Transcripts For CSPAN2 Public Affairs Events 20161107

The dea, prescribe controlled substances. So in the state medical Marijuana Program the required position to asia prescription for marijuana would be a nonstarter. No positions going to risk the registration with the dea, a medical practice, their livelihood in order to prescribe marijuana. In fact, the states already knew this when california passed proposition 215 back in 1996. I put up your the example of a law that was passed almost two decades prior to californias medical Marijuana Law. This one was passed in virginia in 1979. It is a law, a medical Marijuana Law allows people to possess and use marijuana free of state sanctions so long as they get a physicians prescription to use the drug. Laws like virginias law from 1979 in have any effect. No physician was willing to follow through, issue a prescription so they are still on the books in the states but they didnt have any practical effect. California at least the proposed a proposition 15 found a workaround. What was that . Proposition 215 only required a physician to recommend not to prescribe. That may seem like semantics, like the state was playing word games. That was the deas position but california later convinced the ninth circuit it made a difference. That, in fact, when a doctor simply recommend marijuana, all that entails is having a conversation with the patient were you declared you might benefit from the use of marijuana, the ninth circuit declared that was protected speech under the First Amendment. As a practical matter that meant the dea could punish doctors for issuing the recommendation even though it could punish them for issuing a prescription. So every state following californias adoption of proposition 15 come every other state that adopted medical Marijuana Law has followed california and requires only a recommendation to a color different things, a written certification and so on. They do not require a prescription. I second what the states have worked around federal laws, the states have found ways to defuse the threat of federal crackdowns on marijuana supply. Stayed marijuana reforms would really be hollow if people couldnt actually get marijuana. Its like me tell you my five year old son you can have an alligator as a that. You can buy it the next on the go to pet smart. Hes going to be happy with me, he will be happy ive allowed them to get an alligator as a pet. He will be sorely disappointed and probably bad at pet smart when he discovered that offer would. In the past 20 years the states have tried to provide marijuana in two basic ways, provide two basic ways for people to legally obtain marijuana under state law. Want is to grow it themselves. Personal cultivation. That is normally considered under most states to be a trafficking offense but the state said you can grow it yourself. Another way is a commercial model where states said you can go and buy this drug from Osama Marshall operation, like a big shop that you see in colorado today. Today in fact the states have mixed and matched these two different forms of supply. Their regulations employ one of the other of these two models and we can basically fall into, we can typecast state regulation into one of four different types. What is some states that allow you to get marijuana but only if you want to sell 40 that the caregiver do it. This is becoming increasingly rare pic michigan may be one of the few states that still falls of this is the only way to get it is to go to sell. You cant bite from a store. Theres no commercial operation. Second model states have followed, you would have commercial operations. You cant grow it yourself. You have to buy from some big highly regulated chop. A third model is similar to the one here in colorado. Its a mixed supply model. You can go to so that you want or you can go into one of the hundreds of dispensaries are now in operation across the state. Theres a fourth model employed by a couple states that really is quite similar to the second one. Its where they preferred commercial cultivation. Arizona, massachusetts are two examples. The states to go to a store to buy marijuana. We normally dont want you to grow it but if a store is too far away from the house you can go in and put yourself if theres hardship, in other words. This next graph depicts the popularity of these for regulatory models over time. The red on this particular chart depicts those states that have the personal cultivation only. In other words, if you wanted marijuana you had to grow it yourself. Blue depicts the dates this eu can only get it from a big star. Purple is a combination of those two things. You can choose to get it from a store on to put yourself. And the bluish color under the solid blue, the middle one, or the states preferred commercial cultivation but make some exception for personal cultivation. As you can see from this chart in the early days of reforms, think of 1996 as early days or longer go, personal cultivation was the only game in town. In other words, states were exclusively or almost exclusively red. There were shops and robbery in california and elsewhere those shops were illegal under state law. At least until 2003 when a couple of state started experimenting with this. That was really only until around 2009 that stage really started to embrace that commercial distribution model. In other words, creating or allowing these commercial stores to sell marijuana. Those early states, the early adopters that were in grad turned purple. They allow people to grow it but no starch allow people to buy it from stores and interestingly every state that has passed marijuana reforms since 2009, every single one of the states is a blue state or one of those mixed blue states. That is, they want you to go to a store to buy it rather than to grow it yourself. So why the early reluctance to embrace commercial cultivation . Why the sudden shift to commercial cultivation and other states in 2009 . It goes back to federal enforcement. Those large scale commercial suppliers are much more affordable targets for federal enforcers that are the little guy, the person who is growing a handful of plants in the basement for the own needs or for the needs of someone. Taking care of. In the early days of the federal government was willing and able to try to shut down those large commercial suppliers but it simply couldnt arrest the little guy. They could go after individual patients and caregivers growing only a small number of plants because there were far too many of them. Hundreds and hundreds and thousands in the states. The states that were early adopters of the new the federal government would crack down on commercial supply, the states embraced personal cultivation. At least in part because it was the only way they can ensure that qualified patients would actually have a supply of marijuana that would not be interrupted by the federal government. But in 2009, of course you see this big shift. Thats when federal enforcement priorities started to change. Federal enforcement practice. That was the first Year Department of justice issued one of its enforcement memoranda. This one was called although it was quite cautious if you are too ready to many people perceived as essentially giving the green light to commercial cultivation as essentially the federal government saying its okay to set up the stores that will sell marijuana to patients. That helped spur this dramatic shift in state law. Thats why state started to legalize commercial cultivation following the issuance of this memoranda. You saw of course state licensed stores proliferating. This is a map of colorado. The green dots represent state licensed stores, stores that are licensed by the state to sell marijuana. Circa 2004 there are even more on the map today. There are hundreds of these state licensed shops in colorado and in other states as well. But even as this commercial supply has caught on, or something the states havent done that seems a little surprising. But again it seems surprising only until you consider federal law. Let me give you my final example. Were on the state run Marijuana Stores . To this day no state has directly owned and operated a Marijuana Store. A commercial Marijuana Store. This is surprising to me. In light of this state experience following the repeal of alcohol prohibition. When the states repealed alcohol prohibition many decided to own and operate a piece of the alcohol distribution market. They thought of this as a way to curb illegal sales of alcohol and also way to curb the Natural Inclination of private for Profit Enterprises to grow their market. That model has lost some popular today but even today about a third of the states continue to directly control some aspects of alcohol distribution. This is i think a state alcohol store in New Hampshire thats depicted up there. Why havent the states done this for marijuana quick snort why are there not any state owned and operated Marijuana Stores. This