tv After Words CSPAN March 16, 2015 12:00am-1:01am EDT
s. >> guest: i have a couple, too too. >> host: they are tasteful and in trouble to the story. one of the things about the show is that it is for offers and interviewers that it gives the author a chance to answer the greatest of all book tour questions what is your blog about. so what is your book about? ..
>> this is very relevant. his public relevant. his public opinion has softened on marijuana, maybe 60 percent the scientific evidence is overwhelming against and. i was drug czar, director of national drug control policy in 1990 and we did not have this kind of research. now is overwhelming now is overwhelming, the harm that no one does. and i just have to believe i want to believe the american
people are not informed of these facts. the.of the book was to get these facts out. the end of my story which is the ground zero they will reconsider because they are starting to see results. >> host: a couple of questions about that. >> guest: sure. >> host: who is your intended policy with this? it is clearly not libertarians. who are you aiming is that? >> guest: the public policymakers. i was just in colorado. we did a big public form in denver.
someone said, these hippies, these potheads force this on us. this was not forced on anyone but potheads. this was decided by people in suits, if you will, big money if you we will big money is in here, too. but, no this was decided by, i assume, well-meaning public service public servant and some people who have financial interests but it was not some take over by the pot smoking lobby. it was something done my citizens i hope the limited process. >> in your rendition of this 1st off why do you think public attitude on marijuana usage have changed so dramatically? >> several things, a smart and well-financed campaign for marijuana. there is big money in here.
a lot of stories about how this was the investment of the year last year. more and more big money is in. the people the people who were for legalization way outspent, as they always do the people who opposed. in florida where it barely escaped legalization they had to get a 60 percent vote the opponents were outspent three to 321 and one of the people who contributed significantly was sheldon adelson. if you're outspending him you are spending a lot of money. it will be several they knew
lots of people's marijuana maybe they had, no big deal no harm that's not the marijuana we have today. third, very effective campaign and classic terms, the argument medical, medical marijuana, the person who can't get relief anywhere else. it was the wedge. that is what it was in colorado, many states saying how you can deny people. people they make it struck down the same way. happens.
people calling my show we will often say that no one dies for marijuana. well, people do, but not often and not in the same way as other drugs. drugs. cooking takes you to your knees. the stuff does not. it moves you in a very different way. this argument is able to work. it seemed to play on people's sympathies. what kind of what kind of person can you be to deny someone medical marijuana. so colorado initial permits slips for medical marijuana were about 5,000. in the and the courts released and said you can have as many as you want and multiply to 220000. most of the people were males between the ages of 18 and 25 for pain. this was a ruse, fraudulent. but it gave away and the wedge to get it through.
one of the heads of the normalization groups said once we get that so many people using that the bishops over the. isn't that actually a useful teaching example? the whole.of federalism, which will get to the phrase laboratory for democracy is a loaded one but 2nd of all if the problems with marijuana are what you say they are and i
we will say this up front as a parent i found this very persuasive. i we will charge you more on the public policy aspect philosophical aspect. as a parent it convinced me more than ever that i would want my kids and kids i see the extrapolate and stay away. the stairway. if it is as bad as you say and i tend to agree with you on, why would attitude changes favor? you would think that millions of people living alive smoking marijuana setting examples to others and themselves, many people stop smoking marijuana. why would public sentiment moves so much in contrast or in opposition to the fact oligarchs? >> because i think a i think a lot of the facts on the ground have not caught up have not become reality it. takes time.
over time, over years, when you lose eight iq points, points, which is what you lose if you start as a teenager it is ten or 15 years. if you start as a teenager 70 percent become addicted. a couple two, three. a funny way they don't end up in crack houses. they don't have this crazy drama. they were a book. the woman who was the star down to charleston. everything is interesting.
the woman who was the star and the blair witch project after her career in the movies became a a pot wife, a grower of marijuana in a california. that is how she kind of disappeared. i remember the heavy pot smokers. been want to reach the potential. it's an interesting phrase. when i watched the previous drugs are he said why don't we let the state do this? see what happens. and i said, which i thought was the responsible thing to say, i'm the director of drug policy, this won't happen on my watch. i won't let people suffer for the sake of proving my. let's have a hundred thousand kids not do there homework and see if they get stupid.
