at the time which he first joined as a copy boy in 1984 after graduated from yale which he returned from his law degree in 1988. he advising the paper and

representing in defamation, privacy and the right to gather news and similar issues. a decade later. he became a reporter covering legal issues. and a serious of deep reports about the contributions, the connections between the contributions to the political campaigns of justices on the ohio supreme court and those justice's voting records. work has appeared in the new yorker, "vanity fair" "rolling stone" and other publications. unlike the supreme court panel, this is not a bunch of hotshots analyzing them as lawyers. they are all hotshots. we will talk about some cases. we will talk about the court as an institution and collection of individuals and covering the court as journalists. i plan to save some time at the

end for questions from the audience. i encourage you to think about questions you might want to ask and i will try to remind you about that, again, as we get closer to the end. finally, you will be receiving through the email an evaluation form from the d.c. bar. we really appreciate it if you fill them out and send them in. we do read every one. we have made changes in the program over the years in response to comments and i encourage you to complain about the food problem so that the bar will do a better job next year, we hope. now i'm going to sit down. and let's start the discussion with yesterday's front page story about the hobby lobby decision on monday. i think to me it's a great example of the challenge of

squeezing complicated decision with many facets into a few paragraphs in a newspaper or on a website. the leads of the daily reporters who were here on panel today were somewhat different. i'm curious to ask the reporters about why they made some different choices. and at the risk of taking up more time with my mono-- monologue, i'm going to read some of openings with the stories. "the new york times" story began, the supreme court ruled on monday that requiring family owned companied violated a federal law protecting religious freedom. it was -- the decision was startling breath. opened the door to many challenges from corporations

over laws they claim violate their religious liberty. the "washington post" began, the supreme court struck down a key part of president obama's healthcare law monday. the family businesses do not have to offer contraceptive coverage that conflicts with their beliefs. the decision deeply split the court not only on holding that the federation restoration act protects them on contraceptives, but how they apply to other challenges. the los angeles time began, the supreme court ruled on monday that private companies had a religious right to be exempted from federal law. this is owned by devote christians and they refuse to pay for contraceptives for employees. it was a victory and the most significant statement in religious liberty in years.

reuters, story not by jones but by her colleague, lauren, the supreme court ruled that the owners of private companies can object to grounds that requires employers to provide thursday covering birth control for women. it pleas to a small small number of companies. the health insurance may have to obtain certain forms of birth control elsewhere. kimberly's story from one of her papers i found on the internet said the u.s. supreme court said that the plan holds contraceptives at no cost to employees violates the religious rights of closely held companies. some stories emphasize the lead of the breadth of it. some stories emphasize the

narrowness of it. some spoke about, emphasized that it was privately owned or family companies. some said only that it opened the door to perhaps challenges by many corporations. i'm curious about some of the choices that were made and why. adam, would you like to start? >> i thought they all sounded pretty good. but i think we could spend the rest of the session reading our stories out loud. >> i won't. >> the case had many moving pieces. you can focus in the first couple of sentences on one aspect or the other. like the aclu's decision on higher education, diversity may be a good thing. >> i was thinking about the emphasis. it's slight, i think, in each of them. speaker from reuter's point of view, the first one is going to have some emphasis on what it

means for business because reuters has an emphasis on business. we followed up with another story that talked about where this fits into the whole scheme of the whole term and another story how this might change the corporate landscape with this -- combined with the united ruling. even hearing you read these, i thought they captured the essence of -- with slight nuances depending on the audiences we serve. they all do serve different audiences. >> one fact that seemed to me quite important about the decision was the question of whether any women would actually lose free access to contraception as a result. i didn't see anything about that near the top of any of these

stories. savages has it in the sixth sentence which was higher up than anybody else. he addresses whether anyone would lose access. and another story that was much further down. >> also wrote about four versions of that story. all of us are in the same business of trying to write a version for the web and updated version for the web and another version for the newspaper. with each version, get questions from editors just like that. are women going to lose contraceptive. by the end of the day, we got a sentence that said maybe they would not lose too much coverage at the end. >> it was saying that this decision was very broad and you had an opinion by the majority, no, it's actually very narrow. and they went back and forth on

these two things. some wondered was ginsberg making it a bigger decision in the way she wrote about it than she was. actually what she did is majority the judge to go back in the opinion, it's not about this and not about this. it's about contraception. i think it remains to be seen exactly what this decision is going to mean. but it was interesting that the two sides went back and forth at each other about this. and so it is a little hard at this point to tell whether it is broad or narrow decision. >> did you see what justice kennedy did? he writes a separate concurring opinion, kennedy usually straddles the middle. he stepped back and said, let's lower the temperature here, the decision doesn't mean as much as my colleague ginsberg said.

