we are addressing a tremendous deja vu for knee professionally, should be a job who for libertarians to eight or so. this is a copy of "inquiry" magazine from february 1984. the title is "the war on drugs is over. the government has lost." the author is now a senior political writer. he lays out in this article essentially the story you are facing right now dealing with synthetics. i want to give him credit for being suppressed in -- being so prescient. he noted early on that in

california synthetics for drugs like heroin has alr been done. eady we will be awash in a florida chief and deadly synthetic drug substitutes. it is important that the drugs we are talking about are quite harmful in contrast to drugs like marijuana and heroin. heroin legally obtained, safely injected does not lead to crime, it does not cause tissue damage, it does not lead to insanity. nursing is addicted to and have to manage constipation. heroin users survive and can live productive lives with a safe form of harold is --

heroin. that story found these analog synthetic problems is not a new one, it is an old one that pcp spawned pce and other analogs that were equally dangerous. there was a synthetic heroin available called -- and it was one of the drugs that is subject to the mandatory minimum penalties that congress enacted in 1986. a drug demerol synthetic, there was an analog of that called mppp. the synthesis is tricky and it was being made improperly with a contaminant --, and people are

now showing up at hospital emergency rooms with signs of heart -- of parkinson's. they do not understand that this is a dynamic that flowed out of prohibition. the alternative to finding heroin opiates has been an old one. there was something called -- where drugs were combined and people trying to combine drugs and get high that way. any efforts to stop this, one problem is there is a literature about how to make jerks and jack -- make these drugs, and jack and the sizes that a number of these articles were wrong.

we even had backyard chemists botching the job of following recipes from precursors of the internet. jack concludes his article and says what can dea to stem thin synthetics that it has not already tried? congress passed a bill called the chemical diapers and trafficking. he was interested in seeing the chemical industry was unable to recognize. they are now going to be regulated by dea and the approach is going to be different. it was interesting for me as a staffer trying to see how civil side he, how the interest groups might respond. here is an interest group unable

to mobilize what the invocation is for that of this new approach. we see that drugs -- the precursors are still getting into mexico, the united states. so jack asks -- these are the consequences of busting more labs in the united states. we saw the increased power that the sinal cartel has had. he saidoa license lab equipment. the synthesis of methamphetamine required that a particular piece of lab equipment called a three-that round-bottom flask the standard lab bpiece. congress banned it.

but congress did not ban the four-neck round-bottom flask. all you need to is to put a plug in it. a chemist in california is known for the reintroduction of mdma enjoy popular society. a scientist who was interested in the exploration of drugs. i knew him.

sasha was the one who cracked up regarding this. finally, if you cannot license lab equipment then the future everyone who has access to a library, and that does not happen. there are harsh penalties for these drugs and analogs and jack quotes a mentor of mine, uses the clandestine synthetics may well soon swamp markets and deliver the coup de grace to a dying international system. technologically a society like ours government cannot keep people from experimenting in jugs. the crackdown has only speeded up the process and fouled the

market with drums of injury and potency. we see these terms called synthetic marijuana. why might there be synthetic marijuana? the law still punishes harshly the production of regular marijuana. we're finding in washington and colorado we are putting in laboratory controls. in maryland, regulations will are that every batch be tested by independent laboratory. he can produce safe cannabis, and we can eliminate the market for synthetic marijuana. these things called incidents and bath salts are clearly intended for human consumption is, and prosecutors to say there is nothing we can

do have not been sufficiently created in getting the targets of these investigations -- why does a gas station sell something cash register called incidents or bath salts? it is inconceivable to me that you cannot send a sufficient number of well-trained informants to get the clerk to make some kind of statement that indicates the clerk understand this is for human consumption. i will conclude by saying the government is struggling to go along. in 2012, congress passed the synthetic drug -- it had one of these titles that synthetic drug abuse prevention act of 2012, as though that is going to happen. the added to schedule one five specific classes of synthetic

compounds, 15 specific my imetic which were banned as well as 11 of the chemicals as that salts. this was setting up the opportunity for additional kinds of compounds can be sold, and the public's demand to get high, to leave paying them a whether it is from the mentally ill or than intellectually curious, the mentally sound and intellectually curious, that will take place, and the public remains at risk of these drugs are properly regulated muscle by licensed laboratories, with appropriate kinds of warnings, and we abandon the approach that i was a part of during the

1980's. thank you. [applause] mr. preble:mr. hornberger: thank you. said notice that he is one of my heroes. as i was reading through this paper and as i was listening to remarks i think the central message coming through to leave throughout all this was just the other futility of this war, that no matter what the drug warriors do, it is not going to change anything. it is a classic case of other futility. and i was thinking back to an open letter written in 1990,

years after this article that eric was talking about, by milton friedman that appeared in "the wall street journal" to bill bennett who was the drug czar at the time. he said the same thing that ted says in his paper. he said, bill, i beseech you en this war on drugs. dwill not publish what you hope to accomplish. it will only bring death of destruction, and a loss of well-being for the people and society. and then he cit a column he wrotees 17 years before, 1973, when the drug war was getting ramped up. and in that article, he made the same point that ted is in this

paper about designer drugs. friedman pointed out that crack cocaine was developed as a response to the government's crackdown on regular crack -- regular cocaine, i mean, because it was so expensive that the black market into existence the crack cocaine, much cheaper much more addictive, and that went on to ravage people in the cities, especially african-americans. here you have this program is utterly futile, and why would it surprise us? if you look at laws of supply and demand government enacts a law that says no one is permitted to take drugs anymore, and you see their expectations as everybody will only the law. it is the law, right, so we do not need to worry about it anymore. we made it illegal. life does not work that way.

when you make a peaceful activity illegal, that people want to engage in, there's a high probability people will continue to engage in that activity despite what the law says, especially for drug addicts or people that just enjoyed taking drugs. so they violated the law and put out a business, all the reputable businesses that pharmacies, pharmaceutical companies, and turn over the networks to the unsavory types black market types of drug lords, drug gangs, people that cannot give a hoot whether somebody dies from corrupted drugs or not, as ted pointed out. so the drug warriors get angry about that consistently so they go after the drug lords and drug gangs and incarcerate them on a regular basis, but that generates extremely high prices, exorbitant profits induces more people to get into the drug supply business.

including regular, ordinary people who see a chance for a quick score and never dreamed that they are going to get caught. if the consequences of this war were benign, if it were a matter of giving something to do, jobs for federal judges prosecutors and dea agents, that would be one thing. you could say let's let them have their jobs. it is not like that. there are tremendous adverse effects from this thing. you have got the corruption, the bribes among the judiciary prosecutors and the law-enforcement ages, the asset forfeiture laws where the cops are stealing money from people innocent people, on highways and a crlassic case of highway robbery in the shooting of innocent people, cheating their pets, ahead in basis of

financial privacy. it just never stops. a few days ago some u.s. officials said about the drug lord that just escaped from mexican prison, these is that man has destroyed thousands of lives and we will get him back into jail. that may be, but the fact is that the drug warriors have destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives, if not millions, with death and destruction and overfilling the penitentiaries. that is the biggest business in america today because of the drug war. i grew up on the board in lared so when i was in high school when the drugo, wars were starting to go, i had friends whose lives were destroyed by felony convictions. we always went across the river into nuevo laredo.

it was a great place to grow up. tourists flooded into the area. not anyone. what friedman said is that this drug war is so destructive, it has destroyed the fabric of mexican society. none of my friends in laredo ever go across the river anymore. it is too dangerous. i'm glad 10 brought this up, the concept of overdose. we hear it all the time, when somebody dies of an overdose. in virtually every case, it is never a drug overdose. that is what they say in order to detract attention away from the real cause. the real cost is the corrected drug, the polluted drug that is the direct result of illegality.

