Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20240622 :

CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings June 22, 2024

Today when we invented a more kind of lets say easier more accessible way to use morphine through prescription opioids in the early 2000 he let lead pharmaceutical Companies Marketing those drugs quite strongly to doctors and hospitals, and anyone who goes into hospital today, whats the first thing as you how much, whatever albeit you want to only get your pain. That has contributed to an increase in opioid addiction which is what you more of an increasing heroin addiction. Air went addiction actually, the heroin problem quoteunquote has been a result of pure, cheaper heroin your not from heroin that is actually cagey kind of some type of side effect. Do you discern a question in that . Go ahead. The problem youve put your finger on, which is missed prescribing doctors and the excesses of the pharmaceutical enterprise the opioids, i think in many cases is correct. The fact that we have prohibition means is those folks become medically addicted are then stigmatized. They dont have access to the drugs. Suddenly prescription gets cut off and eternal heroin because heroin is a lot cheaper but states off build the sickness. My sense is that you do need Better Regulation of physicians. You need to change the culture of prescribing. When i had i had some oral surgery recently and i was getting backing from there was never a followup like what happened to that did you use of course turned out i didnt eat any of it so now it is sitting around. Its inconvenient to dispose of these. I paid good money for the. Repeatedly i had shoulder surgery, similar kind of thing. A bunch of narcotics are prescribed. No followup. There really are ways in which we can do it better job culturally in controlling how legal opioids are made available. By anything the statement from this dignity is inherent in the prohibition, people are going to be able to not go to criminal markets but people are going to be able to now im addicted what do we do about it . You can then wean people off. You dont have people to say im addicted, got to try to find another doctor to scam. Ive got to skim the er. All of this flows out of the prohibition approach and the stigmatization, youre an outlaw, this is wrong, immoral. And its not. Its not immoral to be addicted. It should never be a crime to be an addict. Prohibition keeps driving that. A couple of things. First of all know what i think has ever argued that legalization is a panacea but everything is going to work beautifully in a legalized system. But i would defied advocates of the prohibition who have identified the various problems associate with drug abuse to show how those problems are made better through prohibition. And that simply isnt the case and there are lots of unintended side effects, which prohibitionists almost never talk about. With the international environment, i think we of servicing a sea change in attitude. The portugal experiment was a key development, and as you note we put out a study five years ago on that experiment. One of the things i think is most important about the portugal experiment is that it blew up a lot of the prohibitionists myth, but youre going to see soaring drug use rates. No, we didnt. We were going to see soaring crime rates associated with a legalized system or a decriminalized system. No, they didnt. In fact, the trend has been in the other direction. And the stranglehold of the prohibitionists paradigm on International Policy i think, if it has been broken its in the process of breaking. Youre certainly seeing other countries that may have thought for many years that the u. S. Led policy was pure idiocy, but for a variety of reasons, you dont tell it to the world superpower. Now governments are willing to deviate. Reforms in uruguay i think the latest clear example of that where you have legalized commerce and marijuana despite washingtons continuing objection. So i think we are at least in a period of ferment in terms of policy now and we will see where that goes. I am a strong believer that sage philosopher yogi berras observation it aint over till its over so even though i see favorable trends away from prohibition for a legalized system im going to pop the champagne corks, then thats legal at the time, until we see better results. Okay. In the back. It appears that throughout Human History human beings have been using substances to help cope with daily life whether with the stimulant or something to relax of them. That is continued throughout Human History. So, therefore, do you think that this supply of drugs is only tailoring or providing humans now today with something that they have been desired for centuries that is inherent in human nature that cannot be legislated against . It certainly would seem that way, given the long, long history that cuts across different cultures and so on. I think theres at least a percentage of the population that feels it needs that kind of artificial boost. Ive never entirely understood that, but i think its enough of a phenomenon that its clear you cant pass laws against it. That is i think the one lesson that is indisputable at this point. You can try to prevent it as much as possible, but youre going to have a significant percentage of the population that will continue to use those substances, regardless of the laws. That simply is not going to deter them from doing what they want to do whether thats good for them, bad for them theyre still going to do it. I think its a very deep and profound question, especially in the context of american society. Because we live in a very controlled society, and look, every kid is forced into Public School system or a private School System that is licensed by the state. He spends 12 years receiving this message drugs are bad. And yes, over