is an instance where the states havent been able to work around federal law. In particular they havent been able to work around preemption concerns. If the state were to own and operate a marijuana Tissue Fusion center, a Marijuana Store, its arguable so what could come up, file a lawsuit arguing that the state operation was preemptive and get an injunction to block this operation. The same thing could not message will be done with a private licensee because a private licensee of the state isnt necessarily a state actor. As he was earlier that might be suits brought against the state regulations, a license regulations of that private actor but even if you eliminate those regulations it doesnt stop the person from operating the store. They may just do so clear evidence that restrictions. Even if these preemptions in terms are out there, they are much more salient for state owned and operated stores. I think that the reason why the states have not gotten into this particular business. Let me briefly conclude and give my thoughts on whether this is a good thing. I think these three examples show how federal law has influenced the development of state law. In a large way to really distorted the development of state law. I think for the last 20 years the federal government as well as been playing a highrisk strategy. In other words, the federal government was backing that the states would not be willing to repeal the on probation betting if they could get doctors to issue prescriptions and the prescription monitoring programs that they had, that they couldnt go out and create these large tightly regulated commercial operations. And the federal government got it wrong. The states were willing to do that. The result that we have is less than ideal. Both from for perspective of the states and from the federal government. What we end up with is a system that doesnt quite one that any state in isolation but its left to its own devices would necessarily about. Let me give the example come to go back to the example of personal cultivation. Alex hall the idea modeled for the states in the early years, that was hardly to say 70 year old cancer patient you can use marijuana legally cant just go it yourself. Not everyone has that sort of green thumb our access to friends, even in california who know how to grow and distribute marijuana. So from the perspective it didnt serve patients to doctor personal cultivation model. Even from the federal governments perspective this wasnt necessarily a model you would want the states to choose because the states chose it to be paid federal Law Enforcement. They knew the federal government couldnt crack down on his personal cultivation operations. At the same time for the same reason it was tough for the federal government to stop those personal cultivation operations, it was also tough for the states to supervise them. Are typical for the 62 out and monitor the 50,000 or 100,000 patients who may be going up to plants and a basement to make sure theyre not selling album on the side or youre not using it right racially and so on. Ultimately, i think this example of marijuana tries to show how we hardball strategy or take the pressure strategies like that pursued by the federal government at least in the early days isnt one that mostly works out well for either party in the into. Thank you so much. And thank you, judge, for the invitation ethics to the organizers. Im thrilled to be here and to talk with all of you about this important issue. Im so going to take over from rob and talk what i call the stalemate over Marijuana Law. Rob is sort of i think very able he given us a sense of how we got to this point and want to talk about where we are now at what the indications are that particularly going into the election 2016 and policymaking in 2017 and beyond. Rob mentioned the 2009 on the memo. This was replaced and 2011 by another more cautionary memo from the department of justice and finally 2013 we had a number were all living under today which most people refer to as the cold memoranda. This state the obvious as rob pointed out, that the State Governments to most of the work of Drug Law Enforcement in this country, double the federal government prohibits marijuana it continues to grip of marijuana, the states by the foot soldier in the war on drugs. Marijuana should be no different from that even as states experiment with alternatives to prohibition. The coal memo in 2013 deference to the states, and willingness to let the states engaged in experiments that brought discredit. So long as theres a federal criteria set forth. The principal one and what im sure our fans to the north and east want something to say about shortly is marijuana from states authorized by state laws to states where it is now. And others is a sale of marijuana to minors the other things such as the involvement of organized crime of the drugs, guns and his vision of marijuana were all prohibited. But the coal amendment says as long as the federal government, as long State Government are doing a good job along these eight metrics, the federal government would defer to the policymaking choice. Other memoranda from the department of treasury, the Financial Crime memo which was reported to encourage banking, a separate memorandum on the capacity of Indian Tribes and nations to produce and sell marijuana and private statements by the president obama and attorney general holder were on the same direction. That is can we see what the states are doing. We see how this is now the view of strong plurality of states moving, giving an account is a majority or supermajority of states and were going to see if that experiment plays out. So its really important to the state and the cole memo stated marijuana is still prohibited by federal law. This is an enforcement prior this being stated in the Cole Memorandum and does not have the force of law. This is not the legalization of marijuana. Its simply a matter of enforcement. This was written into law, this forbearance was written into law albeit in a slightly obscure way through the enactment of the rohrabacherfarr amendment to various federal spending provisions. If you havent heard about these, dont beat yourself up. This was paragraph 542 of a very long spending bill is enacted by congress both in 2014 and 2015. Which stated not of the funds made available in this act, the department of justice babies with the specter and it listed 34 different states, to prevent such states who implement their own state laws that authorize the use, just a vision, possession or just to be sure medical marijuana. That is, we are not, the funds authorized may not be used by justice to prevent such states from implementing their own state law. Thats the language of the statute. It was a number of criminal defendants in california and elsewhere, so this meant the Justice Department was now prohibited from enforcing criminal of Marijuana Laws in those states where that conduct was on the rise by states medical law. So states that this section 542 as a prohibition on prosecution, and just three weeks ago to the ninth Circuit Court of appeals again in california agreed. It said we conclude that section five different the department of justice from spending funds from the appropriation act for the prosecution of individuals who engage in conduct permitted by state medical Marijuana Laws and to fully comply with such laws. This is an amazing. This says that if you are acting in accord with state law giving up to prosecute under federal law. It also creates some odd circumstances where in a federal prosecutor becomes relevant with your compliance with state law. There are some examples of federal courts in that kind of determination but i think this will lead to quite a bit of litigation over who exactly, of who exactly is in accord with state law and what state laws will count, if the state were to say we think all use of marijuana has medical use. Does that mean all people are insulated from federal prosecution . Even if it were to mean that, and its too soon to exactly what that means, what we have is really a truce and not a peace between the state and federal governments. I say that because as the cole amendment made clear and the macintosh decision from the ninth circuit did not disturb, marijuana remains illegal under federal law and help any lawyer who speaks to any client on any legal matter concerning marijuana, those are the first words out of his or her mouth. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law and the reason its so important state that even if the justice but has said it will not be prosecuting and the ninth circuit has said it cant come there are lots of what i call collateral consequences of marijuanas continuing federal illegality. The probably best known of these is the banking problem. That despite the fincen memo no bank will consistently or for long bank the Marijuana Industry. That means in Colorado Marijuana was a 1 billion cash business. That is a. Package a bad idea. Its a bad idea for people in the business to have to pay their employees in cash. It is a bad news for those of us have to go home with the pay checks and cash. But more than that it is bad news for state regulators because one of the things the federal government has charge, the states with is keeping organized crime out and one of the things regular joe kunduz to regulate and past marijuana, a cash business is incredibly hard to regulate. There is no paper trail. Were talking literally about bags full of cash that hampers lots of different state goals as well as putting citizens at risk. Taxation is another issue that is hampered by the continuing federal prohibition to give you indivisible violating the controlled substances act, rule 280 makes all deductions except the cost aboods sold unavailable. That makes the effective tax rate for a lot of marijuana business something north of 70 that it creates incentives for the Marijuana Industry that if they have revenue, the only way they can keep it from caches turn into cost aboods. That is, to make more. The only deduction they can get is if they increase the cost aboods sold by producing more marijuana. Again that may not be the best Public Policy outcome. Contract is another one that we normally think of businesses as relying on the use of contracts and their enforcement. That has been a mixed reality in the time since they began legalizing marijuana. A case of arizona really a great one for any first Year Contract class. The two arizona individuals lend money to a call about this venture. The dispensary stopped paying, and the arizona individuals suited theres a state court thinking this is great, we will get homefield advantage on these nasty colorado drug dealers. The call about dispensary showed up in Arizona State court and, of course, the said your honor, this contract is unenforceable. We are drug dealers last night and they knew very well we were drug dealers when you lend us the money. The judge said no and sin no more. You do not have to repay this, you do not have to pay this, the contract is void of Public Policy grounds. While that may at the time has seemed like a win for the Marijuana Industry, the unwillingness of people to pay their debts probably is not the best thing for the growth of an emerging emerging industry. Also a great case, insurance case the judge had in addition to colorado. They had some crops damaged by smoke and a big fire in the springs, and they brought a claim under the insurance policy which covered growing crop but that an exclusion for contraband. Sort of another classic statutory code petition question labor and about i in the last panel. What do we do with this contract . The judge i think correctly said did you know what you were injured when you took their premium . If you knew you were ensuring marijuana, i dont see why you should not have to pay out on this claim and in doing so said something surpassing the record remarkable. She said why do we think the federal government has a strong Public Policy against marijuana . It still illegal but they dont seem to be acting like its illegal and theres lots of language to indicate her view that marijuana now has a quasilegal status under federal law. The case declared bankruptcy protection are not able to marijuana businesses. Even though doubts that they hold can be erased in bankruptcy if the Person Holding them can gain access to Bankruptcy Court the those in the marijuana business cannot. Finally, in terms of employment, we saw that coats case handled by our color Supreme Court where they determined mr. Kos was a medical marijuana user in compliance with state law, could nonetheless be fired under our state lawful off to conduct policy because he was violating federal law. That even though his conduct was clearly sincere medical use, it was the lawful conduct because his conduct continued to be preempted by federal law. And closing ill just say a few words about something that could get interesting many here. Every state has some version of professional conduct 1. 2 which dates a lawyer shall not engage counsel our clients to engage or assist a client and conduct of lordosis criminal or fraudulent. While all of marijuana conduct remains illegal under federal law, a clear question arise but whether a lawyer may do anything to facilitate that conduct. If that criminal conduct and they know this, conduct, a plain reading of 1. 2 seems to say that the lawyer may not assist in any way. A color Supreme Court in the comments to our rule, parallel 1. 2 stated this does not include an attorney from assisting conduct permitted under state law and the states have agreed that the district of colorado has not. That is, while adopting all or nearly all of the colorado ethics rules, the District Court did not adopt that comment. Attorneys may counsel regarding the meaning of Colorado State law but they may not assist the client even in conduct that the lawyer believes has been by such laws. I could go into depth on all these that i want to get to our of the pedals so ill be happy to take any questions they have when we are done. Thank you. General michael. Thank you, judge. Its great to be. Last time i was out broadmoor threes ago a conference, i got the phone call from the governor to be acting attorney general. Its been a very fastpaced three years since then. That was when judge phelps was confirmed by the u. S. Senate to the 10th circuit judge, and i stepped up from his chief deputy spot to the attorney general. Ive learned come it turns out the miami attorney general is also an ointment called commission of drugs and Substance Abuse on a charge of that i guess. I remembered a few things in three years. One thing ive learned is this marijuana debate is very, people are very vocal, very strong opinions. We have a governor who is a former United States attorney at a panel i was on, committee we produce a very lengthy report earlier this year on the possibility of legalization in wyoming. Ill talk a minute a little bit about the legalization we had. Its a very tiny eyed we have a committee and, of course, with open Public Forums and some of the folks would come in and speak and very, very adamant about their views on marijuana one way or the other so its a very strongly, people do very strongly held beliefs. One of the things is the recommend, scheduling so the federal government will identify with joint synthesizers asking the state to adopt that. The other thing that i do mean that gives me a little insight into what is happening with the drug trade is when behalf asset forfeitures that is a very hot topic the last several years thinly has some amendments to our laws but i actually make follicles to approve a seizure of guns or money for people who are trafficking did drugs were prepared not the drugs themselves the transporting of many and i got a call yesterday when to have probable cause of the seizure of assets for the drug traffickers. For them to actually forfeit those assets and drugtrafficking. Another thing that i do is the miami eternal to roles office Attorneygeneral Office does all of the appeals so i uncharged of the attorneys said do the of criminal appeals i am having heavily involved they are general felonies acc was convicted with their doing and what type of conduct. So that is what kind of criminal issues are coming through the Appellate Court to. A big one and is the division of criminal investigation pdf. We have not 250 votes but over 100 our the d. C. I. And through the Operations Division they mostly do drugs, wiretaps, investigati ons, statewide the department of criminal investigation help we have the time of what to spend a few minutes talking about the challenges of the crime lab with marijuana. I get to see that up close but those issues to have a good crime lab to do what needs to be done to be effective by legalization so one thing that i dont do i cannot comment too much in is the attorneygeneral is not in charge of criminal prosecution be we have elected the county prosecutor we have mentioned it is mostly Drug Enforcement by state but because it doesnt run the local prosecution they will come up on appeal. I really dont do a lot of that and dont have a history but we get a pretty good viewpoint of the drug trade but one final thing i would mention to get the wiretap for the investigations, i have to review those personally so to see these wiretap applications and also the of local judges we have a very strong probable cause so that is something that i personally do so i get more creative around the state of course, wyoming is a square state. If your from wyoming you have already heard the joke we only have 600,000 people. What we have seen is a little different with some of the problem areas but some are worth paying attention to one thing i want to mention briefly is a general observations where i think things are headed in the challenges is redo have a Ballot Initiative in wyoming delayed game that is legal