the drug lord, the drug gang, they could not care less somebody dies. they certainly do not have to worry about a lawsuit, as if they would in an unhampered market where pharmaceutical companies put caps on jugs and well, because they know one death will create bankruptcy and big losses. it's real tragic consequences of the war on drugs. addicts? etiquette is a tragedy, but it is -- drug addiction is a tragedy, but i should wrap this up is as futile as this drug war is, as destructive as it is, that is not the real reason why we should call for the end davis walker the see the futility when

we say we are going to put him back in jail, we will make sure he is incarcerated for the rest of his best his life. for what? what is the point. they put them back in jail or they do not. nothing will change any more than what has changed over the last four years. the real reason that we want to end this war on drugs is not the futility of it because of the concept of human freedom. ted mentioned russia and iran is the conservative examples of the war. look at china and vietnam, all of which have drug laws of the drug, because a drug war is inherent to a heretical totalitarian authoritarian regime. it is only a free society where people -- where it is recognized

that people have a right at the concept that human freedom itself to ingest whatever they want to ingest matter how destructive, the matter how dangerous the new matter how horrible. there was any reason we should and this =--- en this futiled war on drugs, it is because we the american people stand for freedom. thank you. [applause] mr. preble: i won't just as my authority as organizer of the event, because you talk about futility one of the cases that eric described them now i know that three-nec round-bottomked flask, things

that transparently innocuously legal, and then the process, the market being what it is, process of getting around those restrictions. this is a point, and i admit this is a copy oftopic i have not studied very much, the ease at which the manufacturers of these chemical substances can evade fictions by making very minor changes to the chemical composition to get around the law, but then, they may inadvertently introduce new arms to users who thought they were getting one thing but ended up getting something else. can you talk more about that concept, because we have seen some tortured legal reasoning to describe your going to make illegal substances like this and

others like them sort of thing. if we have lost her that vaguely -- laws that are that daily worded -- mr. carpenter: i would like to thank the presenters for excellent comments. what chris has pointed out, the dilemma that prohibition is face. -- prohibitionists face. when you are dealing with synthetic drugs from a small change in chemical composition can suddenly create a substance that is no longer covered by law. i believe the article pointed out that currently there are about 350 varieties of synthetic drugs and counting. this constantly changes.

so if you have specific bans, this is like playing lac wack-a-mole. the alternative is to enact very broad bans, but as we have seen with other laws that are they an overly broad that can lead to massive abuses of authority. and people who may have perfectly legitimate businesses suddenly find themselves under scrutiny, under prosecution, and at times not even being clear on what law they had finally -- have violated, so that is an option that is inherently destructive to a free society. but this is again an

inevitable problem that prohibitionists conference particularly with synthetic drugs. all you need is an enterprising chemist to change the substance a little, and the bans do not work, so there is a pressured, with broader and broader evermore vague bans despite the disruptive effects that has on the role of law -- rule of law. mr. sterling: there was a concern about due process.

we are witnesses who spoke about this problem, the research into trying to find new compounds for medical purposes or otherwise. you are going to look at existing drugs because that is your starting point. we know these tracks are effective that these drugs are effective in a psychiatric way. let see if tweaking it will produce something effective in medicine. we put in this language intended for human consumption that those who are doing the kind of experimentation for research purposes or scientific purposes, they are not covered by the prohibition. the danger we face now in 2050 is congress will say human

consumption, that is too much of a barrier. let's just take that out because the chinese, they are shipping this stuff and we cannot prove the chinese are intending this for human consumption in the u.s. when you take that out, you end up with a prohibition that is really squishy. any chemical that may produce these kind of effects. so you have a professor at a college who is doing research, and suddenly runs afoul because this is just too close to a prohibited drug, so the danger in this current kind of political climate will present a problem if this law is further watered down. -- law gets further watered

down. mr. preble: please wait for the microphone for those watching online. identify yourself and your affiliation. the jeopardy r applies which meansu,le these form your question in the form of a question. >> i guess you would call me a prohibitionists. my name is paula gordon. i have a website. i had a nonprofit organization in california, based in berkeley, was his call that committee for psychedelic drug information, and we did everything we could to dissuade

an individual not to use marijuana and other psychedelic drugs. what you have overlooked in this discussion is that the fact that if you purify any of these substances, you still have a psychoactive substance which is acted to -- which can be addictive. studies in the last year have showed that one in six youngsters, young people, become addicted. one in 10 adults become addicted to marijuana. what you are looking taat is in order to ascertain consensus

is that ascertain a substance look at tch. you should not drive under the influence of marijuana. mr. preble: the question is, if you purify the substance and get around the problem of then being contaminated them you still addiction or use from -- >> hhave you read the medical research? they chanted as things. the major point i would like -- mr. preble: you have a question on the table and let the panelists respond. >> one scientific fact -- do you

know there was research that shows that thc in normal human subjects can cause idiosyncratic you mr. preble: there is the question, did you know? two questions actually. >> first of all, i am always wary about the fact that some people could come addicted to substances, therefore we ought to outlaw those substances. you can do it with lots of substances, all forms of behavior. a certain percentage of the that people become addicted to gambling therefore we should outlaw all forms of chance. some people become addicted to high-fat foods therefore we ought to outlaw all high-fat

foods. obviously some people become addicted to alcohol. that is why we have alcoholics. therefore, we have the right to outlaw alcoholic beverages. some people are going to be susceptible to poor decisions poor behavior, compulsive behavior. that is a price we all have to pay to live in a free society, and that's we want some benevolent guardian's of public morality to dictate everything that we do. that is a price i do not think any of us want to pay. >> when i hear someone talk about the risk of addiction or the risk of adverse psychiatric consequences i think of the

jingle of dunkin' donuts, america runs on duncan. america runs on risk. our entire economic enterprise is based on risk. we look at people who want to be athletes and admire risk. people tried to climb things and fail. people try to do all kinds of things and fail. risk is built into the dna of america. the risk of addiction and risk of these affects israel but small. folks who want to stop this never acknowledge the benefits of the use of these drugs. these drugs are beneficial. the evidence of that if the tens of millions of people who want to use them. not because they are addicted, but because the effects are

pleasurable, inspiring transcendent. these are real effects of the drugs and people want to use them, and that is why they will continue to use them, not with handing the risk. >> i think you make a couple of interesting points. first of all, on her activity and uprising people on the dangers of drugs, i think that is something to be applauded. there are drugs. and one of the beats i have -- beefs i have with the marijuana legalization movement is the argument marijuana is not harmful. i find that problematic because my position is that implies if it is harmful, it should be illegal. my argument in terms of freedom is that i am assuming drugs are

absolutely the worst thing in the world for me, but that is my business. that is no business of the state. if i want to sit in my home to inject heroin or cocaine or lsd or meth that is my business. she makes a valid point about driving on government owned roads or children. children's rights fall in different category. but i say if you legalize drugs, get rid of all of the unsavory suppliers, which would go out of business immediately. you are much better having the supply distribution of drugs with pharmaceutical pharmacies who are much more responsible when it comes to selling to children and minors than the unsavory elements that we have today. in terms of freedom, legalize it but keep who bowl like her to a