it's narrower. he tried to bridge it more than the substance of issue. >> having achieved the goals that might have been part of the reason for the decent, she didn't have to keep those passages. that alarmist decent, there's history for it. justice scalea, if you buy this, next thing you know, same sex marriage. he turned out to be right. >> a question focusing on hobby lobby, the case involved four separate issues. any one of which could have been determinative. whether the owners could assert the rights whether the law imposes financial burden on the

religious belief. whether they had a -- whether if so, by least restrictive means? how do you deal of of that? how do you make it understandable or don't bother. >> i have to hit all of that. the legal issues are definitely what they are interested in. similar to what they said for business and papers. we have a business paper in oklahoma city where that is safe. it came out different than the weekly legal papers that went to press a couple of days later. you have to sort of explain. there is a lot of rhetoric and there are a lot of people

immediately in the aftermath of decision saying a lot of things. it is difficult to find out what the law is after this opinion. it takes a couple of days for it to settle down and analyze it and come to some conclusions. >> do your editors give you all of the space you want? >> they can trim it to their individual needs. i normally don't get cut off. my stories are in the 1200 word range. >> i'm glad you focused on hobby lobby. at least this one, we knew what the bottom line was. we knew who won. knew who lost. it was relatively easy. about a week before, there was a greenhouse gas case where justice scalea reads the

majority opinion. justice scalea is rarely on the side of rhetoric. there's rhetoric on how this legislation goes too far. 25 to 26 pages in, he turns and says, however, it could be approved against power plans under a different regulation and different argument. he said upstairs, e.p.a. has basically won most of this case. that was an interesting scramble. a lot of people put stories up on the web saying court strikes down greenhouse gas regulation based on what the court seemed to say. at the end of the opinion, it basically said, well, actually, e.p.a. won most of this case. i'm glad you didn't pick that one. those stories were all around the beginning. >> that was the a.c.a. decision a few years ago.

the chief justice went into what was all around. he said, but, it's constitutional. a lot of news organizations had reported that it was struck down. with the hobby lobby decision, the justice went out in the opening part of the decision to lay out clearly exactly -- you knew by page two what happens and an attempt to avoid a situation with the first a.c.a. challenge where no one understood what happened in the beginning. >> well, i used to tell people to find out what the majority rule, you should read the decent first. but i think the common thread in all of these discussions so far. , there is spin going on with the majority saying, oh, this is very limited and the center

saying, no, this opens a big can of worms. it's a real challenge to figure out what is the -- which is the right tone to set in the writing our stories especially when we have to do it within seven minutes after the decision comes down. this is also the case in the harris versus quinn, the union agency case that came out where, you know, they stopped short of striking down or agency fees altogether and alledo -- it's clear that they stopped short of doing that. but then, you know, how do you really know what's going to happen next? >> i thought that decision by justice scalea that you were talking about is a particularly good example of what happens at least once or twice a year.

i imagine must present special challenges of the request. here is the end of the lineup of the syllabus in the case. the justice announced the decision and deliver an opinion parts one and two were for the court. they joined the opinion in full. justice thomas and alledo joins 1-a and 2. justice briar consented in part that keagan joined. so how do you figure out -- >> >> and your editors on the phone moments after that, shall we call it 5-4 or 7-2? [laughter] >> look at what matters going into it.

the most recent case you are talking about and the harris b. quinn one on monday, we have expectations on how far the court might go. the union won. we knew what was at risk here. the idea that maybe public employees were not going to have to pay union dues. the whole free rider question that we thought the court was going to challenge. they didn't end up reversing abood. but they ended up with a set back for public employees and unions anyway. you sort of had to figure out what to do. you kind of have to figure out what vote really matters here in the the recent appointment and the -- the n.l.v. matter. and the 54 was key. what you sent out as an urgent and the bosses right away that will make a difference to all of

the readers, you have to give them one vote that will keep revising. >> one thing that we are all lucky about this is that we cover the court full time. and that means that we can really concentrate on the court and we can go to oral arguments. if you been at oral arguments in these cases, these decisions, although they come down in a complicated manner, were not surprising. we all wrote sort of a version of it after the oral argument. it seemed clear that there was a majority that didn't believe they had the power to do one thing. but that they were going to be able to do it some other way. we got that feeling after the recess appointment. oral arguments too. i think one big advantage that we have is that we do have that background so that when one of these complicated decisions come

down, we know how the arguments go, we know how the courts accept them or reject them. >> we struggle after going to an argument how much we want to predict the result. and often the safest thing to do is the justices seem divided over whether to ban abortion, protest, ban protests near abortion clinics or to allow the police to search the cell phones of who they arrest. they turned out to be wrong because they were unanimous in vote. >> in addition to the front page by story by hobby lobby, at the end of the term, many of the cases handed down in the last couple of weeks were quite technical and may be of great interest to a fairly limited audience. for example, there was fifth third bank corp. about whether

the trustees of an employee option plan get a production of prudence when they get a stock in what the retirement plan connects to. or halliburton, what stage engagement can a defendant in a class action can the defendant show that the stock had no effect. how much time can you spend immersing yourself in the case like that and how much room do you get from the editors or do you want to report the details of cases like that that may be of great interest, but only a small audience?

>> it is a balancing act. during oral arguments, you don't know in which order the decisions will come down. i and the sole washington reporter for all my papers, i am only one person. i covered oral arguments. it was an issue for lawyers that could be of interest. it came down in a flurry of other much more impactful cases. i ended up not writing a story about the decision. some of the publications may have run ap copy. or not care because they were focused on other cases. i tried during the course of the year to pace so that the decisions will come down the same way the oral arguments did. e same way the oral arguments did. >> there are a lot of cases that are not that interesting. the court deserves a lot of

credit for style points for presentation and drama. year, there are a series of big decisions. on the last day, there will be some big decisions that divide the court, the whole country. it happens all the time. a lot of people who are paying attention like in the health-care case, the gay marriage case, you genuinely don't know how the supreme court is going to rule. unusual part- an of government. they decided with a bang. then they take off for three months. boy, they really know how to do drama. they reserve all the big cases for the and. i thought roberts might send a said, why don't we slow down. if we release this in made, it will let the air out of the balloon.