Do this in a way that doesnt replicate i think things that have happened here. Is this an area where there is potential progress . I would want to qualify that. Do keep in mind prescription drugs are completely come absolutely and totally permitted under the three International Drug control as you would expect them to be that is the one area where you would stick to be allowed to do is be as particular products. That is to say a trained and licensed physician who determines that this particular medication is required or called for or indicated for a particular medical condition. The problem obviously then the conventions themselves as well as the bodies that provide the guidance to the United Nations system as well as our own government are attempting to limit, control and ideally eliminate the abuse and diversion of those prescription drugs. Could they come up with ideas in terms of how better to do that . I suppose so but again this is where i come back to you with my closing comment of lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater. At the end of the day i believe and i hope what we are all looking for is a solution and outcome where qualified professional physicians are making a determination as to when certain products should be used as medication and not to take them out of this formula. And when we moved to the licensed physicians, we move to an area that for the last 60 70, 80 years has definitely fallen into the national systems. One physician licensing system may be very different from another. Is it an area for possible consideration, yes. But its not going to be a simple issue is what i would suggest. Lets talk a little bit about marijuana and cannabis created you mentioned your continued concern about harm. We are in a fragmented moment. We have states that are moving ahead with legalized recreational use. We have a number of states that have already put in place the medical use. There is the existing federal law and the tension that exists between what is happening in colorado, washington oregon, a bdc. The tension between that and the conventions. So it seems to be somewhat a mixed picture and one where you have the president saying we need this as part of a criminal Justice Reform issue. This is one about the nonviolent offenders. Its about shifting to a Public Health approach but there is a deep ambivalence running through all these discussions. Can you say a bit more about that and how do you navigate back as the leader in this area . I think there are a couple dimensions that are important. When you look at the president s comments he is talking about this in the criminal justice context that we cant continue down this path of arresting and incarcerating particularly kids of color in the impact we see. Agree with that as it relates to drug policy. But when you look at kind of what the impact of legalization might attend for us not just legalization but they also have significant concern with the commercialization of marijuana. Having done publichealth for a Public Health for a long time, i think that we see quite honestly the industry using some of the same tactics that the tictactoe industry has used tobacco industry. Some of the disclosure that the health Harms Associated with marijuana. I think some sense of the tightly regulated market isnt going to increase access to youth. We now have more youth in the country that smoked marijuana and tobacco and we clearly know the health Harms Associated with marijuana as it relates to the youth. Not quite honestly portraying the substance as addictive when clearly we know that it is. So there is a significant. This is where we come from in terms of the unanimity of the policy. That said, it is also made clear that with the department of justice monitoring this shes keeping a close eye on what is happening in colorado and washington and the men only about eight criteria for colorado and washington with a broad array of Public Health and safety that they needed to be held need to be held accountable in terms of mitigating harm. It is the department of justice. Basically it said we are not preempting the referendum in colorado but reserving the right to take subsequent action based on our monitoring of eight criteria. Again, Public Health, Public Safety criteria and that will continue to monitor the situation and reserved the right to take subsequent action based on those criteria. So our office again, i dont want to speak on both sides of my mouth. If we are science and data driven we need to be science and data driven. So these are largely publicly available data sets as well as work with the National Institute of drug abuse is looking at colorado and washington and what has been the impact. I think quite honestly it is too soon to tell in terms of what those issues mean. I think colorado by its node. Coowner acknowledgment we need to really ratchet up back. Again its really important for us to continue to oppose legalization and monitor what is happening in colorado and in subsequent state. How soon do you think we will be able because a lot of them want to wait and see what happens and there is an ambivalence among thoughtful people. People come down on this issue in a number of ways. So how soon are people going to be able to make judgments about the wisdom and the merits in colorado and washington and what will be the key criteria . We do not intend to issue a level of the definitive report saying it worked when it didnt. Part of it is the commitment to continue to roll out public data. These are existing data sets that look at things like the youth usage and looks at things like treatment admission and things like