price people of what a horrible thing it is to become a drug addict. i am no problems with that at all. >> howard will dredge retired detective law enforcement against prohibition. the relative harm of the synthetic drugs i have never went past marijuana. it was a terminal drug for me. i went to a briefing in the congress three years ago congressman pete -- congressman pitt had a dog and pony show with dea and brought in an er doc from a hospital who gave us a couple of cases where someone had canaan in and used bath salts and whatever and acted badly. they did things that were harmful. reminded me as a police officer, a guy jumps out of the car 45 miles per hour and act -- alcohol was a factor. the question is, so people

understand to know alcohol, how relatively dangerous is vast salts or k-two in comparison to whiskey or alcohol. we all pretty much have a common experience with this. >> i would say these would be among the more dangerous substances. in part, we've talked about this before because you are never certain what all is in it, which create its own set of problems. the effects seem to be somewhat unpredictable but it is good to always keep this in perspective. we have heard these stories before with regard to other substances. we remember the stories about crack cocaine. 25-30 years ago. the brilliant penalties enacted 10 time as severe as for powder

cocaine. as though there was that kind of real difference in the effects. going back further, you remember the lsd scarce and the 19 60's that would destroy american society. if you want to go back further go back to the late 1930's and refer madness. marijuana with a drug that was going to completely destroy western civilization. i think we have to keep these stories in mind. there is a sense of deja vu. with regard to some of the synthetic drugs, they appear to be more dangerous and fall little than most of the more natural cycle after -- psychoactive drugs. it is good to monitor this.

education definitely. encourage people to stay away from these, but that should be part of a larger package to create a legal drug structure and one that eliminates prohibition so there are safe legal alternatives for people who want to use psychoactive substances. we can continue the crusader tried to prevent drug use. i am one of these people who if we have tried a policy for four decades or more in the fall of -- policy has failed, we ought to try something else. not just continue applying the same model to the same substances. that is just me. >> in talking about alcohol, in

the time of alcohol prohibition alcohol was at adult rated with other compounds. drinkers were blinded and people were paralyzed. there was a term jake like in which there was a paralysis. that is the function of prohibition, not of the legal control. are these drugs harmful? the evidence is people who present themselves to the police and someone, yes. they are harmful as a consequence of the market distortions law enforcement creates that drugs -- four drugs people want to get. the article in the new york times last sunday, people said i did not want to use these drugs they were easier to get. they are being represented as

being legal. until the drugs people want to use that can be produced safely with better warnings are available, we will see this kind of tragedy happening again and again and again. mr. preble: right on in the front and then the gentleman in the middle row. >> my name is mark moulton former d.c. candidate. i am trying to read just starting to read your book. i watched the movie down the street, cartel land. how much does all of this benefit the gun industry arm of the military-industrial complex? because everyone has to have a gun in the war. police have to have more guns

police officers have to have more guns, and they all try to outpace each other. >> good question. i think that is a subset. it certainly does create incentives. greater and greater armour men's . i think you have a drug war industry that has a vested interest in creating as many horror stories as humanly possible. it is often difficult to tell whether those that are putting out the stories are simply doing this to further their own career and career in interest. or whether they believe their own propaganda. i think there is probably a bit of both. you are talking about the multibillion-dollar industry that is locked up with current drug policy at the local state

and national level. they are not going to go quietly into the good night of legalization. they are going to use every tactic imaginable to try to use the prohibition system and scare stories certainly serve that agenda. they are tremendously effective. i think the len bias case with regard to cocaine use in the mid-1980's was one factor and others certainly that stopped the momentum toward a harm reduction strategy, if not decriminalization or full legalization of drugs. reverse that the whole change and it has been a good many years to switch that back to a more rational discussion. i do not think the drug war

industry likes to have a discussion about having synthetic drugs within the legal framework. they want the prohibition model applied to this. this is a job enhancement process at a minimum. they will keep pushing the stories whenever humanly possible. >> this morning about the drug war industry is a warning in a file report of the national commission of marijuana and drug use. they observed it is a real danger that the current approach was bringing about. i think part of what we are missing, and jacob described the penitentiary as the biggest industry in america. the reality is this industry is an infinite testimony in the $14

trillion -- probably bigger than that. the point that i want to make is the collateral consequences of our drug enforcement policies undermine the entire economy. jacob did not fully talk about the impact of the tens of millions of people who have drug convictions, which means the employment process is reduced. this depends upon consumption and those folks are out of the economy. tens of millions of people are out of the economy if you have a drug conviction. you are not able to get a job with a paychecks and you did not get a car loan. you do not get a car made in detroit. the war on drugs kicks off in the 1970's and american car sales start going down. think of any particular part of the economy in which you are

invested in. if you have a pension plan, a 401(k), all of your assets in american industries are left valuable because those industries are selling less than they could otherwise sell if we do not have a war on drugs cutting the economic power of the american public day after day. the message needs to be to the u.s. chamber of commerce, the national federation of independent businesses, your membership are being hurt by drug prohibition. you have an obligation to speak on behalf of the american economy to point out this is hurting the bottom line if every american investor -- other than the private prison industry the gun industry, the small pieces of supply. those are tiny when you think

about the implications for the rest of us. >> i am an independent drug policy researcher. i lived in central america and mexico for 10 years. i am curious for all of the panelists what you believe are the realistic policy objectives for the u.s. government, perhaps other latin american governments that are thinking about drug policy reform. the reason why i ask that is quite honestly i think coming at it from the complete prohibitionist drug war regime which is really something of the past, when you talk to most current, up-to-date policy folks they realize the drug war is over. at the same time when you talk about the unfettered access to drugs ultimately, you can hold out that.

>> no one proposed unfettered access i don't believe. >> this is ultimately unfettered access. the reason i say that if -- for one example proposing something else. there are in between policies. i do not look at it as a false economy. there are places like portugal that have decriminalization of all drugs. it is a little bit messy because you not -- cannot import drugs or sell them but people are not penalized for consuming drugs all the way to heroin. u.s. put out a little -- a report that was pretty good but a little bit biased in my opinion. the conclusion was it addressed the policy concern of the pork -- portuguese government which was heroin addiction. the last point i will make is

the following. even in the earliest 20th century there was no prohibition that we were getting to prohibition -- prohibit legal drugs at the time. pharmacies themselves and doctors were not all necessarily prescribing drugs the way they should be. today when we invented a more easier, more accessible way to use morphine through prescription opiates in the early 2000, you have pharmaceutical companies marketing those drugs quite strongly to doctors and hospitals, and anyone who goes into a hospital today what is the first thing they ask you? whatever opal yarn -- feeling -- opoid you want to lessen your pain? that has led to look and increase in heroin addiction.

the hair addiction has been the result of pure cheaper heroin, not from here when that gives you a side effect. >> did you discern a question and that -- in that? >> the problem you have put your finger on, ms. prescribing doctors and the enterprise of legal opioids, i think in many cases is correct. the fact that we have prohibition means they were addicted and then stigmatized. they do not have access to the drugs. their prescription gets cut off and hair when is a lot cheaper. my sense is you need better regulation of physicians.