is the hemp plant extract. That has not because of the important market in wyoming it was faster in 2015. So marijuana over canada and awaits. So we do have a Ballot Initiative it is interesting because they did not getting signatures to get on the ballot that year could not even for medicinal use what but colorados first medicinal law were 18 yearold can plan ahead to get the certificate from the doctor down the street. Our Ballot Initiative with the conditions that were receiving marijuana. It could potentially get on the ballot in 2018. But the biggest is the fact where is no opposition or opt out. There is a pretty strong tradition of people to be and local communities and those may have some difficulty in excepting marijuana in the community so that to be a fatal flaw in the Ballot Initiative. But because of bad that we spend a lot of time home and a lot of work led by excellent professors to produce a 237 page report to. There is good information, those policy issues about legalization hot foothills liberal models with a very restricted model. What do i anc as the challenges that we face . But first i think there is some difficult scientific issues that for some extent of the with the Law Enforcement area some we have an example in wyoming with the statute that says a certain amount of material or falls under position over a possession mahal. But we dont have one that deals with brownies laugh but it does not restrict of the quantity of owning brownies. So there are bigger issues so what is that . Extracted into oil then you cook with that. Is that a liquid or a solid . We have signed issues like that. Just some labeling issues. Aho it is more difficult to figure out quantities of marijuana. To really find out these quantities without changing the of quality efta juicy impact room. Hough her thc if you use the gas chromatic graph to document the material sam home with those are from those from samples you cannot necessarily tell the quantity. So you have to buy the other equipment unnecessary expensive. Another issue comes up about area had to get material to calibrate your equipment quicks if we go to the gas station the inspectors go around to make sure the flow coming out is the right amount back to be a problem in mississippi but whiff the research is the Panel Article about artificial marijuana whiff a recent study in 2015 in seattle regarding medical marijuana put it on the packages. Hi but there is less than 25 percent of the debt of doses is to the amount of thc in these samples. Also with the scientific issues. Into regulate the thc content. And but we are seeing in wyoming from what is being seen in the state. The direction of marijuana is the direction seems to where it is going with the biggest scientific challenges in is by a edibles. And then we also have the issue of vaping to be the goal that is an incredible issue. And a couple quick points from my perspective, we have kept statistics with a lawsuit by oklahoma and colorado and nebraska but we did engage in the statistics about spillover into wyoming that is purchased legally and colorado are washington but then and makes its way to wyoming. So i think the statistics are pretty reliable that there has been a pretty significant increase in the amount of marijuana coming from colorado, legal products. It is easy to tell if the package is labeled where it comes from a couple of quick statistics, marijuana in finnish reports 127 added 881 were from colorado. And in 2015 it was up at 156 from 127. So that is a very significant percentage increase. Coming from marijuana purchased in colorado. To see the largest increase in some parts since it has gone down in the last five years. But we have seen a large increase. It is pretty clear that we have more marijuana coming and purchased from dispensaries so it does have the impact on the neighboring state. It turns out my father was a school of principle in the 70s. Back in pennsylvania. Cigarettes is all that day had in those days of highschool send pennsylvania but not in the classroom. Everybody thought that was the wave of the future. Hot still a with did develop that at school even with the marijuana in the 70s there seemed to be momentum to legalization then it went the other way. But then negative shifted back again. And would not be surprised what they would be in the marijuana area. And one less thing it is in preparing for this doing work with the state with the Marijuana Legalization one of the things that is so striking about marijuana for example, what we know about tobacco today is the long term effects of the of medical knowledge lysis is not that good from the long term effects with heavy use by people who start using marijuana. Of course, that issue is affected if it has been available through the longterm studies. With uh but with the effects of marijuana and health but the attorneys general education effort and those starting that tobacco use are going down but yet colorado consider we learn numberone because they are with use across all demographics who. But these are evidence of the time. Like it or not hopes. Led by the to represent state and Marijuana Law. Hugh can understand in terms of their perspective and end with all of controversy but that perspective is wrestling with questions of preemption. Everybody knows if you walk into a Marijuana Store it would be prosecuted as a felon. I despite 20 years of legalized marijuana at least in california that lot of preemption is pretty unclear the courts cannot even agree what method to use and they have only scratched the surface with that preemption provision when the controlled substances act when so that measures the effects of the of law. Omaha. En did continues the regulation. But we dont know how those views and we dont know how they enforce that. And were not holding up but they could use a blunt instrument of that preemption lawsuit and with those letters to the state of colorado and washington pet to say they will munsey to reinforce the provision to the state of colorado at this time. And then to have that record i used marijuana and has not done so but they could in force the individual, and criminal prosecution basis with it doesnt get to the roots of the problem presumably with the states in that framework but congress has then broke both brodeur and narrower that the spending legislation if not in compliance you cannot send many of prosecution to interrupt the state regulatory process. But with the u. S. Supreme court it doesnt matter but so i think the professor it is right. The outline of the truce has then done but the specific ways it could be played out with situations if it was tested is not entirely clear so far it has been a to the states to regulate to the best of their ability and allies that they have put in the constitution to implement a reagan the story structure of those that we were litigating against. Is colorados seeing any empirical lawenforcement increase or decrease of crime related to Drug Trafficking . Anybody impact . Of want to start with your perspective from Colorado Attorney general. And i am not as heavily involved in the social services aspect. I can keep my head in the clouds. We have had some major Law Enforcement initiatives coordinated by my office prosecuting individuals attempting to use the shields to cover up interstate trafficking another story that was difficult for me at very greg ural bubble of the legalization is increasing use of a baseline certainly the numbers from the Drug Trafficking area suggests there is an increase. So i certainly think there is compelling arguments but that is not anticipated that i dont know if i have enough information to speculate or how that plays out. We will turn to oklahoma they sued colorado. That is a little awkward. [laughter] but originally brought the u. S. Supreme court with the original jurisdiction that that is discretionary to decide to even use the case. And in this case they would not exercise that so now we have to intervene. To realize that preemption claims. I do want to talk about the states that border colorado but then i will get to the bigger issues of what recreational Marijuana Legalization is a weird term because it is still illegal but what that means for the nature of the federal system and constitutional order. As far as a bordering state state, to recognize the interstate trafficking and instead of increasing 2014 when the the fastest years of legalization we have had several hundred thousand pounds going to 36 different states coming from colorado now is increased even more through 2016. But those mechanisms and place to come into colorado to buy marijuana. We had a case in oklahoma they bought marijuana and then was caught near a school. But in addition to the trafficking and outside of colorado there was lots of people coming in to colorado as tourists to participate in the marijuana market. In the retail demand was primarily driven to show is many as half are motivated to visit because of marijuana but