drug driving episodes and the diversion of marijuana from one state to another. So part of what we feel that responsibility is to make available those data set to allow people to make a determination kind of on what they think the impact is. So it is not our intention to issue this definitive report to say yes it works or no it doesnt. I want to jump in on this because what michael has laid out quite correctly is the United States of americas approach to marijuana and the larger legalization issue and i believe that is exactly right and correct as i understand in 1776 we decided we govern ourselves thank you very much into and sometime around 88 he decided the system that we would do it and we got the state and federal government and i have no problem with this whatsoever. But bear with me on this please. We have also ratified three International Drug control conventions and in two of those conventions, marijuana is placed in the annex of the prescribed product which the National Government is expected to control and to the extent possible prohibit except for in very limited examples. My task as your representative, what you paid me to do is to march out to those International Organizations and explain to them how everything that steve and michael have just talked about still leaves us in compliance with our international obligations. Now this is a little bit tricky and i would remind all of you that most governments in the world continue to have fairly strong views on cannabis and the oversight bodies the United Nations of which we are a member have set up particularly the International Narcotics board has been pretty clear i would even say at times severe with me in terms of not accepting the argument that we are in full and complete compliance and this is what i was talking about earlier on in terms of saying we are an independent sovereign nation and we will make around decisions and determinations. We are governed by our constitution thank you very much but please work with me ladies and gentlemen as we figure out how to project those National Realities into the international community. Sorry, i got carried away. I know that is probably one of the more difficult things to explain because it isnt obvious how you reconcile those things and thats just the nature of the diplomatic predicament. Texans are very good at this sort of thing. Lets talk just for a second about the Harm Reduction in the therapy and needle and Syringe Exchange all of which are highly sensitive and divisive issues but ones which many are arguing me to be pushed forward as an element both at the domestic and international context. Can you say of it . For as long as ive been doing this work it means so many Different Things to so many different people. If we are talking about a wide variety of interventions, pretty active users that minimize the health harms theyre using of it. So is it a semantic issue . The meaning of it is not uncomfortable. I think what is hard from the policy perspective is where do we draw the line on those policies that we support and of those that we are continuing to look at. So again we have always supported the change programs. We continue to support Overdose Prevention education programs. And a wide variety of other activity. Its interesting to me that in the kind of International World a look at medication as a treatment of the Harm Reduction therapy that doesnt quite square away with me. We look at it as a valid treatment approach. Part of what we laid out yesterday was the president s budget budget and strengthening the United States effort for access to the treatments of these are the most highly evaluated medications that we have. So, we do support a wide variety of interventions that diminish the health Harms Associated and quite honestly the mortality associated with the injection drug use. I agree not presently 100 with michael. This entire area of discussion falls absolutely squarely into what i would call the Public Health complex which we urge accept agree, support, plead with and vote for enhanced consideration in the international context. This is a good area for discussion. I do not say that we should agree with every single proposal that comes in under the label of Harm Reduction. I do say this is a valid issue for 194 Member States and the United Nations to discuss in the context of the formal structure of the United Nations and in the context of their individual National Drug control policys. This is an area where i do believe the nations of the world should be able to reach some useful conclusions as i might add the oas states did in september of last year in Guatemala City when they discuss Public Health in their final declaration as an area where the 34 states of the western hemisphere agreed we should address and focus efforts as we addressed the drug use. Weekend expect u. S. Leadership as we head towards a special session to put a special and this is . Sure. What you described in the session suggests that theres proof already with some action in that area. Actually, we probably dont want to have a technical discussion at this particular point in time. It would get half the people in the room a headache and the other four would fall asleep, but i would suggest that the United States of america has placed itself more or less in a position where it can influence the dialogue in the future because it has associated itself with neither of the two extremes. Either those that espoused a the full prohibition in other words woke them up if they they so much as think about it or if you think they might think about it or the other extreme, those who say lets just legalize everything