that when i'm secretary of education. education. no, sir. but now it has occurred, so yes. there there is a great opportunity for learning pilot pay close attention and go to colorado and take a close look. every six months, every year, and let's count the numbers and get the science and math right. >> host: absolutely. you open in the introduction of the book. you open with a hypothetical about tobacco you make the comparison. the argument about tobacco. >> guest: and a not entirely i'm not entirely sure i agree with my own hypothetical. if it were within your power to outlaw tobacco, if we could start this thing over again we're pretty close. we really made it a kind of mortal sin in public at least command people are shunned for smoking and so
on. by the way none of it seems to be true marijuana smokers. i am told in boulder, colorado, there is a place where no smoking is allowed, but marijuana is fine. i can see how that makes countercultural sense to some people. if it if it were within our power narrative that cigarettes which is where we are in some ways of marijuana state-by-state what we have decided against it? he can do the same experiment with alcohol, but alcohol, but it really does not work, so embedded in the culture. but very harmful as cigarette smoking is very helpful. it seems to me a sane society tries to prevent serious harms way it can when it is possible to do so so we so we have done this with tobacco not by outlying it though i don't think it
is beyond the realm of possibility for but we are at that stage with marijuana we can make a decision about whether we want to have this thing more generally diffused throughout society are not. i i had met at the outset i don't buy the hypothetical. personally i would not go to the poll and vote to ban tobacco ever have that opportunity, nor what i've been alcohol. not a. not a surprise to anyone that i like alcohol and cigars. and so getting to the issue -- >> guest: the.is -- excuse me, but clearly the.is not to say that we were but what
type of factors will be taken into consideration if we did and how embedded the practices in the culture and what reasons we can give for keeping it in and apply the same analysis to marijuana. >> host: there is a certain prosecutors brief aspect to the book. and so again, in my lane as a parent you know i am with you for the most part but in terms of the public policy, there is a certain amount of let's not leave any argument out. i was intrigued as someone who personally loves the idea of federalism. i give talks to college students. i think it is the greatest system ever conceived of for maximizing human happiness.
you seem to at one time basically throw the baby of federalism out with the bathwater here saying that you cannot have federalism for something like marijuana and that you reject the argument for marijuana. i wonder whether or not the right of the american people to make mistakes. and i'm going to agree with you if they can make mistakes to say that now when it comes to marijuana and definitely, something like i am shocked by you invoke -- i can't find it right now. thing that people who most often.out -- make arguments did so to defend jim crow and what not. and i agree there was a time when most states use it as a synonym for a synonym for jim crow. that is not what it is about today.
do you have any reluctance about invalidating the argument, even when you think people are going communities are making a mistake. >> i am a fan of federalism. i am not sure i am as big a fan as you. i am a i am a fan of constitutionalism particularly this republic's constitutionalism and i do believe in the supremacy of federal law when the two conflict. but let's remind people that there is federal law here. has been passed. marijuana marijuana -- the use of marijuana is against federal law. the obama administration has decided to weaken this and maybe some could argue that we should never have passed those laws but as it stands this is another case of this administration going against established law. >> host: can you explain for our viewers who may not know what exactly the obama
administration has done vis-à-vis colorado? >> guest: it has essentially winked and said, we're not going to enforce federal law. it is a class one substance. it is against the law to sell or use, and they have been told the layoff. i do layoff. i do not think that is a wise way to execute the laws people do not like federal law: the vote to change the federal law. i don't know how it would come out right now. i think it would come out and still have it against the law. talk to people on the hill. this is not this is not a republican democrat issue. you see debbie wasserman schultz got into trouble with the marijuana because she opposed the initiative. meanwhile some of our own folks on the republican conservative side want to go gung ho. >> host: anyone with the last name paul.
