Within ourselves and were ready to make the sacrifices that anybody has to make to get to the top, we can do it. I recently was with a Group Squadron that received all sorts of medals coming back from afghanistan. And one person in the squadron was a woman. And the person interviewing the soldier said well, how do you feel about having, you know, a woman as your commander . And the soldier said actually, it doesnt occur to us. We just think of her as a soldier. And i think that we can push ahead. We can make it. And as you know in europe this is a very liveish sue at the europe live level. There has been legislation at the board room level. Some european countries, norway is one actually is that. I take it from what youre saying youre against quotas of that sort . Quotas are really an unfertable thing for american uncomfortable things for americans. Europeans are more comfortable. We want quality of opportunity more than quality of a result. I was on a fortune 500 Corporate Board pretty early in my career because i was because they werent c sweep people to put on. And i know for sure the c. E. O. Of that company wanted a woman and thats why he found me. So how to get people to think about a woman is very important. Theres another thing that happens. And ive been on several boards and im on a couple now. When the guy sit around and say we need a guy on the board. Theres harry, theres joe. Theres mike. How do we get Hillary Clinton . How to lay the standard for a woman goes through the roof. And that would be mitigated if there were a requirement that you had a certain percent of women. So how to get american boards to think more about women, i dont know. Ok. Well, we must let people eat. So please join me in thanking lynn. Thank you. [applause] next a forum on state and federal marijuana laws. Then a discussion on combating terrorism and National Security. After that a look at the projected cuts in defense spending. Tomorrow on washington journal well discuss president obamas nominee for defense secretary former nebraska senator chuck hagel. Our guest is gary schmidt with the American Enterprise institute followed by emerging markets in developing country. Were joined with Morgan Stanley investment management. He spends one week in a different developing country and will discuss his book breakout nations. Live on washington journal on cspan. If you ask how many are selfidentified libertarians, depending on which poll you look at, you might be getting between 10 and 15 . If you ask questions like if you give people a battery of questions about different ideological things like do you believe in x and do you believe in y . Then you track those, depending on which poll you get up to 30 of americans that call themselves libertarian. If you ask the following question are you economically conservative but socially liberal you say half of americans saying that thats what they are. Just because people say these things it doesnt necessarily mean they believe them. If you ask most americans do you want smaller government, you say yes. If you want government to spend less money yes. But if you ask them to cut any particular thing on the bunlts budget, they dont really want to cut anything. Roughly, lowest 10 and as high as 30 . So libertarians if they were kind of conscious and political they could be a big movement. They could be it could be a big group of people who have a shared ideology. But just for various reasons theyre not organized that way right now. A political primer on libertarian. Jason brennan on what you mite not know. Sunday night at 8 00 on cspans q a. Now a discussion about legalizing marijuana and federal state relations. Colorado and Washington State recently legalized the Recreational Use of marijuana but it continues to be illegal under federal law. This is just over an hour and a half. Welcome, everybody. Thank you very much for coming. My name is jonathan roush. Im a guest scholar in governance studies here at brookings. Its very good of you to come on a cold day when so much else is going on in washington. Some of you may have heard the two states that legalized marijuana. The news may have trickled out that washington and colorado did this in november. There has been some discussion of the drug policy implication. But today were going to try to put your heads and ours in a different space and try to think about the power implications of this. Im a fan of short introductions. The thank yous and the bios, not much else but ill make a slight exception. After thanking of course all of you second our panelists are a true ateam, two of whom came from out west to be with us today. Third our partner, the Washington Office on latin america and not least the donors who made this session possible including peter louis to whom were very grateful. The reason this is we think a very good moment to nut dialogue on a separate track is that were in a period on federalism. Thats state federal relations the likes of what we have not seen in perhaps since in new deal. Weve got a number of hot button issues that are raising fundamental questions. Not only issues that are being raised about what the right decision should be but who gets to make the right decision. Immigration is one of those where the federal government is asserting that the states need to follow the feds policy and has had a mixed outcome in the Supreme Court with that. Another is the defensive marriage act, gay marriage where the states are asserting that the feds must follow a state policy that is before the Supreme Court this term. A third is obama care where the states refuse to follow the federal policy and sued for the right to do that and won a mixed holding from the Supreme Court. In the midst of all this, you have a Supreme Court which is itself very much influx everybody come on up. There are some seats in the front. Dont be shy. The Supreme Court is very much influx. That