and the entire problem with go away we have placed ourselves in a position where we can influence and i would like to think help produce at least a majority if not consensus in this area and this would be an area malaria again this sweet little ground we are going to put all of our energies, looking ahead what are the three or four things you want to take away from the special session in terms of practical advances in that middle zone about are the concrete things where you make use of the existing flexibilities to push the rest of the world to see things more in the way that we want to see them . I dont want to see people should see things the way we want to see them. The way that we described this as is we should find some Common Ground at all hundred 94 Member States of the United Nations can accept. Lets keep the basic architecture that we have in the three International Drug control preventions in terms of resisting the large transnational criminal organization. My guess is ten people and the al gore that we can come up with 50 different proposals on Public Health. It is a logical and coherent way but its not going to require. Its developed over the last 70 years a tradition to upgrade by consensus. And what does consensus mean . It means any individual government can basically start an initiative if it feels strongly about it. What this says to a person like me that must operate in that system is ive got to find proposals, ideas concepts that will be acceptable to some governments that are still executing drug traffickers and other governments who have completely legalized entire categories of products. Ive come up and suggested to with and suggested to some of those ideas earlier today. Sentencing reform in terms of how many life sentences do you have to serve for this purpose alternatives to the incarceration, education process that are different or separate from the criminal Justice System. These are the sort of areas where i would like to think we can find and develop some degree of consensus. But i do want to make it clear to everyone here that this isnt going to be easy if it were just us the brilliant 100 people or so that are sitting in this room right now by 5 00 this afternoon we could have a perfect document to come out of the special session in the United Nations in 2016. We truly cut. Could. But we are operating under a very different set of rules and that sadly is part of the reality that i was trying to describe. If you think michael had a complicated situation from time to time of trying to keep some coherence among the 50 states in the union plus the district of columbia, ladies and gentlemen, may i repeat 196 individual states and the United Nations that operate by consensus under those circumstances i wouldve traded jobs with him any day of the week. Thank you. I would like to open the floor for comments. My question to you is what more do you need or believe in terms of the tools or the capacity to Carry Forward the mission which is so expansive and has very high ambitions attached to it and youre in the process of multiple transitions of outlook and paradigms and partnerships. Its striking reading through all of the policy materials that were generated and it is a very dynamic environment that you are trying to shape in multiple places around the country. So where you sit and what more you were to wish for an additional set of the capacities and the tools what would those be quick and the government for so long no one has given me a blank check before on what would you do. I think a couple things. And one i will start with continuing to change the Public Perception as a really big area. One of the areas people dont seek treatment is that it is still in the stigma. It would change how people are able to communicate and mobilize. I would love to see a more vibrant Recovery Movement in the same way that we have had movements in other areas that have changed public policy. So i think thats changing and people are beginning to come together and have a vibrant movement on this because i do think that becomes really helpful. The second piece, and i do the leave that with one of the things we have here in the United States is that we shared resource across the country. We lead the world in research as it relates to good evidencebased programming and i think that we need to continue to focus on good evidencebased programs particularly as it relates to this criminal Justice Health care intervention. We have emerging models and a good few things out there. But we need to make the case and also i think to hand over to the Law Enforcement folks to see here are some good things. We have a few of those out there. Drug courts are great but we dont want people having their records on that. The drug market interventions are promising and have other promising practices that are building. So we need a better system of how can we have a different criminal justice response to these issues. So those would be two things. Resources are always important and the other piece that i will say having done this work for a long time the vast majority of treatment quite honestly comes from the public dollar and the private veterans needs to step up dramatically in terms of how they provide a good benefit package for the Substance Abuse disorders. What would make your job easier in terms of the capacity and tools . My budget for the operation programs activities overseas and having a single coherent and consensus position by the United States of america in terms of our drug policy. Neither one of those is very likely in the course of my entire lifetime. I would say at the end of the day what would