you think they could have broken earlier, tomorrow. john: we're at war against terror. >> this warlike all warsus end. john: so that american is wage war on apple? apple keeping massive profits overseas, a war on hate crime. >> what turns aormal fat little-year-old boy into a vicious hate crime committing rapi? john: to contie the war on drugs. >> this is your brain on drugs. john: start one on food. america's wars on food, terror, business, drugs, and hate. >> if you want to hurt another human being, you better make sure they are the same color as you are. john: that is our show, tonight.

>> now johntossel. jo: we start show about amera's wars with our biggest war, the war on terror, a strange question, what is t right way to kill homosexuals? now that we have your atttntion, i learned about the properay to kill gays from former cia director james would -- so ambassador woolsly explain. >> john, when i was chairman of board of freedom house, we had a group of american muslims come in to us when were disturbed because the saudis sent imams with diplomaticassports to go to a number of mosques in the u.s., including theirs, they

took away the perfectly reason able instruct material for young people to who were muslim to learn iam. and they leftnstead a set of material they th the imam printd up, i rember a second of those, it was three wayshat it was proper to kill a homosexual from the rah habes -- wahhabis saudi arabia point of view. yoview. >> it had to be high enough to feel pain coming down? >> right, and would d because it hado be high enough. the soning, is supposed to be with small stones, so it takes a long te. and big stone does not knock anybody out. then other third way that wahhabis say you could burn them alive. saudi embassy got upset at this,

said it was a mistake, and old material we should not pay attention. but next year of it the same. so, we -- look, it is not exclusivy a muslim problem, 400 years ago,y fellow call calvinist protestants we burning witches in salem, massachusets. john: what is you point on war on terror. >> at least in part really important to realize that there is an idealogical sid it is not just random violence, we need to get it straight, not get bogged down on a nonsensible ible notion o buying polically correct. john: what do you want to do? kill them all ?

>> of course not, you need to start out by not being politically correct, understain where some of the movement come from. and some of is some parts of islam, we need to be candid about that. jo: saudis have aig edationampaign, wahhabi schools they teach stuff like that to kill homosexuals. these people are our partners supposedly. >> about 1 to 2% of muslims saudis control,nd where the rah hab are doing -- rah habe wahhabis are doing writing and teaches is hostile to other religions, in forms of advocating violence in the form of jihad and so forth. john: we're not going to bomb all tese people. we can't convince them to be more open mind.

what do you want to do? >> i want us to be able to drive on something other than oil products. we need to be able to tell opec, that we do not have to keep shipping them money in order to ive our cars and our trucks. >> so you say we can't kill them but we can bankrupt them? >> i suggest we need to do is to take away the power of monopoly, that lets oil dominate -- transportation to opportunity about 97% that would indirectly encourage people like the saudis and others to actually work for a living, rather than lifting oil for $2 a barrel, and selling ito us for $102. john: what about what president said about bringing drone war down. and suld we be spending what we're pending now on the war

against terr? >> well, a drone is a weapon. and think of it as alying sniper in a way. you have i think a lot less collateral damage if you attack al qaeda leader with a drone than ifou attack him with a bomb. john: do we need to spend what we're speing? >> i think that we may need to spend more, we may be able it get by with ls, point is to figure out what it takes to win. and spend that. john: thank you ambassador woolsey. >> thank you. john: i want america to have a strong military that protects us from fanatics who want to kill us. but how big a militarys tha we n spend almost $800 billion on defense. about a fifth of our budget. chris prebbl e . at cato institute, said, that is

way too much? >> it is more than we spend at peak of cold war, when ronald reagan was fighting the soviet union. john: cato, your think tank made this video that compares our military spending that that of our allies. >> every year u.s. spends -- our allies spend a quarter or less to defend themselves. we agree to pay big bucks to defend our friends, and they let us. that allows our friends to spend far mor on everything else. we pick up the tab for global security spending, and our allies free rid >> they are freeloading off of us, we're suckers? we are suckers. i don't blame them, if i wasas n their situation, ii someone else

offered to pay for my security i would let them too, that is what our allies have done. after world war ii they were attered by war, but somewhere along the line, they got rich, we didn't revisit why we continue to defend them, when they can defend themselves. john: all right they probably will not do all things that we want our military to do. and that list is long. we want to kill terrosts, and train foreign military to kill terrorists. >> some cntries are very good at that, some better than us. many of the successful operations against al qaeda have been y other organizations other militaries and hor countries -- other cntries in cooperation with us, it is in the fair to think they are not inclined to defend themselves if weere not helping them. john: people want the military to do more protect oer countries fm aggression t toontain china an and -- to conn