>> guest: and he will be out there. rand paul will be out there. if we could talk about -- absolutely because the other part of the beginning of the book is committed seems to me, with the strongest part of the brief is the harms from marijuana. we summarize and indeed print the entire article from the new england journal of medicine which summarizes the research done at 2030 major universities. the harms our considerable. short-term harm focus attention, memory, long-term, paranoia, schizophrenia, loss of iq, paranoia, schizophrenia, loss of iq, loss of motivation, all sorts of problems. the evidence is now amply available. the professor at northwestern and harvard said if i can design a drug
maximally harmful and distracting for student committee would command would be marijuana because focus, memory, attention motivation. in some ways enough to close the case, it seems to me. i we will admit i never fully take off the head of hat of secretary of education, and it seems to me nuts, nuts to be saying that have more of this on the developing brain. we are talking about helmets, we're talking about football. we're talking about, you know, alcoholism. we're talking about all sorts of ways to protect the little brain. and here we have this overwhelming bring to have evidence that is harmful to all particularly the developing brain and want to make it more generally available. >> that is one of the things in the beginning. a really valid and on.
securing of the cultural hypocrisy going on right now the website. and he gave you an interview. a piece of recently making the case for why we should treat sugar as a controlled substance addictive, addictive bad for you, abused, ubiquitous. they go through all of the. on paper to my mind it goes back and forth between being persuasive and swifty and. we're not and. we're not going to ban sugar, but if you come to a mindset bill buckley have a great line a great line about privatizing the white house. he said, look, libertarians want to privatize the white house. he said, the great thing about a country that is debating whether or not to permit does the white house is not going to
socialize medicine. define the boundaries of reasonable discourse. a very valid. we are constantly in this incredibly hyper paranoid state about safety and health banning this in regulating that. it's a very good.that you make. abcatoo a lot of things get turned upside down, a lot of things. and that is just, all of a sudden it is thrown out the window. when you talk to audiences and make that point that., that is the question i was getting at about the audience for this. as a conservative strong libertarian leanings hit me.
obama care, and you make this.about how obama care does that undisclosed marijuana. all the other stuff what is wrong with getting rid of the nanny's getting stuff all around? one of the costs of that is making my order one of the things that people do. >> it is too costly. too costly. there is a difference between getting saddam being done. again maybe it is the psychological answer in part the harm is so real so clear so different, so obvious that it just seems to be extremely down to let this was land. in any case let's have an informed debate so that people know that they are not dealing with something that is innocent to read you are sort of in the position in the book of doctor gupta, not bad company to be in.
a pretty good guy. >> host: i have input and worst company. abcatoo he did surgery on our guys in iraq. he says he says emphatically i we will not let my kids anywhere near this. but he feels differently. his reward maybe this is coming to you the gift of 14, so on. i'm not waiting for one for me. [laughter] >> host: yes. so again targeting back to the question who are you -- let me put it this way have you seen this as a matter of debate and argumentation? people for regulating sugar and banning soda, server, is there any sign you see on the horizon of them saying
wait a second, maybe part is not good for you? >> bloomberg seems to agree with me. i am thankful for that because he is a formidable fellow. the the possibility of this argument saying, we're not going after everything. we we were going to look at things individually and decide. they made this they made this decision as a society already and people want to undo it. that is through the changes in federal law. it is interesting for lawyers in the audience. oklahoma and nebraska are suing colorado on this issue saying they are in violation of the federal law and the federal government has to enforce federal law. >> host: because of the trafficking. >> guest: sure, because that is the harm that is being done. by the way this is one of the arguments is it is contained in colorado. no black market. colorado has become the black market.