with that statistic. If you look at a map of the dispensary in colorado, then you notice the concentration is in into areas of larry would expect the major metropolitan area with kansas oklahoma and new mexico. But this flowed to the other states is not a surprising result. To encourage interstate trafficking with the foreseeable consequences to offer the industrialization of marijuana. It is not surprising to flow into other states but Oklahoma City and a lady sitting next to me. She said dont you think there should be because all of these corny and states dont cause problems quick sice said whether there should be that policy i dont know but the reality is there already is. So maybe they pass a law it legal nationwide but at a very odd time with the controlled substances act. But i cannot think of another situation analogous for marijuana and now or anytime in history with those days before the civil war to prohibit these activity to enforce the laws to inform that activity in a manner to cause proliferation of the externalities of the state. But about federalism or the nature of the union. Men much larger issues so what approach to looking at this issue serves a purpose of the supremacy clause with the purposes of the federal court. But with that constitutional system to set their own policy to address those social ills. They are inherently major and for that prides a solution they can all get together to pass the law to set on the interstate issue to give up a measure of their own sovereignty. But then to go back, and bargain with those externalities of other states. To say the lack of the ability to solve this particular collective action problem was from the articles of confederation and. The problem with these nationalized to practice their recommendations but this aim is created with the supremacy clause acting as a negative but that this uh natural adjudicator to enforce those laws. That your constitution say would amount to a mere tree need depending and the good faith of the party and not the government. So we dont use federal is some and to seek the application between the states and federal government to be sure not the federal government to exceeding those but and not to restrict the states in certain instances as well. The and the did these implications to authorize marijuana production. So the state representative of congress got together agreed to be and marijuana for all use nationwide because it is determined is a substance injurious to Public Health and heavily traffic between the states. It is an interstate problem being a National Solution and to include the entire idea of the foundation but the control of local possession of controlled substances was necessary to control the interstate trafficking and the Supreme Court decision is on the atf to be constitutionally prohibited to be activities because anything in the marijuana market would be through the interstate trafficking. So now they have chosen to pull back to take affirmative steps to create the market for the express purpose to profit off that 1 billion industry now while it is trafficked to other states creating harm for what congress was trying to prevent. So what is taking place is what it was intended to have been with the nationwide of every aspect of the trade. It is the situation to be unresolved attention of state law and federal law to that a year reconcilable coexistence to leave the federal courts can they perform an activity and with the regulatory structure for the market made illegal by a federal statute . Without property interest the federal contraband . Can maypop off through tax revenue that they are banned by federal statute. If the federal executive branch decides to acquiesce and other states under federal law adjudicate that natural policy that they want to benefit wet. Of course, they could be repealed in whole or in part when did it was wrongly decided to have local marijuana growth and consumption. So to be classified and that could be an investment. Ken baby piecemeal the state after state bars from a legal policy . As they emerge as well as pointed out to because it has been a National Policy for so long with at National Structure that it is by law with the state of federal law is to remain high as those legal questions arrive like banking, taxation you can add to that and firearms to fill out a form if you say yes you cannot get that firearm. Generally you cannot use Illegal Drugs from Public Housing as a disparate impact on those two are with federal benefit. It is just dust sampling they will be forced to confront if the status quo is allowed to remain. But devotees close much of a problem to be prohibited by federal law is inserted the negative. So does that question that i think it is the most interesting and pressing question surrounding marijuana conducted in federal court today. That is why this is the dream issue for the academic side. And so for them to react in particular i appreciate your comments on the externality issue if thats true or what the data shows zero or some other externalities on social services but what is of consequences greg. Maybe i can jump in on that externality there is the valid point that has been made colorado or any other legalizes marijuana and that is the classic collective action problem but there is a way to deal with at. In the past it will free ride off of state lawenforcement of more then 90 percent of marijuana cases to police the up prior prohibition but now the risk under obligation to continue doing that. They dont have that obligation to expand medicaid. Or to ban firearms has the federal government prohibits but the state law does not. The proper way for congress is to pass legislation that would lead to grant federal enforcement. But nothing they have done would prevent congress to hire thousands more to replace the work from the federal government. Of woodside to take some questions from the audience. To say if they cannot be dismantled but the reason that they are operating dispensaries in colorado because the national Law Enforcement agency as the National Legislature that says the enforcement cannot take place with and then to end the experiment it is not done so as a policy decision. And they should be allowed and they are under no obligation to enforce federal allah or to pass a coalition and under no obligation for to leave those prohibitions in place. But as the priest to the Supreme Court indicated and those that have put into place. And the question is what they be better off if it was dismantled . Most certainly know that it is not regulated and colorado. To have marred negative repercussions for obama or nebraska or kansas. Measuring is hard in this area. And dont know if that is true but the colorado patrol agents are trained to identify to be charitable to marijuana. Said to be aware of Sexual Assaults in the 80s might have lead to a Sexual Assault because taking that more seriously and saw more willingness on the par of lawenforcement with nbc something similar. We will get a new attorney general in january. What are of consequences that made enforcement a priority through some policy guidance . Life think that this day question of political will and not political law that to have that ability to enforce federal law the current attorneygeneral has taken in the position that there is nothing to prevent that theres nothing to appoint a new attorney general from policy that Chris Christy could do something very similar. Key was campaigning here. Questions from the audience . You have cash from uh marijuana business that you cannot take cash from them but yet the state takes its revenues that there receives from the marijuana business to put in the bank. I ended stand the labyrinth that we are talking about budget based just on finances, isnt the horse out of the barn on this . Is an did driven by finance and market concerns as the law tries to catch up . If that was directed at me,. [laughter] part of the reason amendment 64 was enacted with the preamble in it was a wise use of state resources and this was a significant part of that. The bargain was so to have a regulated framework like we would any legitimate business so that Public Policy argument they think will continue to expand as when california legalizes Recreational Marijuana that we may decide to do in this year, it tests of waters with the Ballot Initiatives before colorado took that step. And with the entire world because of the recreational state as a practical and financial matter to do what governor christie suggested and that is to change course almost coming up on as they began commercializing. I dont understand how you can clean the walk back to at and back to 1995. One eyed did what to add was the way that it operates in response to the oklahoma comments and us csa means that what they operate against individual people so with those other frameworks the clash between the states and the federal government and how that should be implemented. That is simply not how