you need to change the culture of prescribing. i have some oral surgery recently and was given 25 get in. there is never a follow-up like what happens with that? turned out i did not need anything so now it is sitting around. it is inconvenient to dispose of that excess narcotic. i paid good money. i had soldier -- shoulder surgery, similar. so there are ways in which we could do a better job colts really in controlling how legal opioids are made available. that is by ending the stigma. people will be to not able go to criminal markets. they will say now i am addicted, what do i do about it cap phones

you can then wean people off. you don't have people who say i am addicted, i have to find another doctor to scam. all of this flows out of the prohibition approach and the stigmatization of saying you are an outlaw, this is wrong and immoral, and it is not. it is not immoral to be addicted . it should never be a crime to be an addict. prohibition keeps writing that. -- driving that. >> no one has ever argued legalization is a panacea and everything will work beautifully in a legalized system, but i would define the advocate of prohibition whoever identified various problems associated with drug abuse to show how those problems are made better through

prohibition. that simply is not the case, and there are lots of unintended side effects that prohibition is almost never talk about. with the international environment, i think we have certainly seen a sea change in attitude. the portugal experiment was a key development. as you note, we put out a study five years ago from the experiment. one thing most important was it blew up a lot of the prohibition miss that you were going to see soaring drug use rates. no, we didn't. soaring crime rates with the legalized system no they did not. in fact, it has been in the other direction. in fact it has been in the other direction. the stranglehold of the paradigm

on international policy, i think, if it has not been broken, it is in the process of breaking, you see other countries that may have thought for many years that the u.s. late policy was pure it is the. but for a variety of reasons basic prudence, you do not tell that to the world superpower. now, governments are willing to deviate from the reforms in her go way being the latest. a clear example where you have legalized commerce and marijuana despite washington continuing objectives. i think we are at least in a time of ferment in terms of policy where that goes. i am a strong believer in the philosopher yogi berra

observation, it ain't over until it is over. even though i see favorable trend away from prohibition and toward legalized system, i will not pop the champagne cork assuming that it's legal at the time, until we see better results. in the back -- in the back. >> thank you. it appears throughout human history human beings have been using substances to help with daily life whether it be stimulants or something to relax them, and that has continued throughout human history. therefore, do you think the supply of drugs is only catering or providing humans now today with something they have been desired for centuries that is

inherent in human nature? >> an excellent question. it certainly would seem that way given the long history that cuts across different countries and so on. i think there is at least a percentage of the population that feels it needs that kind of artificial boost. i have never entirely understood that, but i think it is enough of -- enough of a phenomenon that it is clear you cannot pass laws against it. i think that is one lesson that is indisputable at this point. you can try to prevent it as much as possible, but you will have a significant percent of the population that will continue to use substances, regardless of the law.

that simply will not deter them from doing what they want to do whether that is good for them, that for them. >> i think that is very deep and profound question especially in the context of american society. you know, we obviously live in a very controlled society. every kid is forced into a public school system that is licensed by the state. you spend 12 years receiving the message drugs are bad. over 40 years the problem has only gotten bigger. why is that? i think drug addiction is overused that there is wider the cider -- societal implications. why was there more of all use in the soviet union? i think there might be a correlation the more controlled your society is the

more despair there is in that society. the left economic activity, the dynamism that comes from it freely -- truly free market society is absent. the diet of the american people is significantly worse in people of cuba or north korea. i think that when you combine the controlled society with the believe it is all freedom that that may be the cause of why there is so much widespread drug abuse and mind altering abuse in the american society. like i see a dissertation topic correlation of drug use and levels of freedom. in the back. the man holding the microphone wisely. >> i am interesting -- interested in the three

him. v-neck round bottom. get it right. my question, could you just quickly go back through a brief history of that regulation particularly in where it is now, and could all of you give more details or examples about how? you mentioned branded 40 variations of synthetic drug. examples of the effect for things were changed and the government tried to address and was tweaked a little bit more and try to address. thanks. >> in 1980 7, 1988 as congress was developing the anti-drug abuse act of 1988, which included amendments to the anti-drug abuse act of 1966, dea said this particular piece of

equipment was a major part of the problem in the production of methamphetamine and proposed it be banned, and therefore by act of congress as one of the little features of the anti-drug abuse act of 1986, which is a priest fact deal, this was enacted and remains part of the controlled substance act. >> if they change it, we will all get rich because we will start buying and will be made legal. there are a couple of examples. >> most of the laws that were passed before 2011 and 2012 were specific. they went after specific chemical substances. again, what lawmakers are finding is think -- the ink where -- was barely dry on that

law and chemists would change the composition of one molecule in suddenly the law did not apply to that substance anymore. so the move since 2011 in 2012 looked at the national level and state level has been toward very broad fans -- bands attempting to outlaw entire family of substances and trying to deal with the problem in that fashion. for anything that faintly resembles an outlaw drugs will be resembled in that same category in there for outlaw. as i mentioned earlier, that deals with one problem. it also creates another in that you inherently have laws that are they and overly broad. and i am not sure that is a particular pattern we want to encourage in this country. we have seen abuses in other

areas with such laws. that is something we have to always be cognizant of. >> we always have something of a neck so fact oh execution where someone was charged with violating the sale of a substance but at the time she was selling it was not illegal. was made illegal after she was charged. >> that was that loops factor in a texas case where a woman was charged with marketing and illicit substance and the charge was filed something like three months before the texas legislature had outlawed that substance. >> i wanted to comment on something ted said about the question of prohibition specific versus narrow. the designer drug enforcement act of 1986 was essentially very

broad. it said controlled substance analogues should be treated like schedule one substances. it means a substance for the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the substantial structure of the controlled substance of schedule one and two and has a stimulant. or a stimulant to present an effect similar to that. that is completely broad 1986. the approach at that point was very broad of being inactive. that is still on the books. click that was true at the federal level. important distinction between federal and state. >> one last question. make it quick.

>> thank you for your presentation. i am looking to more information about prohibition of the black market. how much people had to pay or whatever was said would be helpful. the second is marijuana or something is not really probable cause under the law but some people have the abuse of power and authorities and the prison population reduced the opportunity for employment and so on. how much longer economically for people who suffer in the society as a whole? >> the cost of

prohibition strategy more generally. >> excellent question. something i pointed out. so many lives have been blighted by prohibition. one i guarantee you there is a gentleman sitting in the oval office today who would not be had he run afoul of the drug laws. he admitted he used illegal drugs but he was one of the lucky ones who did not get caught. how many others have had their lives and careers blighted because of that? as eric points out, the cost of that would be measured probably in the hundreds of billions of dollars. so this is a massive adverse affect on the society. and this is something that we

are going to see more common with regard to synthetic drugs if they become more popular in terms of total use. people will have their lives disrupted because of questionable judgment on their part. i think we have to make a distinction between activities that are not good for you activities that result from questionable judgment on the one hand and crimes on the other. we tend to blur that distinction in our society to our great societal detriment. >> on that note, thank you for attending today. if you will join us on the second floor of the conference center for a lunch and our conference spokesman will show you the way. thank you all very much. [applause]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> tonight, we will speak with the wall street journal information age columnist jordan crovitz on why he things washington is a danger zone for innovation. let's -- >> i think if you go back to earlier technologies like railroads, those were regulated as common carriers. regulators set prices. they set terms rules, and we all know what happened.