china and ira >> i think that china is the big boogeyman out there, chinese military spending is second to the world, but we're discouraging china's neighbors from doing more to defend themselves. i think that is short-sighted. john: iran, threatens nuclear bomb and do who bes what. >> theyon't hav a nuclear bomb, china does. a few others have them, ran does not iran ii ty relative to the threat supposedly posed by china, we node to put them in perspective. john: we want navy to protect -- >> they defd the sea lanes from interception or disrupted. but, free seas are a benefit to many people, few people would benefit from closing them, thecally that would like to close them like al qaeda can't. john: ifid that, weou end wha >> qte a bit ls, ihink gd rul of thumb what wer

spenng aroundime of 9 attasod is aut $450illion at ia gota. ba tn were sll defeing oerountries t codef tmsves, i w stopped that we could spend less. john: we would be safe? >> absolutely. >> thank you,, up next more wars like that war eat. >> we don't just want them labeled we' them gone. john: and the war on hate, itself. >> we should b treated the same with the same laws and same punishment for the same crimes.

john: did you see headlines senators blast apple. congress went to war again that evil technology company. >> apple is one of the biggest tax avoiders in america. >> most of your profits worldwide are sitting this three irish companies that you control that don't pay taxes. john: so on. but wait. apple created maybe 600,000 jobs in america. moreover seas. a huge aim of new wealth. apple tries to avoid paying

taxes, their account anes tell them to because american taxes are crazy, they and i avoid legally, won't any polician stand up for a business that makes an apatrol yeah, the appropriate response to big intrusive government, one senator spoke up. >> i am offended by tone and tenor of this hearing, by spec able else was dragging in executives from an american company that is not doing anything illegal, i say instead of applicatives -- executives we should have brought in a giant mirror to look at the reflect of congress, this is created by awful tax code. >> w to go. senator rand paul joins us now. did you take drive for saying that rom your colleagues like mccain? >> they may not have been too happy with me, i was not happy

with the proceeding. it is an insul to make corporation officers come i raise their right-hand, and read them the riot act for doing what everybody else does, who wts to come forward and say you want a chief financial officer who maximized your tax bill, i asked a prorofessor, do you take dedus on your taxes do you minimize your tax bill legally, they all answered yes, it was insul to apple, they are larst corporate taxpayer in our country, we should give them an work war for paying so many -- award for paying so many taxes and creating so many jobs. john: i am glad you complained about this attitude of bringing in the ceo to kel before congress, apple popular, but if you have a company that makes pespesticide and an oil company,

they try to destroy you. >> they say we didn't subpoena them. but quietly they say, if you don't come in we will. that committee, is one of few mmittees in congress that has power to subpoen no one the say no. but ihought it was insulting th are great innovators that have created jobs and pay a lot in taxes if you want them to bridge home worldwide profits from sales overseas let's make the tax code fair. there are examples that are working. john: and when you colleagues chew out companies and complain about their profit with aer. snear . >> i told them they need to bring a mirror, i imagined how funny it would be to have a 12 by 12 mirror, and have them look

in this mirror to find the problem. two leade of that committee, republican and democrat, they ve been up here for 30 years, they preside over the tax code it their bab if it forces money to go overseas,. john: am i being unfair when i ainst business. have a war >> there is an attitude, like a hearing on apple. we should do, if we had a president who was a great leader, he should fly out to apple headquarter, congratulate them for being a great american company and company, say what can you do to help you, to allow you to bri more money home, what tax rate would help that we should do that to every successful americanompany instead of dragging them into washington. and excoriating them, saying they are not paying their fair share, the same with wealthy

people in the country, instead of saying how do we punish you. john: thank you, senator rand paul. >> thank you, john. john: coming up, another kind of war, a war on certain kinds of speech. even thought@í0x;ñt

my mother made the best ffee in the world. it's delicious. so now we've turned her toffee into a business. my goal was to take an idea and ma it happen.

i'm jat long and i formed my toffee company through legalzoom. never really thought i would make money doing what i love. [ robert ] we created legalzoom to help people start their business and launch their dreams. go to legalzoom.com today and make your business dream a reality.