it works. And those serbian circumstances but that is probably why we have not seen so much case law on the preemption issue. But to have constant interactions with the state of the of law. So it is a fascinating area. So that is contrary and has immense tools to have huge budgetary mess all when it goes against the states and does that all the time simply it is the different kind of legislation with the unresolved body of issues and a look forward to their resolutions. The controlled substances act with the results and scheduling of drugs since 1992 professor michael said the those positions in various states have had some kind of authority for the use of marijuana for the individuals. Has the d. A. Dea thought about rescheduling of the drug given that context of a variety of petitions in the nation contrary to the ada. Will try to be quick at least three instances over the last 20 years they have revisited the schedule leading question to both marijuana to a different schedule the and each of those a few weeks ago theyve refused to move marijuana and a think the main difference the view and medical marijuana is the day a defines the different type of accident evidence it actually wants to see largescale research studying the effects of this drug to demonstrate those benefits. Even though there is a lot of Research Done there has not then anything that matches that Gold Standard so to constantly shows steadies to the dea not just anecdotes. But to be on the schedule from dea . They moved away from the justification and very couple of quick things those double blind studies that show is more possible now that dea said they would make available for the purposes of engaging in that. And the refusal to reschedule for those who have looked at it or the ninth circuit. And a small point to have the opportunity to recommend but that comes from the First Amendment and that is what the ninth circuit held in that position so they cannot be precluded from recommending that is a beneficial true course of action. So that the doctors to recommend that for the patience. [applause] on the ballot and california are to state issues from School Funding and political spending to the Death Penalty and gun at ammunition sales and even condoms required for pornography stars. The bureau chief for the l. A. Times thanks for being with us. Seventeen questions 17 propositions on the ballot how long will it take for the voters to cast their vote quick. Of lot longer than it had recently california has had long ones in the past but not the statewide ballot this long in 16 years we have a lot of new voters in california i think they will be surprised some have already voted by mail but it is very long and covers a number of issues like taxation, punishment Environmental Issues and allied of hallmark behalf to do. They seem to like this direct democracy process we have seen that for years but this could be a test to that highlight those that are getting the most attention. Probably at the top is proposition 64 to legalize marijuana we know colorado and Washington State the california rejected a legalization of pot in 2010 a different proposal was criticized and not well thought out and did not have Institutional Support but this is different not only is it more thought alberta 17,000 word proposal, but has some pretty big backing the lieutenant governor, uh the cofounder of facebook and as little lot of money into when it and the polling shows that prop. 64 is the of marquee it with the tobacco tax with the higher incometax rate as a measure to reform prison parole governor care jerry brown sees it as a longterm change to crime punishment that is the focus of the campaign but there are 17 so there are more. Will focus on others including proposition 58 dealing with English Proficiency . By educate bilingual education measure going back to the late nineties the california voters that they wanted to end a bilingual education english only for those routes learning english this is a reversal of that to now be a full undoing of updated to decades ago to allow more School Children in california to make the decision to offer bilingual Education Programs and polling shows it is popular in negative be much more nuanced. Proposition 62 did in with the Death Penalty on that question what will they decide . Whether to make all Capital Punishment that means all those people on death row the largest because there has not been an execution in 10 years. Prop 62 would repeal the Death Penalty and polling shows that it may not pass. California voters even though they have changed their minds about crime and punishment this is a harder sell and they rejected the appeal for years ago it is appalling is right and they may do that again on tuesday. Proposition 67 to ban the plastic bags that restores. What is the issue theyre quite. The single use plastic bags that environmental groups say are a big problem in the law waterways and other places, landfills. A lot of california cities already have their own band. This measure would extend that to the entire state. But this is a slight lead different parts of the of california direct democracy it is what we call we have a narrow definition of a referendum it is hell log that was passed and signed this is the bag industry attempting to overturn and so reduce support it or reject it . At this point they want to uphold the of all the did is extended across the state. Proposition 53 gets into the weeds on the issue of Revenue Bonds a first wonder if the voters fully understand what they need to decide and why should they and not elected officials . I will answer that first in california we have a healthy tradition of activist who want a particular issue particular way to go straight to the voters if you look at these ballot measures in number of these proposals never came to the state with his teacher as long as you have the of money to file the document you can get on the ballot. One wealthy agribusiness owner who once voters to approve more bond sales. These are bonds that are paid back by user fees it is an arcane topic but typically they liked to say they want a voice that would require them to approve in the future but where it gets practical in is that might mean they have to approve a new financing for the highspeed rail project as it lost a lot of its popularity and they have to approve the construction of a massive Water Project moving water from north to south and that is the big deal. Said those could be the Practical Impacts it is an arcane topic. Does that explain proposition 60 with Health Requirements for adult film stars quick. This is not a proposal off that the legislature heard why cant they solve this . Because they want the issue to be dealt with. Prop 60 requires with the of filming of adult movies for condoms and penalties if they dont follow those rules. This deere headed by enacted this group in the Los Angeles Area if they think they need to weigh in on this people find out after they are counted on election night. It is a narrow proposal they got attention because it is the unusual subject matter but added a narrow topic on 17 proposal. Edition some local communities have additional questions and that means it will take even more time to cast their ballot . Guess. Exactly. San francisco is an additional two dozen local ballot measures after the 17 statewide. The great question for political campaigns what do they do when they are faced with that . Are they exhausted . Todays stop there is one theory that they get angrier and angrier down the list but it is difficult for a lot of campaigns to get attention in the oxygen is sucked out by the president ial Campaign Reno who will win california but it is hard for those efforts to get the attention and dawn tuesday night with the state and local proposals it will be tough to see what the voters to. It will be quite a day on tuesday. Joining us from california thanks for explaining this. Youre welcome her commitment to expand abroad and with a lot of thought of competition with the benefits to all americans and another strong theme of inclusive innovation how do we make sure that the entire country actually shares in the benefit of the internet economy quick. Theres a lot of fearing of goals and objectives fifth to be made available to all. To see more rapid innovation but what mr. Trump is saying the way it is rais regulation lower taxation vote 2016 the u. S. Senate debate in collaboration with the league of women voters in illinois and chicago here is our moderator. Good evening welcome to the debate between the candidatecandidate s u. S. Senate. Day congresswoman duckworth and the republican incumbent mr. Kirk. Joining me to ask questions is our political reporter and univision chicago. The candidates will each have one minute to answer a question the candidates lancers first will get a chance for a 302nd rebuttal. In addition each will have the opportunity to ask a question of their opponent to have the opportunity for a rebuttal as