Low probability. So hopefully low probability of each case. I dont think there is a way of quantifying or speaking confidently which scenario constructed weapons or material is a greater risk. It depends on the situation in the place in the coming together of a lot of different events and factors. I guess i will take one more question. In the case of a bond easier for most people to a chain that is very respond [inaudible] i am sure there is Disaster Response but it says. That is what you pay taxpayer dollars to go tours, making the government can respond. The question the book deals with is the hypothetical what could be god in terms of a foreignpolicy or defense policy response. How do you get that problem through state practice . It is a bit of a different problem than a theoretical. There are ranges of plants that exist for different scenarios. You can only go so far with a theoretical in terms of writing a plan down. What the book does this go way beyond in terms of having a playbyplay for Something Like this. It gets into the more tract analysis. That addresses some of these questions. Again, thank you all for coming. I hope you enjoy the book. [applause] thank you so much for coming. Those of you see it, do us a favor and fold up your chair and put it against the bookcases. I hope you will buy a book to support benjamin. Get a book signed. Thank you. [applause] booktv continues out transfix. William bennett author drug control policy under george h. Debbie bush argues against the legalization of marijuana with jonah goldberg, Senior Editor of national review. Host hi bill. Guest jonah did this to you. Host we are going to talk about your book going to pot. First we should have the full disclosure. We know each other. We are longtime acquaintances, friends. Im under radio show. You mustve been away quite a while now. I am not drug. I have a little bit of caffeine. Host im glad you got that out there. As you well know my inclination like this is to make a lot of pot jokes. Guest ive got a couple too. Host i will wait back and wait until theyre integral to the story we are trying to do. One of the things i love about the show as it is for authors. It is not for interviewers. It gives an author a chance to answer the greatest of all questions. What is your book about. So what is your book about . Guest my book our book i coauthored with robert wyatt, neighbor friend lawyer, meticulous researcher for which im grateful. I am not a meticulous researcher. The book is why we shouldnt legalize marijuana. We wrote it because we saw this train coming down the track legalization as we speak. Alaska has just illegalize general recreational use. Public opinion has shifted very much in that direction and pretty dramatically. May be even more genetically than gay marriage, the shift in Public Opinion to the favorable side. You know 20 years 15 20 years ago 20 of the American People were in favor of legalization. Now Something Like 60 . Given the evidence we thought it important to write this book and nobody else seemed to be writing it. I think no one has about why this is a bad idea. The other thing and this is very relevant is as Public Opinion has softened marijuana maybe 60 in favor of legalization, the Scientific Evidence is overwhelming against it. Director of National Drug control policy. 89, 90, we didnt have the research. Now it is overwhelming, the harm that marijuana does. I just have to believe i want to believe the American People have formed these facts. The point of the book was to get the facts out so they can make a second judgment on this, an informed decision. To get to the end of my story, in colorado, which is kind of grounds he wrote, they will reconsider at the end of the day to put this genie back in the bottle and recriminalize because they are starting to see results. Host a couple of questions. Who is your intended audience for this . Policymakers, voters . Its clearly not libertarians. Who are you and your a story of voices, or were you aiming this at . Tesco is for the Public Policymakers and in this case Public Policymakers are brothers. I was just in colorado out of denver and a thank you note the 50s, these potheads force dishonest. Force dishonest. It is decided by people in suits. If money is in here too. This was decided by a soon wellmeaning Public Servants and some people enthralled to financial interests and others who genuinely believe this is a good interview. But it wasnt some takeover by the pot smoking lobby. It was something done by citizens and i hope the deliberate process, but not delivered it enough. Host your rendition of this, first of all let me ask, why do you think Public Attitude on marijuana has changed . Guest several rings. One, a very Smart Finance campaign for marijuana. Thursdays money in here. You can read a lot of story about how this is the investment of the year the greatest growth. More and more big money. The people for legalization whales and as they always do the people who are opposed in florida where nearly escaped legalization to get a 60 vote in florida. They got 58 . The opponents of legalization were outspent by a three to one. One of the people who contributed against legalization would shelve novels and. If you are spending youre spending a lot of money. He put 5 million intuited wednesday. So there was that. Second, there was what i call rosie memory, rosy colored memory talks about how her memories are always rosy colored. Its better to her than go through it again. People thought of their experience in the 60s and 70s than they knew lots of people smoking marijuana. They had smoked marijuana. No big deal. Its not the marijuana we have today. Third, in classic terms, the argument medical marijuana the person who cant get relief anywhere else. Medical marijuana was the wedge. Many states say and how can you deny people the chance to feel better . This is the only thing that will make them feel better. This is the very interesting difference between marijuana and 79 for example. Plan bias was a great ask late and he was struck down. A superb visible specimens. He was struck down by marijuana