>> whenever i hear about a hate crime, i am shocked and saddened. >> i give a damn, do you? john: i give a damn, i am horrified when peoe are victimized. on the surface i should be glad that america wages a war on hate. and that is how is it should be says paul, who runs fighting discrimination program at a drop called human rights first, but jimmy, cofounder of go proud, a republican gay advocacy group,

says that hate crime laws are not useful. how can you say that? you have been a victim? hav >> absolutely, i was on a bike a ye ago, a guy came out in to street, in a pack of kids he punched me and called me a anti-gay name. i was reaching for my phone, and one of the other kids, asked him, is he going for a gun, i let them think that. it was that thought that i might have wpon that turned e tide. and prevented me from being a victim of a horrible crime. john: why not more protect with haterime laws? >> well, i just tony tnk there is -- don't think there is evidence they are preventing crimes before they happen. we need to focus on that, we can't ignore facthat certain

segments of theopulation are targets of violent crime simply fo who they are. we need to come up with ways to help prevent people from becoming victims of crime, rather than giving them a false sense of security that there is a law. >> i would like to jump in, i don't believe that hate cme laws are the sold answer to hate crime, i think we're in grime, first main -- in agreement that violent attacks that target people because of their identity, runs familyontrary to -- fundantally contrary to american values, hate crime as a concept is under to understand. john: why? hate is in so many crimes. >> hate crime is perhaps a misnomer, there are biassed crimes where people are targeted because of their identity, hate crimes embed in criminal justice

system notion of a hate crime, it requires law enforcement to document them, understand them, to identify them. and to relea -- prosecute them including, in some cases with enhanced penalties, it requires them to release data on annual bases on level of hate crime that creates a broader understanding in society about what needs to be done. john: but we're drowning in-laws alady in america. we have civil rightsablable, ane -- civil rights act, and violent crimes act. >> stable at high level. a report -- >> doe the law make a difference? >> it does. >> does the person think oh, that is a hate crime law. >> i had a conversation with a

transgender woman in california, she said, it does not matter what the law says, no law will change the fact, that some people look at me, they see a man in a dress, that will change with time and understanding that is the difference we're having, we're not disagreeing over fact there is a problem, we're disagreeinover the fact that the government is the solution on this. john: the example reminds me of the contoargs police go through to be politically correct about this, fbi now has a hate crime manual, say aid offense of terms. what are they supposed to say. >> i think people feel when they are a victim of a crime, we want assess to in which -- we want a society where they are comfortable going to law enforcement. if they don't trust law

enforcemento understand their victimization. >> i am for bei sensitive to victims it is important. b i don't think it matters what you call somebody, let's focus on policies and things we can do to prevent fro calling them a victim. john: this antihate crime commercial, actress wananda syks said this. >> imagine walking down the street, wondering if this the killed? will get beaten up or because of who you are. >> i would say to wanda, is passing a law going t change fact that some people walk down the street and wonder they will be attacked because of who they are? i don't think that law has anything to do with it, it is raising awareness not penties. >> and again, it may not be that every potential victim of a hate crime walks down the street in fear, but relious people may not go to mass or synagogue as

they might like imarat kavkaz >> it runs contrary tour freedom of movement, that is a fundamental principle he in the u.s. >> we need to focus to what will help prevent tse. john: do you think we have too many laws. >> i don't think we don't have enough hate crime laws. >> on that, paul and jimmy thank you. i am ending this segment with my point of view,xpressedy america's greatest philosophers, the kids from "south park." >> cartman tows a rack at toke an a black student. the school plan its give cartman o weeks detention. but then fbi came, to say. >> i'm afraid it is more camp kateed complicated since the victim is african-american this is considered a hate crime. >> what turns a normal fat 8-year-old until a vicious hate

crime racist? >> you want to hurt another human being, you better make sure they are the same cor as you are. >> kids complaint to the government nir. >> if someone - governor. >> if someone kills someone it is a crime, but if they kill somebody of a different color it is a hat crime. >> that is hypocsy. >> right on kids. i wonder what they would say about war on drugs. >> this is your brain on drugs any questions. john:hat war, and on certain food.

john: the war on food. food? , what war? i can eat what i want? except raw milk and 15 states, in my town, tran fats are illegal, the bigger fight is war on something that sounds scary,

gmo foods. >> we don'tant them labeled we want them gone, people are getting sick. john: people are getting very sick? gmo stands for je genetically modified. most corn is. you eat is already, this is a product of years of selective breedi, corn was much smaller than this, and less juicy, but, it means that scientists figured out way to change food by manipulates individual genes. they have a gene that makes it taste bad to insts. here is an example of a genetic modification that may not be sold in america, these fish are 18-month-old salmon. but the big one was modified to

grow twice as fast. allowing this would mean cheaper salmon, we don't have that, company that engineers fish is waiting for approval are regulators, they have been waiting 20 years. keep it away said jeff smith. who runs instead for responsible technology. >> a and let it in said jason lk author of the food police. >> there is the version of natural food is a myste, we've been modifying food since humans have been on the planet. the ear of corn, ancient ancestor is no bigger thanour them. only selecting and planting -- >> but gmo is monkeying with the gene?