well. Well wrap things up with a closing statement in an Opening Statement he may begin. Duckworth bid is a pleasure to be here today what to think the league of women voters for holding this for of. I am running for senate because i want to work for hard working families all across illinois i travel across the state to people say it is supposed to be going but they dont see that in their home town in illinois in granite city steel mills have shut down rather we are i hear that people are worried about being a foreword six baird to send their kids to college as they come out with tremendous student loan debt. That is no way to start a new life and it is time to win best innovation through investing in each other and to afford to send your kid to College Payoff your mortgage to have a dignified retirement. We need a nation that rewards work rather than wealth i am looking forward to this discussion tonight. Moderator you have one minute senator kirk. Kirk thanks for accepting my apology when i disparaged her family is admirable military record. Duckworth thankyou. Kirk after losing to lay eggs the way weve repaid at did is to honor your service especially if you and your family. Duckworth thankyou. Kirk in my opener that old like to be sent back to the senate on record of service to the state to make sure we had a republican moderate who is prochoice and pro gun control to serve as the glue between both parties. In my service to the state i saved the Exportimport Bank against my party switch is irresponsible for jobs right here in illinois. Moderator the first questions comes from abc7. Representative duckworth, shotgun shootings and homicides are epidemic proportions in the city chicago. If you are elected after you were sworn and what we propose in the United States senate to mitigate the violence . Duckworth that is such an important question research and the need gun violence legislation with universal background checks and also the first candidate to put out a comprehensive criminal justice for that proposal and they need to have criminal Justice Reform for nonviolent firsttime drug offenders. But when we talk about that we need to look at Economic Justice i sat down and some gang members they say if it must invest in companies on the sell side of chicago the would not be involved with gangs. But with that gun violence legislation all three of those are equally important i talked to mothers of senseless killing at 75th and stuart. Those who stop gun violence on the streets i would say the way to handle a the problem to before messenger deliver and to ban gun trafficking we have to shut down the relationship that tells us are responsible over 500 times for guns just in the city we cannot build the 21st century economy if we are the headquarters of lumber during ring. Duckworth the difference is done violence legislation polyols have to deal with economic injustice and that my opponent has said he lacks the capacity in his office to deal with Police Community relationships if elected to the senate and will make sure not only do i have that capability to help with relationships but if it is a responsibility to do that especially with the violence with the south side of chicago. Moderator lets go deeper and the truth of the matter is congress has failed to Work Together to pass comprehensive legalization and do happen more frequently eat in america with the Second Amendment right while keeping guns out of the wrong hands. The necessary thing is that the wrong people dont get guns of was the older republican for the ban anybody on us nofly list that you are too dangerous to fly in my view you are too dangerous to buy a firearm i want to make sure that nofly nobody is adopted by the bipartisan majority of the congress that is the best shot we have going. Duckworth some of the things that we need to do our universal and also bipartisan with the universal background check 91 percent of Republican Voters say they support universal background check there is a bipartisan bill waiting to be voted on in the house right now there is another that i am cosponsoring to close a loophole to allow open store owners and then sell them without a background check they are bipartisan if we have a sitin in election embargo my opponent did not bet on the day when we really do need the support one of the senators was missing in action. We can also get rid of bart body armor piercing bullets. There are simple things you can do without taking away the Second Amendment rights. Or bike to major we have bought magazine limit of the assault weapon in bay and these commonsense measure to make sure that of body armor of the police force is always adequate teenineteteeninete en we know there is a real connection of half of those of our incarcerated did not graduate from high school so no surprise the lowest Graduation Rate is in the toughest neighborhood of chicago what do you do to make sure that they have the opportunity with the path to college it is lack of hope in these communities is special the black and brown communities if you are a ninth grader what keeps you motivated to stay in school . Why woodwork to finishing the Highschool Diploma if there are no jobs in your community of the lead choices to get a ball with drugtrafficking word be in a gang . Why would he stay in highschool . There is no hope to go to college. It is why i work hard to put together the economic plan with economic injustice lets on natural support them and also make sure we make College Affordable so the young person will stick it out. I knew that i could afford the program did was the way for me to do that. If we make College Affordable or free make it free also Technical Education that is an element of hope for these communities. Kirk the best ways to do this is not with a free government program. How much that program cost the answer is 60 million in member 25 billion possibly so major we pass commonsense legislation that allows every mom and dad to start a taxdeferred account to make sure they could pay for college in the Financial Education is the biggest payoff if the statement comes from my father to sit down with my sister nothing is better than a financial zero education. This is what you did with stocks and bonds or savings to turn that child to make sure that she knows what lifetime of savings and investing can do. Duckworth the difference is that my opponents solution is the wall streets solution of for a one came negative main street. When my family went into extreme poverty because my dad lost his job in the 50s and could not find another in six years but we would have cash that can be cashed in my birthday savings account with my birthday money we need what is beyond from wall street and for a 1k. Make sure we make College Affordable for everyone who qualifies. Moderator i want to go back to your policy in the very beginning of this debate. You have apologized but to question your statement to say that your question to her last weekend racist undertone study respond to those critics quick. I am not racist but my work with the africanamerican and entrepreneurs with Chicago State University shows how much eyecare about a longterm solution with that class that would help us i am not racists but i offer an apology. Moderator rethinking when you said that question mark daiwa said it was a mistake of my part. Moderator and response congresswoman duckworth . Duckworth i accepted his apology we should focus on the issue but sometimes he does not think through that after he drives faster through africanamerican neighborhoods he also calls the of president the a drug dealer in chief that is not acceptable language coming from United States senator so lets go down to the issue for what we should be doing for those underserved communities to talk about making College Affordable and that means to provide for ever structured development with more step and Education Programs programs, matter where they live in this country. Kirk sometimes i am too quick to turn a phrase. Some of those i have already apologized for and once it comes out you realize it is inappropriate with such a heated environment with such a top senate race. Are you healthy enough with the people from illinois few are elected . Duckworth i just finished the chicago marathon i had fun going through all of the neighborhoods i got to release hundreds of pages of my medical records of believe and transparency and is proud to release those i could lose a little weight i gained weight when i had my baby but i am working hard. I had a doughnut this morning but we are trying. I am very healthy i have supported transparency by releasing rifle medical records to the Chicago Sun Times and the Chicago Tribune has those you can look that those to see literally tobacco for a decade. Kirk ive released a letter from adopter that says from maestro debit a full mental recovery and i also climbed the willis tower for the fifth time the last time a did 37 stories i told my staff that if they fall