four years the problem has only gotten bigger and why is that . Of course i think drug addiction is rooted in family origin issues but think theres wider societal implications. Why words are so much alcohol is him in the soviet union . Why was there so much alcohol isnt in the soviet union . The more controlled your society is, the more paternalistic a government is the more despair there is in a society. The less economic activity, the dynamism that comes from a truly Free Market Society is absent. I think the plate American People is innately worse than people of cuba or north korea. Thats because of the words of johann goethe, that none of the hopelessly enslaved than those of also believe they are free. And i think that when you combine that control to side with the concept that involves freedom, that that might will be a cause of why there is so much widespread drug abuse and mind altering views in american society. I see a dissertation topic in the works. Correlation between drug use and levels of freedom. In the back. Im interested in the 3 around the bottom get it right. Could you quickly go back through like a brief history of that regulation and where it is now . And then all of you give more details or examples about how, you mentioned thursday before hundred 30 variations of these synthetic drug. Examples of the whackamole effect were where things change and the government tried to address it and it just went on. Thanks. In 1987 1980s as congress was developing the antidrug abuse act of 1988 which included a minute to the antidrug abuse act of 1986, dea said this particular piece of equipment was a major part of the problem in the production of methamphetamines and proposed that it be banned. And, therefore, by act of congress as one of the little features of the antidrug abuse act of 1986 1980 which is a pretty fat bill this was enacted and remains part of the controlled substances act. If they change it we are all going to get rich because were going to start buying this. Its going to be made legal. Spirit theres a couple of examples in the paper. You have most of the laws that were passed before, about 2011 2012 with specific. They went after specific uncle substances. And begin what lawmakers are finding is that the ink was barely dry on that ball and some enterprising chemist in shanghai, or wherever, what changed the composition of one molecule and suddenly the law didnt apply to the substance anymore. So the move sent 20112012 both at the National Level and at the state level has been toward very broadband, attempting to outlaw entire families of substances if you will. And try to deal with the problem in that fashion. That anything that vaguely resembles an outlaw drug will be considered in that same category and is therefore outlawed. And begin as i mentioned earlier, that deals with one problem but it also creates another, and that youve inherently have laws that are vague and overly broad. And im not sure thats a particular pattern we want to encourage in this country. We have seen abuses in other areas with such laws, and that is something we always have to be cognizant of. We have an instance of an ex post facto prosecute were some was convicted, not convicted but charged with violating the sale of a substance that at the time that she was so it was not illegal. It was made illegal after she was charged speaker that was the groups factor in the case where the woman was charged with marketing and illicit substance trying to factor. The charge filed was a three months before the Texas Legislature had outlawed the substance. The question of prohibition specific versus no he goes does the designer Drug Enforcement act of 1986 was essentially very, very broad. It says controlled substance analogues should be treated like schedule one substance is your basic controlled substance analogues means a substance, the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of the controlled substance, schedule one and schedule two and which has well, you know, or it has a stimulant and to present in effect similar to that. So thats pretty broad and thats 1986. So the approach at that point was a very broad one being enacted, and thats still on the books. That was to at the federal level. State laws that were enacted important distinction between federal and states. One last question. Right here. Make it quick. Thank you for your presentation. For more information about prohibition black market how the price go which people had to pay [inaudible] that would be very helpful. Second is the marijuana or something of the sort is not really, its not really probable cause under the law but people Law Enforcement abuse the power and authorities and create reduce the opportunity for employment and so on. How much loss economically for people who suffer and for society as a whole . So cost of the prohibition strategy more generally. Excellent question. Something i appointed out so many lives have been blighted by prohibition. And one i guarantee theres a gentleman whos sitting in the oval office today who wouldnt be happy run afoul of the drug laws. Barack obama admitted that he used Illegal Drugs that he was one of the lucky ones. You didnt get caught. How many others have had their lives their careers blighted because of that . I think as eric is out the cost of that would be measured in, probably in the hundreds of billions of dollars a year. So this is a massive effect, adverse effect on our society. And this is something that we are going to see more common with regard to synthetic drugs if they become more popular in terms of total use. And people are going to have their lives disrupted because of questionable judgment on their part. But i think we could make a distinction between activities that are not good for you activities that result from questionable judgment on the one hand, and crime on