very little innovation in railroad and trucking and telephone until they were all deregulated. all those were essentially undone when it was so clear innovation was being suppressed and the u.s. was falling behind in the competitiveness. that was the backdrop for the bipartisan consensus of the 1990's that the internet was going to be different. this was during the clinton administration. a clear consensus, democrats and republicans that unlike the earlier technologies, the internet was going to be largely unregulated. lex tonight at 8:00 eastern on the open community nurse -- communicators." >> tonight, remarks from the u.s. -- at the nigerian

president. he will speak tonight. live coverage gets underway at 8:15 eastern. earlier today that a jury and president met with president obama at the white house. here is a look at the exchange. president obama: the grea a great honor to welcome the president here since the historic election that took place. nigeria obviously one of the most important countries in the world, and one of the most important countries in the african continent. recently we saw an election in which a peaceful transition to a new government took place, and it was an affirmation of nigeria's commitment to democracy, a recognition that although nigeria is a big country and diverse country with many different parts

nonetheless the people understand only through a peaceful, political process can change take place. the president comes into office with a reputation with a very clear agenda. that is to make sure he is bringing safety and security and peace to his country. he is very concerned about the spread of boko haram and the atrocities they have carried out and has a very clear agenda in defeating boko haram and extremism of all sorts inside his country and a very clear agenda with respect to rooting out the corruption that too often is held back the economic growth and prosperity of his country. on both of these issues we are

looking forward to hearing more about his lands and how the united states can partner with nigeria so that nigeria ends up being an anchor not only a prosperity and stability in the eastern part of the continent, but can also be an outstanding role model for developing countries around the world. we heard the report talking about security issues. we are looking forward to discussing how we can be helpful in addressing the issues that have held nigeria back and unleashing the incredible talent of the nigerian people. we all recognize some of the best business people in the world are from nigeria. they thrive as they travel to

other countries, but we want to make sure they are helping folks thrive in nigeria. we will also have an opportunity to talk about the other areas where nigeria has taken leadership and public health issues, fighting tragedies like ebola. nigeria has an outstanding track record of working with us to eradicate polio. that gives us a framework and template to continue to work on public health issues throughout the western part of africa, as well as throughout the subcontinent. we will have a chance to talk about climate change electrification. power africa is one of the top priorities making sure we are electrifying the continents -- the continent so it can grow faster and more people have access to the power they need. we have a busy agenda but i want

to emphasize how much i appreciate the president's work so far. looking forward to seeing him put together his team so we can do everything we can to help him succeed and helped him and the people of nigeria succeed. if they are successful in doing well, that will have a ripple effect, not only west africa but throughout the world. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i am up for -- ever grateful to president obama and the united states for making nigeria to consider this. the use of nigeria to see the chairman of independent

initiative commission in nigeria was very clear on that trend for this accreditation we had. the materials by the united states to make sure the elections were free, fair, and credible. they got us to where we are now. it is almost impossible on the pressure of the former nigerian government. we would not accept anything unless -- anything less than constitutional. we remain ever grateful to the

objectives that identified the congress. the security of the economy, the employment. we are extremely happy the united states has made it absolutely clear before the election they are prepared to come to nigeria and this aspect. i am very grateful for the invitation. thank you very much. >> [inaudible] president obama: i think it will send a clear message that the overwhelming number of countries that not only participated in the deal, but who have observed

and have been recognized that this is by far our strongest approach to ensuring iran does not get a nuclear weapon. there is a lot of international consensus around this issue. not just among the international community but among experts in nuclear. my working assumption is that congress will pay attention to the broad-based consumption -- conception. thank you. thank you. >> that meeting taking place earlier at the white house. in about an hour, live remarks from the nigerian president on u.s. relations from nigeria. he will speak tonight at a u.s. chamber of commerce event. tomorrow, christina peterson of

the wall street journal and jeff mason describes -- discussed the white house and congressional agenda for the white house recess. mark logo looks at a recent childhood -- a recent survey on childhood poverty rates plus your phone calls and tweets from washington journal live tuesday. both changing -- chambers of congress returning tomorrow. senators beginning work on a highway funding bill. the procedural vote plan for 2:00 eastern. current funding expending live at -- expending live at the month. house returning to :00 eastern tomorrow. later this week members will the vein -- begin debate on to build, one that authorizes a to establish permit programs for coal-fired power plants to ensure safety management. another measure that sets voluntary nationwide statement

-- labeling standards. house live here on c-span. >> c-span gives you the best access to congress. bringing you events that shape public policy and every morning washington journal is live with elected officials, policymakers and journalists in your comments life on facebook and twitter. c-span, created by american cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. click next, the white house briefing with josh earnest. he spoke about a range of issues including recent remarks by donald trump on don -- donald trump's military service. this is an hour. >> the united states welcomes

today's historic opening for the embassy of the united's of america with cuba and -- with the opening of the cuban embassy today and washington, d.c.. this is respect of dialogue between the united dates in cuba. this will reestablish diplomatic relations between our two nations. this is yet another in the -- demonstration we do not have to be imprisoned by the past. we look forward to working collaborative to normalize relations with the cumin government and cuban people after more than half a century of just. beginning today u.s. diplomats will have the ability to engage more broadly across the island of cuba with the cuban government, cuban civil society and even ordinary cuban citizen. we look forward to collaborating on issues of common interest including counterterrorism and disaster response, and we believe that the best way to foster freedom of assembly is through greater engagement with the cuban government and people. we have been gratified by the

support the iran deal has garnered from many corners, at home and abroad. the united nations security council unanimously adopted the resolution. you heard my minister david cameron speak and ambiguously in support of the deal. as well as the outpouring of support from some of the country's newspapers, large and small, all across the country. today, some of you may have seen a letter in support of the deal signed by some 60 former u.s. government officials from democratic and republican administrations. among those, those who knew iran best. included in this list are former national security advisers let's crop and -- former secretary of defense william perry, former secretary the treasury paul o'neill, former ambassador to iraqi, syria, and pakistan ryan crocker, christopher hill, lee

hamilton, the former chairman of the house foreign affairs committee. we continue to urge congress and the american public to judge the deal on its merits. we are confident if they do, they will reach the same conclusion that those who know these issues best already have. if you have not seen that letter, we can get you a full copy. with that, do you want to get us started today? >> on cuba, is the president going to be meeting with the cuban foreign minister? mr. earnest: i am not aware of any plans for the president to meet with cuban officials. i know that secretary kerry be meeting with his counterpart today.

>> does the president intend to nominate an ambassador to cuba? mr. earnest: i do not have any announcements for personnel -- >> but this is about intention. mr. earnest: i do not have anything to share with you in terms of a specific commitment. we do believe that u.s. interests in cuba would be best interested by somebody serving as the ambassador there. that said, the current chief of mission is a gentleman named jeffrey delorenzo's -- delaurentis. he has done two previous dents in havana at -- stints in a vana and has served in a wide variety of diplomatic roles. so, this is somebody representing the united states as the chief of mission at the u.s. embassy in cuba. this is someone with a wide range of experience and we have confidence in the ability of him

to represent u.s. interesting cuba. i certainly would not rule out that the president would nominate somebody to serve at the rank of ambassador at the u.s. embassy in cuba. >> you are not ruling it out but you are not making an actual commitment? mr. earnest: only because i do not have the time frame or an individual to share with you at the minute. >> [indiscernible] i know that you said that would not trump any action of congress, but what would you say to the lawmakers who say it appears as though the president has at least violated the spirit of what congress passed? to have a say on this?

mr. earnest: i would strenuously disagree. there is an extraordinary provision included in the security council resolution adopted by the security council today, which is to ensure that the resolution adopted today does not go into effect for another 90 days, and that is specifically to allow congress ample time to conduct their review of the agreement. and that does show on the part of the international community significant deference to the privileges of individual members

of congress. as i mentioned last week, i would just note that there is a u.n. security council resolution >> with this false outing part of that -- golf outing part of this? >> i know the president did enjoy an opportunity to play golf yesterday. i would assure you have the engagement been focused solely on the iran agreement the president would have chosen a location that benefited from air conditioning. so i know most of the activity yesterday was focused on this. >> is there anything about what the president is doing? mr. earnest: there are a number of conversations that have occurred with those leaving.