>> all selection is playing with genes whether you pick this one and put it together, that traditional plant breeding involves many thousands of genes we don't know what is going to happen. modern biotechnology is picking one or two genes, to put to an ear of corn, it is more precise. >> it should make itafer? jeffrey? >> well, fda scientists were clear in memos made public from a lawsuit, they said process of genetic engineering is different, and leads to new and defense risks new smyrns newalld toxins, but person in charge of policy at fda was michael taylor, mont monsanto former attorney, and now president. >> monsanto captured the fda . this agency, and they are just in the tank with big business? >> month stan to has capture --

monsanto has done the same to many countries they have their people -- >> that makes me sense cal skepf you not them. you look the every scientific authority on subject, wheer u.s. national academy of sciences, and world health organization, food and these are all independent bodies of independent scientists, every one of those has confirmed that basic safety of biotech food, there has not been a single scientisticly confirmed case of illness or a annaller join. >> since gmos have been introduced a whole news set of

diseases and disorders on the rise,hese are the what parents and docto say, they take them themselves or family off of gmo they getetter, but when they take livestock off of the soyr corn, and shift it over, livestock get better, that corn in your hand for example, does not taste bad to insec it pokes holes in their cells and killing them, new a study, fis that same toxic ie insecticide pokes homes in human cells and causes leakage. >> you are doing is throwing in a lot of corporational analysis -- justin bieber songs are correlated with a rise in

autism, of course, not, if it is true they are so bad for livestock or livestock producers must be stupid. john: they must beumb but beyond bands there is an in between point, a commercial from a group who said if it is je netically modifies label it. >>ut it on the label, made with gmos. >> jason that seems reasonable. >> right, i have no problem with compans voluntarily labeling food, great thing for consumer choice, if you want to avoid a gmo you have oortunities, buy organics. but there are a lot of companies that make nongmo claims do we want to main -- mandate, require companies, trouble is that fda

mandates putting a label. john: it would sca consumers. >> it is misleading consumers to believing something that is false. john whole foods said they will do it voluntarily. jeff is this enough for you? >> no, i think we need to actually ban gmos, evidence is clear from independent scientists, however, when spking about labeling, it is not responsible to force gmos on the population, right now f example, wic program gives 2 million children, infant formula, eve one of those is geneticallally engineered and parents do not know. >> one of most gmo activists, came outo at a conference in

oxford, and said he dug intohe scientific literature and he was ong. john: than you, to you both. coming up, war on drugs. new scare is over meth. and thesa the ks keep watching television while their friend convulses on the floor >> this isn'tormal. plan but but on meg, it is. -- but on meth it is. >> really? is that normal? what you think you know. may not be so. can be tough.

no, no, no. wh do you mean she's not coming? when's the fairy princess coming?

any minute now. announcer: but when you're willing to do anything... ahhh... it is i, gru-zinkerbell. yay! ok, time for cake. announcer: it's always worth it. i know it's really you, gru. i'm just pretending for the other kids. announcer: the smallest moments can have the biggest impact on a child's life. take time to be a dad today. call 877-dad-411 or visit fatherhood.gov.

>> this is your ain on drugs. any questions? john: that was one of the first commcial that wned people about drugs, they amped it up. >> wait. it's not overet. >> this is what your family goes through, and your friends. and your mind. and your future. any questions? john: i have some, i know, some

drug users put themselves and their families through hell. but if illegal drugs are as horrible and addictive as we've been told how come government's own statistic said millions of amerans have used thoserugs butta small percentage still use them, author of high price, that challenges everything you know about drugs and society, says drugs are not as addicve or as dangerous as government, media va made thehave made them out t. carl hart, why should we believe you, you look like a drug dealer. >> drug dealers mus be attractive as hell these days, i have been studying drugs for 20 somethingears, and the effects of drugs in people. john: at columbia university, you briing people in for tests. >> like marijuana,

methamphetamine, cra cocaine. the data shows that the vast majority of people who use these drugs do not go on to bece addicted. some of these people who have used these drugs go to to b president. current psident. before the curb know president, george w. bush. bill clinton, all of though guys have used illegal drugs at some point in their life. john: all we kw for sure, is that they used weed and maybe dabbled in cocaine, in a couple cases. the mesge now is that crack, and meth, it gets worse, and it is those are jt, they automatically hook you. >> same thing was said about marijuana, in 1930s, people said, you go on to use this drug, you go to commit murder, and use heroine. a reason thatt was allowed to happen there were few people who used marijuana. the same is true when we tnk of dru like crack coke, and