area is unsettled in a way that it has not been for a very long time. And in the midst of all of that, talk about putting a cat among pigeons, legalize marijuana. And this is more than any of the previous policies, a direct confrontation with federal policy. They did it, moreover by referendum. Lopsided votes to the public. Now a parameter for our discussion is i think its going to say that none of our comments are rehearsed. So i dont know what people are going to say. But i think were all probably going to agree that federal policies as a matter of law is supreme here. I dont think thats in question. What is in question is what is wise for the federal government to do in this situation and what is wise for the states to do because more of them will be considering marijuana and what is weijs for congress to do and the wise for congress to do and the Supreme Court to do . And a lot of this will play out in the Supreme Court. We want to talk about wisdom rather than law. An we want to talk about power rather than pot. We want to talk about partly whats going to happen in the next few months when key decisions are going to be made and those are going to ricochet through the other states in congress and the courts. Its really going to be fun. To guide us through the fun we have a panel of just some remarkable experts. Ill introduce them in alphabetical order and reverse speaking order. Troy whos to my far left is a lawyer with the Denver Office of greenberg trowerring. An International Law firm. He joins us from denver from which were very grateful. He was the United States attorney for the district of colorado from 2006 to 2009. Hes a former member of the attorney general Advisory Committee of the narcotics and Drug Trafficking subcommittee of that committee. Hes an adjunct professor at the university of Colorado School of law and not immaterially he has been honored for a distinguished Public Service with the Drug Enforcement administration, the federal bureau of investigation and the secret service. Hes going to help us understand Law Enforcement options and how to balance this power equation to get it right. Michael grava, next to him is a professor at George Mason University school of law and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise institute. The cofounder and former director of the center for individual rightswhich is a Public Interest law firm. Perhaps most on point today he is in my view probably the countrys single most creative and thinker on state and federal relations with a book on that subject called real federalism why it matters, how it could happen and a very important book on the same subject published last year called the upside down constitution. And finally Angela Hawkins whos to my immediate left is associate professor of economics and policy analysis at pepperdine university. She comes to us all the way from california on the redeye. Thank you so much for that. She studied at duran. She focuses on drug, crime, corruption. We have some seats in the front weve got at least four. Six, seven, eight. Eight or nine seats so come on and join us. Angela led a cost benefit analysis of californias drug sentences initiative. She is a coauthor of two very relevant books drugs and drug policy what Everyone Needs to know published by oxford. Marijuana legalization. She is going to help us understand some of the drug policy implication of whats happening. Our panelists will talk about 10 minutes each. Say whatever they want to say and will probably go straight to questions though perhaps with a bit of dialogue along the way. Angela, do you want to kick it off . Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. When we think about the implications of whats happening in colorado and washington and Marijuana Legalization, its very important to distinguish marijuana from the legalization of other drugs. The ideological trap that we find ourselves falling into quickly. Marijuana is different. Marijuana legalization is a much smaller policy reform than legalizing any of the other drugs would be. Over the last generation about 1 3 of americans have decriminalized marijuana. Late. Has been so lax that when we ask in a survey whether you live in a state that it is legal or not most people dont even know. So its a much smaller step than if it would be if we could consider any of the other harder drugs. Its a much more gentle nudge in that direction. In terms of actual Marijuana Legalization it does matter. It got on to the books in colorado and washington through an initiative process. That doesnt allow for a whole lot of capable design. What does change is how the world works when it comes to legalization. The answer being, well, if you want to go there, i wouldnt start here. And thats where we are. So we have very little wiggle room in those states to shake policy in a positive direction and were operating in an astonishing operating vacuum because no other jurisdiction in the world has legalized marijuana. Not even the netherlands. We have uncharted territory. And we would not go through our lessons as quickly as we want in washington. I wanted to study a well conceived legalization regime. The last thing i wanted on the books through an initiative but this is what we have. If the experiment in washington and colorado are about to proceed, the question mark remains, well learn a great deal about marijuana that we dont know now. Theres a lot of speculation. Sometimes the speculations are wild. And it will little is known on both sides of the debate. What happens to abuse . Do we see dramatic increases and if there is a dramatic increase does it persist of a time . Typically there are dramatic changes around the policy intervention anyway. No matter what you implement things move. And things start to settle down three or four years down. Are we going to have the patience to wait and see what happens when this shakes down . Whats going to happen to dependency in those states . And to problem use . Since the age of initiation change are kids going to start earlier . Are they going to use more . And whats going to happen to those children . Whats going to happen to drunk driving . Whats going to happen to drug driving . Usually consequential. One of the most important issues in our debate. What will happen to e. R. Admission . Will criminal behavior change . Especially around the retail stores. Whats going to happen in the neighborhoods . Those neighbors will care. And very important probably more important than all, what is the relationship between marijuana and our most important drug of all, alcohol . If Marijuana Legalization leads to an increase in alcohol use and how we feel about it if it leads to a decrease in alcohol use. And we dont know. Were just guessing now. If there are substitutes that is if we use them together this is a very different universe if one gets traded after the other. We are just guessing about the magnitude of these relationships. And these are extremely consequential following a major event like this. So surely the federal government will be concerned with these kinds of options. Weve heard. And if these experiments are allowed to proceed well learn about these important issues and well know. And that information vacuum will hopefully be closed. Theres a research that im really frustrated by a lack of knowledge when making Marijuana Policy in the dark. I would like to see these experiments be given a chance and i do call them experiments. These experiments to play out long enough for us to learn and its easier to undo an experiment in two states than in many states and other states. This is the time to use the language of experimentation. The primary concern of the states will be if washington and colorado have thread country . A reasonable concern. Colorado and washington may become the way for the other 48 states. Supremacy clause aside, it does not seem reasonable to expect the federal government to allow colorado to create a system that profoundly affects the other state. So the price of federal acquiescence should be minimizing out of state consequences. When it comes to Legal Marijuana affecting other residents in other states, you hear mostly you read about the kids going off to the mountains. Pot moves towards people is equally important across the land. In both direction is important. But people moving in with tourism somehow attracts more stories. This is going to be extremely influential. If and when a matter of time the subjects in those stories include children. The government might want to make a show some effort to stop pot terrorism promotion. Even if it cant really stop it, it needs to suggest towards trying to make it stop towards that promotion. If they make a good effort to stop Tourist Promotion stop the promotion of pot tourism and it happens anyway, they can just say its a hard thing to do. But if they dont get involved, and try to stop the pot tourism, it looks as though theyre condoning it. The movement in both directions, are equally important. You might expect to see an effective band of marijuana sellers promoting out of nonresidence use and the justice might say if you advertise out of state either by pot going to people or people going to pot, if you advertise, and we find that you are involved, we dont care how big you are or where you are or whether you comply with your states rule, were going to get you. Prioritizing is very important on that sort of promotion. They can target private promoters as well as states that arent bothering on their promoters. The federal response we watch very closely by colorado and washington today. But they will also be watched very closely by the other states that are considering their own marijuana reform. What about these states . Massachusetts, california, oregon, nevada, maine. The question is no longer when these states if theyll legalize, its where and theres now some very compelling evidence that suggests theyll be legalizing very soon in short order. So the language of experimentation becomes much harder. Much harder to turn the boat around than to think about how to handle this. What have the version of those laws look like . How will they be affected by how the federal response looks now . Dont think these advocacy groups, dont think theyre not paying attention. The federal government is going to have a much harder time thwarting legalization in colorado than in washington. Why . Because in colorado its loosely written. Its much easier to crack down on it with a strong regulation. So the easiest way to legalize marijuana, if you want to get federal government off your back is to repeal the marijuana laws and no regulations in place. Thats a perverse situation, a really perverse situation. An aggressive federal response could simulate more loose versions of Marijuana Legalization with even fewer protection for the groups of people we care about like our children. On the other hand federal agencies could use this to shape the markets in a way that offers more protection. They could use selective enforcement, make sure they go after the target of marijuana related businesses that are advertising or other yuky things we rather keep from those products. It will be fascinating whether that learning is allowed to take place. So far the federal government is given very little indication of how it will proceed. Aside from a few mistakes and of course the president s interview on tv. Lets take it back from betty davis. Buckle up. Its going to be a bumpy ride. Thank you. A few clarifying points. It may be worth noting that on the ground issue here is that although federal law prohibits marijuana, the feds cant enforce that, is that correct . This is why a regulated regime is much hard tore control because in colorado in colorado there is now personal growth. Growth for