i would expect those to continue. there are some details about the administration engagement with congress coming up this week. on wednesday there will be separate classified briefings for all house members and all senate members on capitol hill. this will take place wednesday and everything conducted by secretary kerry, secretary lou as well as a senior intelligence official. that there will be an open hearing thursday in front of the senate foreign relations committee with secretary clooney -- secretary kerry and secretary lew. on tuesday they will testify in an open hearing before the house foreign affairs committee. that is something they continue to be serious about an opportunity we have to make sure members of congress have the opportunity they need to

consider this agreement over the next 60 days. let's just the white house have any reaction about the president's former rival in 2008 senator john mccain? mr. ernest: even in the midst of the competitive run for the white house president obama expressed his admiration and deep respect or senator mccain's heroism. political differences between president mccain and -- senator mccain and president obama have continued while he is been in office. the fact is the most notable comment in the episode came from senator mccain himself, who i think pretty selflessly made clear he did not care and about -- care about an apology but did care the military veterans are entitled to them. >> probably hard for the president not to have heard about this.

did he have a reaction to this? >> there is some discussion of congress about how to pay for the highway fund. one option being looked at is keystone oil. does the white house have a position on that? mr. earnest: at the risk of unintentionally suggesting to the watching the energy markets that this may be telegraphing a decision to the sale, i do not do not have a comment on that. i will say as a general matter we have indicated in a written statement our support for the five-month extension that the house considered last week and approved primarily as a mechanism for buying time to reach an agreement on a longer-term highway funding bill. we have expressed our frustration at the repeated short-term extension that we

believe are entirely inconsistent with the best interest of our economy in best interest of maintaining a modern infrastructure. we believe a serious long-term investment is needed in the infrastructure. the president put ortho zone initiative that would not just ensure we are ensuring infrastructure over the long-term but make sure we are funding our infrastructure over the long-term over and above the current level because there is so much build up maintenance that is required of her infrastructure in the country, and we are hopeful congress will make a similar commitment, a commitment similar to the one we have proposed. i would hasten to point out the proposal the administration put for -- forward is one that is entirely paid for. >> is a true cuba has sent gitmo needs to be recharged and cuba's human rights seem to be a pretty

bad example. congress is pushing back saying cuban resident -- rescued thousands of political people -- thousands of people for political reasons just this year. what kind of relationship will this be with such big problems on your side? mr. earnest: i think we will see a change of policy that is consistent with the security with the united states and certainly consistent with the kinds of values this president and previous presidents have advocated around the world. those are the respect towards the basic human rights we hold dear in this country. freedom of speech, religion, freedom of the press. it is clear cuba has significant progress to make in all of those areas. what is also clear is the previous policy that had been in place that had aimed to accomplish the same thing over the past 55 years did not meet

much progress. the president believed a change was necessary, and we are all we will start to see the kind of respect for basic human rights on the island of cuba that the united states has long advocated. i would just point out it is not just the president. bipartisan leaders in congress shared the view and shared optimism about this strategy. it is actually the cuban people. an it is actually the cuban people who are optimistic because the chance it has to improve their prospects on the island nation of cuba. the president looks forward to these changes taking effect and that the cuban people and cuban government start to enjoy the benefits and see the results from greater engagement with the united states. >> is there any indication though at this point that the cuban government intends to allow more freedom on the

island or stop arresting people for purely political reasons? >> you'll recall that even in the days after this agreement was announced back in december a substantial number of individuals who had previously been held by the cuban government for their political views were released. that's an indication the cuban government is trying to at least change their reputation when it comes to these issues but we have got a long list of concerns. i think the other thing that happens to be true is that for a long time the u.s. policy of trying to isolate cuba became a source of irritation in the relationship between the united states and other countries in the western hemisphere. by removing that source of irritation the united states can now focus attention of not just the united states but other countries in the western hemisphere, on cuba's -- on the cuban government's rather sordid human rights record. again, that is part of the strategy for seeking to engage

the people the cuban people more effectively and bring about the kind of change we would like to see inside of cuba. >> quickly with the meeting today with the president can -- was there any indication of any progress made and does the administration feel like the new administration there in nigeria will have any greater effect on preventing those kinds of kidnappings and bringing that group back safely as well? >> well, michelle, i don't have a detailed read out of the meeting to share with you. i can say as a general matter the president -- president obama did have the opportunity to discuss with president bue harry the importance of the security cooperation between our two countries. we know there are extremists that are operating inside of nigeria. that is having a negative effect on the nigerian population. and the united states is working with their government to help them with those

terrorist activities. we are also committed to helping those communities plagued by violence to recover and that will require a sustained investment and commitment on the part of the nigerian government and is also going to require the nigerian government to improve their own human rights record as well to make sure even as they carry out counterterrorism raids and other security operations that they're mindful of the basic human rights of their people. that was certainly an important part of the conversation the president had today. >> coming back to donald trump's comments you cited approvingly john mccain's calling for trump to apologize to veterans. do you agree with that? does donald trump owe veterans an apology? >> john, i have resisted temptation to weigh in, though i've had ample opportunity to do so. >> you were approving of what mccain did. >> and i do think it warrants lifting up the selfless example

senator mccain has established here today in terms of suggesting that he doesn't really care about an apology for himself. he suggested that somebody who's in the political arena, he has taken his own fair share of criticism and he can handle it but he's right when he says that our veterans are the ones entitled to an apology. >> you agree trump should apologize to the veterans. >> i agree with what senator mccain had to say. >> obviously the president's got -- a history with both of these guys i guess -- but particularly with trump you may recall there was the whole birth certificate question that trump didn't want to let go of. what does the president make of the fact that donald trump now in several polls is actually leading in the battle for the republican nomination? >> well, i haven't had a detailed conversation with the president about this, but obviously there's a spirited process under way on the republican side, and, you know, this will be a significant challenge for republican candidates. they'll have to navigate their

way through this process ultimately. >> what was his reaction in the nondetailed conversation? >> i don't have more details of that conversation to share with you. >> okay. just a clarification on your comments on the ambassador. >> yes. >> a little odd to me. you said you wouldn't rule out the president would appoint an ambassador. we're opening the embassy. why wouldn't he? i'm not asking you about timing. i'm not asking who it is. an embassy is opening up in havana. will there be a united states ambassador appointed by this president? >> we know there has been -- there have been significant objections raised by republicans in congress so i don't know if they will fulfill their responsibilities to affirm an ambassador to cuba. i don't have a time frame. >> i'm asking about the president nominating not whether we will have a new ambassador. will the president even in the face of those republican objections nominate somebody? a yes or no. >> at this point i don't know who that would be or the time frame. >> i'm not asking. >> i would expect he would do that, yes. >> thanks a lot. >> all right. victoria? >> yes.

given the corruption within the nigerian military and the fact that it's been infiltrated by boko haram what is the extent to which you feel that you can assist nigeria? >> well, victoria, the u.s. military personnel have been in nigeria for sometime now to assist them in trying to counter this extremist threat they face from boekeo ha ram. i would -- boko haram. i would anticipate that well, i'll just say we continue to believe that we can play a role in helping nigerian security authorities deal with this threat in their country. that involves not just carrying out security operations against boko haram which is what nigerian officials have done but the u.s. can provide some intelligence support for them. we can also support and encourage the nigerian government as they assist those communities that have been the

site of so much of this violence. that one of the concerns that we have expressed is about how those communities are recovering after they've gone through, you know, having a significant boko haram presence in their community driven out by nigerian security forces, we want to be sure those nigerian security forces are first respecting basic human rights of those living in those communities and taking steps to protect those basic human rights but also making investments necessary in that community to help them recover from the traumatic presence of boko haram. bill? >> i'd like to go back to what julie was asking about the golf game yesterday. i would defer to mark knoller but i believe in six and a half years this is certainly a rare moment when he's golfed with only members of congress. i think the only time all three of his partners have been members of congress. so are we wrong in assuming this is part of the full-court press on iran?