the same way. It happens. People calling my show often say no one buys marijuana. Die for marijuana. Not the same way. Cocaine takes you to your knees. Marijuana moves you in a different way. This was able to work and what kind of person can ubc deny someone this medical marijuana . In colorado initial permits, permission slips for medical marijuana worry about via thousand. When the courts earliest it could have as many as you want and multiply to 220,000. Most people getting over males between the ages of 18 and 25. This was a ruse. This was fraudulent. But it gave away, a wedge to get it through. One of the heads of the normalization Legalization Group said good riddance medical marijuana. Once they get back well have so many people use them out will be able to get the whole vote. Posts are one of my favorite quotes is from edmund burke. The example of the school of mankind. But he means by that is sometimes you have to show people. Two questions relating to that. You said yourself you think colorado will eventually change of mind on that. Isnt that a useful example . Is about the whole point of federalism we are going to get to to have the phrase laboratories for democracy is a loaded one. Second of all if the problems with marijuana are what you say they are. As a parent i found this book very very persuasive where i will challenge you more. As a parent, take convincing more than ever that i would want my kid and the kids i care about to stay away for marijuana. How extrapolate from not therein lies the debate. If marijuana is as bad as you say and i tend to agree with you on that why would attitudes change in its favor . You think millions of People Living their lives smoking marijuana serving as an example to others than themselves, many people stopped smoking marijuana. Why would public sentiment move so much in contrast or opposition to the facts on the ground . Because a lot of the facts on the ground havent caught up havent become reality yet. It takes time. It is not cocaine. Over time, over years, we years, when you do eight i. Q. Points which is what uses at the start of a teenager and go for 10 or 15 years it is 10 or 15 years. If you start as a teenager 17 of teenagers will become addicted. Addicted within the next month next week. Its two years, three years four years. Theres a funny way in which people who have marijuana problems they tend to disappear the woodwork and fade out. They dont end up in crack houses and they dont end up eating their lives. They dont end up strangling their children. Host to have stores in colorado. The women whos the star the woman who was a star in the blair witch project, she became a pop way a grower of marijuana in northern california. That is how she kind of disappeared kid i remember some of the heavy pot smokers from college and graduate school. It didnt die. They just kind of didnt reach their potential didnt reach what they shouldve been but just kind of faded away. Nothing more dramatic. The point you raise is interesting. When i was director of drug policy why would you let the state do this in the laboratories of democracy and see what happens, which i thought was the responsible thing to say. Im the director of drug policy. This wont happen on my watch. I will let people suffer for the sake of proving my point. Lets have 100,000 kids not do their homework and see if they get stupider. Not when im secretary of education. But now it is occurring. So yes there is a great opportunity for learning here and lets pay close attention and lets go to colorado and take a real close look every six months every year, lets count all the numbers and do the science right and not pray. Absolutely. Host you open and the introduction of the book. You open when its a hypothetical about tobacco. Why do you make the comparison your argument about tobacco. Host i am not entirely sure that i agree with my own hypothetical. If it were within your power to outlaw tobacco if we could start this thing over again we are pretty close on tobacco. Weve really made of a moral friend and people are smoking and so on. Either way none of that seems to prove to marijuana smokers. I am told in boulder colorado come and talk about ground zero, theres a place for no smoking is allowed but marijuana is the only thing that is allowed and makes kind of cultural sense to some people. If you were within our power never to have had cigarette would we do if we could legislate, which is where we are in some ways statebystate. Would we have decided against it . You can do the experiment with alcohol, but it doesnt work. Very harmful as cigarettes and a or harmful. It prevents really serious times when it can so not by outlawing it, though i dont think it is beyond the realm of plausibility of someone someday try to do it but by having different seriousness about tobacco all of these ads about how it is for you. But we are at this stage of marijuana. We can make a decision whether we want to have this being more generally throughout society are not. I have to admit at the outset i dont buy the hypothetical. Personally i would not go to the polls and vote to ban tobacco if i had the opportunity. Nor would i then alcohol. Not a surprise to anybody. I like alcohol and i actually like cigars. Guest but the point excuse me, the point is to say we absolutely would you do what kinds of factors we take into consideration if we did and how embedded business practice in the culture and what reasons can we get historically, culturally for keeping it in then apply the same analysis to marijuana. So i guess im trying to get out if theres a prosecutors race aspect. Were sure there is. Again, in my lane as a parent you know, i am with you for the most part. But in terms of the Public Policy theres a certain amount of lets not leave any argument now two days. I was really intrigued by someone who personally less federalism, the idea of them. I think it is the greatest system ever conceived of for maximizing Human Happiness because it lets the most people live the way they want to live. You seem to a one point basically throw the baby of federalism out with the