methamphetamine. not as many people use those drugs, so the rest are the stories, can be made up about these drugs. because, people do not know. but, i have given thousands of doses of these drugs in my study, and i a her here to tellu thathe public has been misled. john: in your laboratory? you get the drugs legally. ey let have you them, and you advertise? and bring users in, you recreate absolutely. >> we jump through levels of approval, we recruit participants by craigslist or vertise in the village voice. john: crack user come on in? >> well we say people who have used cocaine before, yes, that is right. >> and i'm looking at governnt's statistics here, of number of people who tried drugs and used in last month. and i seems like 95% of the people, give it up, mt

addictive seem to be marijuana and pain relievers, where 86% use it in last month. >> yes, so i guess when you say mosteople give it up, i don't know if that a way to really talk about this. you don't necessarily have to give up to use the drug without problem, there is a - there are theast majority of people who use drugs like cocaine, use it on weekend, or, you -- a monthly basis or use it on every 6 months or something. they hold jobs, and pay taxes they do all those things. similar way we use drugs like alcohol, these -- the body does not recognize that psycho active drug is legal or illegal. john:rack and meth are no worse. >> the problem that makes crack cocaine could and methamphamine so dangerous, is what they are cut with.

whereas alcohol we're pretty sure what you get is pure. john: most demized drug today is meth, you see pictures of s meth users with noeeth this drug, @% just more in horrible, and a. we show me spell users who -- ms who watcher tv while their friend convulses on the floor. >> this isn't normal, but on meth, i is. john: propaganda? >> that isurexaggratton. that does so much harm. because, people actually think that they are getting a drug education by watching those commercials, i can't say this strongly enough. there are few things that have done more harm to our drug public education than commercials like that. >> kidding tune the government

out. not only that they tune out people like me, anydy who has drug education. they think that it is untrue. because of the lack of credibility that we now have as a result of theovernment with these hist ter holcombmercials. john: what does morearm to america, drugs or drug war? >> now, one thing i one make clear, drugs whether alcohol or crack coke am they should be takenner russly. -- they should be tak seriously, they can produce harm, but the drug war is unquestion abily that drug war has condition mor done more harc community. reason why it is allowed to continue, the harm it does, or that the major portions of harm, is happening in communities we don't care about as a country. john: dr. carl hart thk you.

next. my take on the government's wars, and the irs scandal. symptoms of the same

john: our last guest said that kids tune out the government' message about drugs, bause government laws credibility, for years they told kids, if you do

drugs, you are going to die. they saw their friends tie drugs and they were okay, they were skeptical, they should, like the oxiclean guy, it better be true or you will not listen next time. but government never goes out of business. it fails at nation building in vietnam t trying again in iraq, it wages a war against hate, a war on drugs, it wages war against certain food. goes to war against almost everything business. apple pays taxes but, as cartoonist, points out big government wants to take much more, the politicians demand more of our money, saying we'll accomplish wonderful things with it. there has been so much fuss about eric holde and just who

in the irs targeted tea party groups. will they be fired? will be there a special prosecutor? my apologies to my closing, but i don't care. who is fired or punhed. it is not important, their job will beiven that another bureaucrat, some will be honest, some will be not, the bigger problem is that government employees 22 million people, 21 million if you subtract military and post office, that is millions and millions of people who are -- well, people. most are good but some are bad. and people in government, have a legal right to use force. big government, gives millions of people power over parts of our lives, most will not abuse it. but poker does corrupt. -- power does corrupted, small be bad people. they will use their pow torii hunterture people they don't like. people who hold rong belief or

talk back. some of you will not get buildi permits, maybe you will be audited or denied a tax exemption, firing an attorney general will not change, that only smaller government can, but we don't have smaller government. we have big government. because when there is a problem people say, yes, we can. that is why i wrote, no, they can't. because government cannot. it should not tries. and more things it goes to war against the more is grows the worse off we are, while government condition we come millions of americans give up drugs most without help, scientists experiment with food, and we live longer. companies try to minimized their taxes, and the use the money to produce wonderful things. individuals d that we can. but no, they can't.

that is sour show -- this is that is sour show -- this is >> that is incredible. >> alisyn: after the show' show with more. ♪ ♪ with support for the president's healthcare law sliding, the president starts flaming. >> may be shifting more cost through higher premiums. or higher deductibles. or higher co-pays. so folks could be feeling increased cost not for the fordable ca act but it's passed on to workers. >> brenda: they are slamming back at the president saying the president's law is driving prices. at a time when the economy desperately needs jobs to come back, is this any time for the president to be picking this