>> well, with all due respect, yes. this is a golf outing that has been in the works for quite sometime. i can tell you that. for a number of months. new members of congress aren't in washington, aren't often in washington, d.c. over the weekend so it took extensive, advance planning in order to coordinate this weekend's round of golf. >> would we also be wrong in assuming in the next 60 days there will be more rounds of golf with members of congress snverages i don't have additional information about the president's golf partners. i'm confident in the next 60 days many members of congress will be playing golf which is why they wanted an extra 30 days to consider the agreement. we all know, right, the deal, they're going to their august recess and wanted to extend the time. not a criticism. just a fact. i'm sure the president will enjoy the opportunity to play some golf on vacation as well. >> with partners among the press corps? >> not that i'm aware of. >> in the wake of the

chattanooga shooting several states have changed the way business is done at recruiting centers for service members. does the president believe there should be armed guards stationed at the recruiting sites or the service members working there should be armed? >> peter, there are a number of things here. the department of homeland security has announced some additional security measures that they're taking to improve security at those facilities that they have jurisdiction over. the department of defense is actively considering changes in the security posture. i refer you to them for any announcement they may make on this. and i know there are some who suggest that the policy as it relates to whether or not members of the armed forces should carry weapons when they're on duty, that's a policy decision that should be made by the department of defense, and i don't know if that's something they're reconsidering at this point. it's the president's view that that decision should be made with solely the safety and security of our men and women

in uniform in mind and not as a subject of a political argument of -- argument. >> following the newtown, the massacre at fort hood, the president ordering flags to be lowered at half staff there have been questions regarding why the president hasn't done the same following the chattanooga shootings. >> you heard the president talk about this once last week where he offered his sincere condolences to the families of those killed in this attack. i would anticipate you'll hear the president discuss this a little bit more in his remarks at the v.f.w. tomorrow. i don't have more information about the status of the flag over the white house. >> does the president believe that everybody who served representing this country should qualify, be considered a hero? >> well, i think the point that many people have made in discussing senator mccain's service to this country is that the courage that he showed as a

p.o.w. is extraordinary. that this is an individual who was confined for many years and for many of those years had the opportunity to walk out because the -- his captors recognized there was a propaganda victory in the offing. he declined the opportunity to be released from the terrible conditions in that prison because of the code and the respect that he had for his prisoners. and i don't think i would be willing to render a judgment on every single individual who put on the uniform of the united states military. certainly we owe them a lot of respect for their service to the country, but there is no denying that senator mccain's service to the country is extraordinary and qualifies him as a hero. >> so just by serving you're not necessarily a hero. >> again, pete i'm not going to render judgment on the service of millions of americans who have bravely put on the uniform of this country. we are certainly indebted to

them but there is no denying that senator mccain's service to this country is extraordinary. >> is beau berg dahl a hero? >> again, i'm not going to get into those kinds of classifications. >> i just want to clarify something we talked bat little bit. back in april ben rhodes said in an interview about the deal that would provide any time anywhere access to iran nuclear sites, and so i'm just trying to make sure that's still the case. from his understanding, because based on what i've read and based on what secretary kerry is now saying it's not any time anywhere. it's more, if you'll pardon me anywhere in a reasonable time fashion. can you help make sense of the difference? >> i'd be happy to. let me give you credit for quoting ben correctly in that april interview. he did say there would be anytime, anywhere access to iran's nuclear facilities. that's true. we're going to have 24/7,

continuous monitoring of iran's nuclear facilities. that's what was envisioned in the agreement and what was completed in the final agreement. >> talking about electronic surveillance and that sort of thing, not necessarily, hey, you can make a phone call and we can put people in the room at any point? >> well, i certainly wouldn't rule that out. when it comes to iran's declared nuclear facilities, international investigators will have 24/7 continuous access to those facilities to verify iran's compliance with the agreement. >> is that the same as saying 24 days later they can allow you in or you're saying at any point you don't have that sort of delay? >> i'm saying that delay doesn't come in when we're talking about ron's declared nuclear facilities. we have 24/7 continued monitoring of iran's declared nuclear facilities. that's what was promised and exactly what was delivered in this final agreement. >> there is an interesting report in the los angeles times today that suggests that those who are on some sort of managed care social security, would

have more restrictions by a proposal from the administration to access, the ability to access guns. can you explain that? >> i haven't seen that report, kevin. i know that the central tenet when it comes to policy making here in the administration as it relates to gun safety is that there are a number of steps that we have been able to take that prevent guns from falling into the hands of those who shouldn't have them. these are people like criminals, people with documented mental problems. and we can implement those policies without in any way undermining the constitutional rights of law-abiding americans. yet, what we believe we can do is make the country a little bit safer. that's not going to prevent every act of violence and certainly not going to prevent every act of gun violence. but it is a common sense way for us to try to improve public safety. there is actually more that congress could do in this regard and we're going to continue to advocate that they

do so. >> a couple more. puerto rico. they're obviously going through the massive economic issues down there and some people have suggested it's our greece. we've seen push back on that. if puerto rico were a state, would that emeliorate some of the problems financially that they're having? >> i'd refer you to the treasury department for that kind of accounting. that would obviously be a decision for the people of puerto rico to make. >> a lighter one lastly. did the president see the video of the shark attack on the surfer? if he did, what did he say about that? >> i don't know if he has seen that video. i haven't actually seen the video. i've seen some of the gnaws reports about it. it seems like quite an interesting confrontation. byron? >> does the white house have any reaction to what appears to be the first isis bombing in turkey? >> i do. give me just a second. the -- i can tell you that the united states strongly condemns the heinous terrorist attack

that occurred in southern turkey. our condolences go out to the families of the victims, many of whom had come to that community to assist in reconstruction efforts. we express our solidarity with the turkish government and people and reaffirm our undeterred resolve to the fight against the shared threat of terrorism. >> is there a concern that the state seems to be expanding nah new countries? >> in this case we have talked quite a bit about the important progress made against isil in this region of syria. and, you know, obviously we condemn this act of violence against individuals who are actually seeking to go and engage in some humanitarian efforts on the other side of the syrian border. we continue to be mindful of the destablizing impact that extremist groups like isil have in the region. that's why you have seen the president work so hard to build and lead an international

coalition to degrade and ultimately destroy them, because of the destablizing impact they're having on the region. and that destablizing activity takes a variety of forms. there are millions of refugees who have fled syria. they fled to nearby countries. that has a destablizing impact on other countries. we have started to see some extremist activity in other countries. that does seem to be related to isil. we continue to be concerned about that. that's why it's frankly been so critically important for us to mobilize other countries in the region in support of our coalition's efforts. and that's why the president certainly is pleased to have the support of so many other middle eastern countries inside this coalition. many of whom are actually flying alongside american military pilots as they conduct air strikes in syria against extremist targets. >> okay.

>> you mentioned earlier josh, cuba's human rights record. would you say since the historic announcement in december setting aside the arrangement both governments made with alan gross and the prisoners that were agreed to in that move, since then, has the human rights record in cuba been better or worse than it was before? >> well, i guess what i would -- it is hard for me to sort of assess that in a lot of detail. i think what i would say is over the course of the last seven months we haven't seen as much progress as we'd like to ultimately see but considering the previous policy in place for 55 years i think additional time is warranted before rendering judgment about the success of this approach. >> are you satisfied you would have expected and been pleased to see more progress? >> there is no doubt more progress is needed in cuba and more we'll press them to carry out.