bathwater here saying he cant have federalism or Something Like marijuana, do you reject the argument for federalism marijuana. I wonder whether or not the right of the American People tunic mistakes and if im going to agree with you they can make mistakes, to say that not when it comes to marijuana and therefore youve even do something which i was sort of shocked by his you invoke i cant find it right now. I will find it the same that people who most often point out make arguments on federalism did so to defend jim crow. I agree there was a time when most people used to have for jim crow. That is what federalism is about today. Do you have any real actors about invalidating federalism even when you think people are making when communities are making a mistake. I am a fan of federalism. Im not sure if im as big of a federalism as you are. Particularly the republics constitution and i do believe when the two conflict. I wont be accused of faking the question, but lets remind people there is federal law here. Marijuana is against federal law. The Obama Administration has decided to wink at this and maybe someone could argue we should never pass those federal laws. As it stands, this is another case of the administration going against what established law is. Host can you explain for the viewers that the Obama Administration has done visavis colorado . What it has done is winked and said we are not going to enforce federal black against the use and sale of marijuana. If a class when substance. It is against lots of sallet or use it in cea has been told to lay off. I dont think that is a wise way to execute the laws of the president has sworn to do. If people dont like federal law, then let the states do whatever they want. I dont know by the way how it would come out right now. We talked to people on the hill by the way and i dont want to distract from the question. This is not a republican democrat. Did you see Debbie Wasserman schultz get into trouble because she opposed the florida initiative. Meanwhile the republican folks want to go gung ho and certainly anyone with the last name paul. He will be out there. Guest grandpa will be out there that would be a big thing. Can i change the subject to little bit . The other part of the beginning of the book seems to me the harms marijuana. We summarize and reprint the entire article from the new england journal of medicine which summarizes the research and they are shortterm harm focus, memory, loss of motivation all sorts of problems. I didnt have this around 8990 now that its simply available the research at northwestern and harbors that if i could design a drug, harmful and distracting for a student because the focus of memory and attention and motivation. In some ways enough to close the case. Now i will make him never fully pick up the secretary of education. It seems to be nuts to be saying lets have more of this on the developing brain. Were talking about how myths. Where talking about the kids football, you know, alkyl holism in utero, all sorts of ways to protect fabry and here we have the overwhelming evidence that is harmful to operators, but particularly the developing brain and they want to make it more generally available. That was one of the recent asu in the beginning who was about four . You return to that team often. I think it is really valid and on point skewering of the cultural hypocrisy going on right now. Theres a website called fox. Com fox. Com it has a piece of recently making the case for why we should treat sugar as a controlled substance. If the date is bad for you abuse coming ubiquitous and on paper, to my mind it goes back and forth between being persuasive because we are not going to be in sugar. But if you come from a mind that about privatizing white house, they said look, libertarians want to privatize lighthouses. But he said the great thing about our country is debating whether or not to privatize lighthouses isnt going to socialize medicine. Dogma defines the boundaries of reasonable discourse. I think the point you make in the book over and over again is a very valid one that we are constantly in this incredibly hyper paranoid state about safety and health in treating our bodies like temples and danny medicine regulating not and along comes pot and blanket enemy mary plenary immunity. Its a very good point you make. Hope guest a lot of things that turned upside down in this debate. That is just one of them. Host when you talk to audiences and make that point, that is the question i was getting up for the ideas. As a conservative with a strong libertarian leaning my energy is about saying the other stuff is ridiculous. Obama carried getting deeper and deeper in our lives than you make the point how obamacare does it it it it was excludes marijuana. What is wrong with getting rid of this stuff all around in one of the cost of that is make a marijuana one of the things people have a right to do . Guest it is too costly. I think it is too costly because theres a difference between getting and being. Maybe this secretary has a psychological answer. It is so real so definite so obvious that it just seems extremely to let this loose in the land. Lets have an informed debate so people know we are not dealing with something innocent. Host you are sorted in a position of the book of dr. Groups, not a bad position to be in. He did Surgery Center rack. He says emphatically i will not let my kids anywhere near this Public Policy matter. He feels differently. His award by the way hes had a couple of buds named after him the group to 14 and so on they fell in colorado. Im waiting for one for me it tastes good. Host so again getting back to the question have you seen i will put it this way everything is a matter of debate any movement on that . Are the people for regulating sugar and banning big soda, is there any sign on the horizon of them saying wait a second, maybe pot isnt good at or you. Host bloomberg seems to agree with me could see the fellow and others names. Part of the possibility of the start of an essay and we are not going after everything. We are going to look at them individu