behind i would not review them. Duckworth id like to ask the senator white he would not release its full medical workers but he says he is fully capable but my problem is he has not been doing the job as a traveler state whether Carbondale Assembly has not been there or to vote to help the students to refinance did alone and hasnt been there for manufacturing the did it is perfectly capable. So you have criticized your opponent as a head of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs of the your invited guest from last week to the debate why is this issue important . Although while congresswoman duckworth has served as a war hero like the Chicago Tribune they said that they have fallen flat. In my case with our campaign it is nothing by those women. Only the statements of those who work for tammy. From of moment doubled up in my hospital bed i dedicated my life to serving veterans. They are my life working get up everyday to figure out what i can do better i pass legislation when i was at the state of illinois and wide to the states to continue to work on issues i am proud of the work that i did to reduce the Homeless Veterans by 50 percent as a national cosponsor. Veterans are my lifes work i would never ever give up bombast and i would not let the lawsuit sort a political commercial prevent me from doing what is right by veterans. I get congressional funded health care but that entire Insurance Program basic there with my other veterans they are my lifes work. Kirk and at times i have led the charge to make sure we uncover the pour care that was offered to illinois veterans. I was told by whistleblowers they had cockroaches overwhelming the cafeteria even serving one to a veteran after that he stopped eating for two days. And then they were coming out in body bags. The local funeral director said the remains came in liquefied form and for not useful we need to make sure we bury our veterans. Moderator you get the next question. Congresswoman duckworth, the policies of Syrian Refugees could be admitted to this country. Should religious beliefs and associations pertaining to religion be considered when the refugee applies toward mission to the United States . Did not think we should have a litmus test. But anyone especially the asSyrian Refugees should be fully vetted by all of the agencies that do the work. Doesnt that include a look at their religious beliefs and associations quick. As well as their biometric checks done by a the fbi, homelands security the state department between 18 and 36 months it is a very thorough process. I did not serve in this nation to ever do anything to endanger the nation so to have a robust process to allow them to come we cannot go back on our founding values who we are as a nation there will not be a religious test for token come to america or your gender or iraq ground. We urination of free people and we will remain true to that. Kirk we have a different fear. My opponent says except to hundred thousand Syrian Refugees even though the director of National Intelligence says he cannot with testimony the director of the fbi komis says you cannot deploy fbi agents throughout syria to collect information. After 9 11 that testimony i take that seriously. That wise action is to repeat those policies the president executed when he found those iraqi refugees in those terrorist operations. He thought to postpone the of program to figure out who these people were. Duckworth my opponent is misquoting the fbi director in fact, was caught up by the Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune that he did not say that. That is a misquote but also it is a thorough vetting process to allow those who are fleeing the butchers and murderers will not the country that turns our baton children drowning in a niche iranian by leaving the refugees to feed for themselves ziad to that crisis Propaganda Machine and will not allow them to endanger people to feed that isis propaganda. Moderator the face of Immigration Reform is very different of whom we elect as president to support comprehensive Immigration Reform to pass legalization in the past but when you go against a republican president with building a wall and separation of families. Kirk i will answer the question in a language that is most important and. [speaking spanish] she does not speak spanish read need to reform the immigration system. To contain a the kirk amendment if youre not an american and citizen you serve been done military to come under fire u. S. Really become a united status citizen that is not a pathway to citizenship it is on the principles if you fight alongside of us you are one of us. I was one of first bipartisan majority to be a part of that comprehensive immigration preform. Duckworth bayou vote against. Kirk in the long run we need more Border Security and that bipartisan space to have Immigration Reform to bring those 525,000 people speaking speaking spanish for the roots that very deep in this community. Duckworth the problem with the senator is he is not concerned on this issue when he votes for one way then votes another. In 2007 he even said the best way to combat illegal immigration was to distribute free contraception in mexico he also voted against the dream act he cannot even answer your question he is not consistent. There is reform the must we fair and practical and humane. When my dad lost is job even alive was his daughter of the American Revolution my mom could not come with us. For those months we were separated we suffered and i cannot imagine what it would be like to be secure sold to have your parents deported overseas because you are american born and they are not. We must be humane and we can do better and we need to get to work on this. Moderator intelligence officials said devices as the number one terrorist threat in the world right now. The u. S. Response is one of airstrikes and special forces. Do believe in that strategy if it goes far enough and if not should we have more american troops on the ground in syria and iran . Duckworth i think the up problem that we have first of all we must destroy isis they are the enemy of the American People and an enemy of allies in the middle east. But the up problem right now was the American People do not know how many troops are engaged overseas price fully support air strikes and the use of drums but why i want to go to United States senate is to be there when their proposal is to say if that is the case then we need to have a new discussion of use of military force to send american troops overseas we must have the exit strategy. This is what it will cost we need to do right by military men and women to make sure we have that discussion. But you always know the cost up front. Not always. To often we have hidden the cost from the American People. I will give you example when the president proposed to the tune of 500 million are being cyrian rebels i opposed and because there was a hidden cost to did not bring up the fact that when you give troops American Made weapons now we have to supply those caliber of bullets so it is important to have me there to have those questions. I think the senator was wrong if those troubles are working for american. Kirk the current policy high of the special forces that we dont need boots on the ground but over ground it is very good at hitting targets that the Iraqi Military to identify targets of the u. S. Airforce. And that destruction cycle rapidfire against dices. Using a strategy we could attack the capital of minimal cost to the United States. Look at what happens after word with the Iraqi Military that is muslim to speak arabic with the armed wing much more likely to hold that territory long term. Moderator at this point for the candidates to have the opportunity to question each other europe 30 seconds to ask your opponent a question and then you get another 30 seconds. Kirk i would ask congresswoman duckworth when i had the race for senate i asked my opponent to meet me for the deere summit at the billy goat to bury the hatches of the day after every could meet publicly at the billy goat to have a beer to make sure we show the families that democracy is the best way to go. Duckworth i would be willing to meet with you. Kirk is on me. [laughter] duckworth i am allergic to alcohol. But i will have a diet coke but i will meet with you there. That is 12,000 dollars less that families have to spend on food, education, and every day necessities. How could you call the paycheck fairness act is sexist piece of legislation. Remember i am for equal pay and i voted with deb, the senator from nebraska, to allow to allow anybody and the equal pay responsibility to find out how much every other people in the same part of the country make. In case of the Lilly Ledbetter act, remember that it was written by the House Democrat with the american trial lawyers at their side. The troubling part of that legislation was that a gave the right to a big democratically connected buffer to take control of theht