>> -- whether he is ever eventually nominated or confirmed as secretary, what is his mandate from the president? what is his top agenda item? is it to travel the country, to meet with dissidents, to try to press for the release of political prisoners since this historic move? now obviously he had to supervise this transition phase. it strikes me now this is a new phase. what is his number one agenda from the president? >> well, overall, his top agenda item will be to represent the interests of the united states on the island. in some cases that is going to involve making sure that u.s. businesses and u.s. individuals that are engaged in commercial activity on the island of cuba, that their views are, or their interests are represented and protected on the island. that is certainly one reason we've seen some bipartisan support in congress for this policy change. but obviously diplomats who are working at the new u.s. embassy in cuba will also have the ability to more freely travel throughout cuba and to interact

and engage the cuban people. and, yes, even some members of the political opposition. and we believe that that will be -- that will better represent the interests of the united states on the island. mplings representing u.s. businesses and the expansion and the interaction, or other issues dealing with human rights? >> i would say the president believes both are important to the mission there at the -- for our diplomats at the facility and they should do both. >> tomorrow, there might be some expectation the president will address the year past in trying to fix what he identified and what cost the previous secretary of veterans affairs his job. is the president intending to give an assessment of what he has and has not accomplished in the last year? >> we'll have more details about the president's speech that he is preparing for tomorrow. but certainly the commitment of this administration to making sure that we're doing right by our veterans is an important part of that.

and it is true that there is more work that needs to be done when it comes to ensuring that we're living up to the promises made to our veterans. so while there is more work to be done in terms of reducing the backlog and more work to be done in terms of making sure we're reducing wait times substantial progress on both of those counts has been made even in just the last year. but there's more work that needs to get done and the president goes insisting that we follow through and build on that momentum we've built up to make sure we do right by our veterans. >> a question on iran. the step back sanctions provision, some in the proliferation community who are supportive of the deal, not opposed to it, have nevertheless pointed out that there is a kind of a dueling character because if they go to the security council and the united states vetoes, meaning putting the sanctions back because it is noncompliant, under the agreement iran can say we're no longer bound by

any of these other inspections. so the deal sort of breaks apart as far as their compliance and the sanctions coming back. and the nonproliferation experts have observed that means the united states will be under tremendous pressure not to put the sanctions back in place unless it is an egregious, massive violation of the agreement. and that on smaller things, the temptation will be to ignore those smaller violations to keep whatever part of the deal exists going and the inspection regime going. is that a fair appraisal of this particular component? >> the way that we see it is iran will be under intense pressure to live up to the terms of the agreement. you'll recall that the only reason we have reached this place is that the iranian government was facing intense domestic pressure to get sanctions relief for their people. that their economy was crumbling. we saw the value of their currency significantly diminished unemployment rates

and other measures of economic activity got significantly worse in the years that this sanctions regime was in place. and there will be -- the iranian government will be under intense pressure to make sure that they don't end back up under those sanctions. and that is the way that we see this working out. i think the other thing that's important is there is no sanctions relief that is given until iran has taken important steps to demonstrate their compliance which means significantly rolling back their nuclear program. we've talked a lot about how as a result of this agreement iran is committed to reducing their uraniuim stockpile by 98%, removing 13,000 centrifuges, essentially rendering harmless their heavy water reactor. they have to take all of those steps before they get any sanctions released. so even if we are in a situation where we discover

that iran is starting to cheat on the deal as it were, they will be trying to make up significant ground that they've already lost. and that means that the international community will be in a much better position to respond to any iranian cheating if it occurs. >> last question. the president saw the play saturday. did he enjoy it and did it in any way alter his belief as to whether alexander hamilton should be -- >> i've not spoken to the president first hand about this but i know somebody who did and he relayed to me that the president genuinely enjoyed the performance on saturday afternoon. that the president believed that the show lived up to the hype. and so he really enjoyed it. and i'm confident that he enjoyed the opportunity to take the show in with his daughters. there is a policy process that's under way at the treasury department that would make a change to the $10 bill but would not, contrary to some rumors, would not remove alexander hamilton from the

bill. he will -- even with the change -- would remain, his face would remain on the $10 bill. >> so the change in policy? >> no changes in policy that i'm aware of. >> going back one more time to the golf partners you mentioned this has been in the works for sometime. why these three members in particular? and if the president did not bring up iran, why not? why miss that opportunity when he has three votes golfing with him? >> i'm sorry. i thought you said gulf partners not golf countries so when you said the three i was trying to think of which countries. so going to take me a minute here. it is my understanding -- >> colorado --. >> exactly. i wasn't aware colorado was on the gulf. the -- it is my understanding -- i don't know of the specific topic of conversation throughout the round of golf. i suspect most of it centered on the game of golf.

this is a golf appointment that the president has been trying to schedule for a number of months. again, members of congress typically aren't in washington, d.c. over the weekend so this took advanced planning to coordinate it. i know the president enjoyed the round of golf even if it was steamy. >> so it is fair to say iran for sure did not come up? >> i wouldn't say that necessarily. >> president buhari had a post in "the washington post" this morning where he asked the u.s. for help in recovering about $150 billion taken by corrupt nigerian officials i guess prior to his administration. is that something that the -- that the u.s. is willing to lend a hand on? >> well, i do know that in the context of his discussion with president obama, that they did have the opportunity to talk about important economic reforms and even some important governmental reforms inside the country. i don't know whether the specific issue of trying to

acquire some assets that may have left the country through some corruption, i don't know if that came up in the conversation or not. okay. all right. andrew? [inaudible] >> at this point we've seen those reports but we have not reached that conclusion. we certainly are seeking additional information though to get to the bottom of those reports. we continue to take all allegations of chemical weapons used in syria very seriously as well as any indication of isil's interest and intent in using such capability. we continue to monitor these reports closely and would further stress that any use of chemicals or biological material as weapons is completely inconsistent with international standards and norms regarding such

capabilities. >> to byron's question on the attack in turkey, is the u.s. helping with that investigation? >> i know that u.s. officials have been in touch with turkey on this but i don't know the nature of those conversations. >> okay. >> to go back to cuba and ask about potential presidential trip there, you mentioned on friday a couple of conditions for the president making a trip including free press and not repressing political opponents which seems kind of unlikely to happen by the end of his administration. >> yes. >> does that mean he would not travel to cuba? >> i think i was pretty careful in discussing this on friday to note these are the kinds of things we would like to see cuba make progress on. but at this point i wouldn't necessarily suggest that the successful protection of those rights is required before presidential visit is

discussed. but as a general matter when we talk about advocating for the protection and respect of basic human rights in cuba, it is trying to convince the cuban government to fulfill what we see as their responsibility to protect basic human rights like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and a free press. >> but you're not saying without those being addressed by the time he leaves office he would not go to cuba. >> no i'm not laying down any markers in terms of what would be necessary definitively. >> are there any markers that are definitive before he would make a trip there? >> again. nothing that i would discuss publicly but i think that the -- certainly the aamount of progress the cuban government is making as it relates generally to the protection of basic human rights will factor into the decision by the president to travel to cuba if he makes a decision to travel

to the cuba. >> can you clarify did you say you're -- you would have hoped there would have been a little more progress? >> no. what i'm suggesting is that we bleamb there is substantial progress that needs to be made when it comes to respecting basic human rights inside of cuba and there are some of our critics i think who have suggested because we haven't seen as much progress as we believe necessary over the last seven months that somehow that is a reflection of a deficiency in the president's policy and may response is merely that it is too soon to tell since the policy has only been in place for seven months. we had 55 years to evaluate the success of the previous policy and it didn't bring about the kinds of results we would like to see and the case i would make to you is it is going to take longer than seven months to demonstrate the clear success of this specific