the of the. Weekend to blur that in our society to our great societal deference. On that note thank you all very much for attending today. If you will join us on the second floor in the Conference Center for a luncheon at a conference folks will show you the way. Thank you all very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] almost as if they were is always to the right and almost always in the right. Filmmakers Robert Gordon and Morgan Neville talk about the documentary best of him is on the 19th of the eight debate between conservative william f. Buckley and liberal or but all over war, politics, god and sex spirit theres not someone and their gear. Today i was there someone the same the numbers are dwindling, talk about hot topics, hot salacious topic number two were as then i dont think that was the norm in tv at the time and it dont think these guys as morgan said, these guys didnt even. The moderator, a distinguished newsman who i think was really kind of embarrassed by this. He was moderating but he disappears for sometimes five or more minutes at a time. Today you would have a moderator not jumping in every 30 seconds. So i think really everybody at abc just stood back and let the fire burn. Sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on cspans q a. Today the British Foreign Affairs Committee heard testimony from foreign secretary Philip Hammond talked about isis, the tunisian terror attacks and International Agreement over Irans Nuclear program. Secretary hammond recently met with israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss the iran give. This is one hour 15 minutes. Order. Welcome to the first public evidence session of the 2015 parliament. Foreign secretary, thank you very much for making yourself available to the first witness. I think it was right to invite you to layout your view of the state of the world and brings interest in it. To begin the session i know the session necessarily come business short and we are thank you to make is applicable to come back. Well, thank you. Its nice to be today and it would be a pleasure to come back and have a more full session in september but i appreciate the committee, my congratulations to you chairman on your election and to all the members on their appointments. Our longterm strategic interest lies in strengthening the rules of International System and a key Foreign Policy objective is to strengthen that system. To do that we have to draw in the major emerging powers to show that it is in their interest to work with the rulesbased system rather than to kick the traces over. We have to look eventually, ma this may be a longterm project but eventually to drawing russia back in to the system. Over the next five years i have no doubt that our priorities are going to be the renegotiation of our relationship with the European Union the defeat of the military expression of violent extremism in daesh and then continuing to undermine the narrative of violent extremism, and the challenge of responding to russias more aggressive stance towards the International Community and its major programs. If i can do with those three things. On the eu renegotiation, the committee is aware of process. The Prime Minister set out his broad areas of concern what he believes reform is necessary. Incidentally, not only in britains interest but in interest of making the eu competitive accountable relevant to its citizens in the future. At the june european council. Since then weve agreed with the european colleagues that will be an official Level Working Group looking at some of the potential root for resolving the issues that Prime Minister identified looking at legal constraints and past opportunities. That will continue through the summer and into the autumn. Will continue our engagement with all eu counterparts. Im pleased to be able to tell the committee that all 27 Member States have told me clearly and categorically that they want to bring to remain part of the European Union. Some have gone much further and said that a European Union without britain and it would not be anything recognizable as the European Union they know. And they also plan to work with us to assure that the changes are made that will be necessary if britain is going to be able to remain inside the European Union. And thats the key. Because weve set the test not in a smokefilled room with politician but over referendum where the british people who made the ultimate decision know that the offer they come up with, a package of reform agreed has to be enough to satisfy the demands of the british people to change, and a strong sense i believe that the European Union, bigger and passionate european project change since the last the democratic decision on this in 1975. And in many people do not for the better. It is about resetting the doubts of European Union better represents what the people expect to see of any european structure. And i think that is a focus on economic delivery, growth jobs, prosperity, helping defend our Living Standards in the face of a globalizing world. And if the eu can show that it is organized to do that it will have relevance to the people not only a britain but the people of all 28 countries of the European Union. You know, chairman keeping britain safe is always the first duty of any government, and that you need major challenge that we face is that of islamist inspired terrorism, whether we are talking about complex patch in the ongoing spaces of the middle east or whether were talking about global attacks inspired by daesh online propaganda. Tackling isil daesh remains the key to tackling this challenge. That Prime Minister has described as a generational struggle. The military defeat of isil in iraq and syria will not take a generation, but defeating the underlying ideology will be much more complex. That Prime Minister spe

© 2025 Vimarsana