the mexicans are not bothered at all, though i suppose we can take pride in american ingenuity that the marijuana growing colorado is more powerful, way more powerful. >> host: we are number one >> guest: you bet. i remember my brother said he tried to get a plea bargain for a client in the judge said no, this said, no, this is the worst whatever he had ever seen. but take great pride. i was regarded as the 3rd most repressive person in america by the revolutionary communist youth newspaper when i was only 30 years
old. abcawun that would put a spring in my step. that is a goal for me. i don't smoke. i don't smoke pot, but maybe one day i can attain that. >> guest: exactly right. i say right. i say something because it is important, the tetrahydro kavanaugh the active ingredient which gets you high thc, in the 60s and 70s it averaged about 3 percent. seized marijuana today, the thc is 12 percent. i just looked that adds that friends from denver sent me. 30%. 30.5%. some of it 40 45%. talk about drinking a glass of beer and percent. talk about drinking a glass of beer and then talk about drinking a glass of vodka. maureen dowd famously went to colorado to experiment and take two to three bites of a candy bar. she said she and her hotel room curled up and thus should died. the candy, by the way this argument is not about children. it children. it is about children if you look at the advertising.
by by the way the candy takes longer so it is much more insidious. people people take a bite and nothing happens. they take more. she thought she she thought she had died because of the tetrahydrocannabinol, the content. we are better at this. i'm intimates american ingenuity just like what's just like what's his name what was his name and breaking bad. walter white. great. he was very good at it. and so we are good at it. so we are making more and more powerful strains. that is starting to show up in emergency rooms and it is starting to show up in the visits to pediatric psychiatrist in denver and so on. we talked to the clinical people, and they will tell you now with the body count is analogous ground. >> host: push back a little bit on that. obviously not a huge fan of the book. i agree with him on some things. he makes the.that the comparison of a a glass of
beer to a glass of vodka mrs. the fact that very few people drink a glass of vodka in the same way that they drink a glass of beer. we can recognize recognize the differences in potency between hard liquor and beer. presumably people will -- what we will happen _-dash you hear the lessons learned, the more potent stuff yet you have to treat differently nonetheless potent stuff. it is easy the lessons learned quickly. again, i take your.about it but certainly we do not say we cannot trust people to drink, we can't drink, we can't have vodka on the market because they might confuse the content of beer.
>> well, lots of generations have learned to listen about billy's drinking, but it does not seem to carry over to the next. th% billy's drinking, but it does not seem to carry over to the next. they continue to do it. i've seen it. people take the 30 percent thc marijuana and just sip it like a fine scotch. all i ask people i ask people to do is talk to people who smoke a lot of dope. back when i was i was drugs are remember talking to people in the street in new york and boston because i was curious and baltimore whether they were pushing this. people said we are getting
clean needles, tons to share now with all of our friends. it just isn't true. it is false, and that, and that is why you are seeing more of the overdosing and more of the emergency rooms and will continue to see. >> host: culturally, what do you think happens to a country that goes down the path that you think it is currently come, nothing are pushing against in your book >> guest: i worry about it for a couple of reasons. first of all, it it is not a republican democrat issue. i was interested i was interested to see him say about this decision that it was reckless. he has been all over the map on this. he is a character. just could not keep shape no matter what his position was. he was never comfortable. he cannot keep shape. ..
it's about 7% of people 12 years and older smoke marijuana. in colorado but is now 13. i think that it will continue to go up. that is a big jump. he was the drug czar in the state of washington for a while and says when you legalize you will see four to six times as much stuff consumed, four to six times as much not four to six times as many peoplecome up at four to six times as much consumed. here the user imitates so 10% of people consume 50% of the alcohol and the 20% of people
consume 80 or 90%. so what you have here in colorado is the weekly users and now become dalia users and you can write a lot of them off. i get a caller of the show saying we have a mechanical engineer i spoke top three times a week sure. people are different. but for most of us at this end of the bell curve and not that end of the bell curve it's going to affect us. the other cultural side of this but we do face and do require a lot of attention and focus and do require us to tune in and again as i was saying it doesn't
knock you out the first time but then you need more and more to keep your high. but then if we distracts you away from your duties and responsibilities and you close with one of the most moving essays that i've read from the atlantic. it's how many times he's forgotten to pick them up. the immediate fatality maybe not but i know a lot of people who smoked even.
if killed the promise and opportunity and what they could have been. and they just kind of beard off. they didn't die but became a lot less because it saps your motivation and focus. >> i largely agree with that. i've known people on all ends of it that are effective members of society and i've known people that could have been very effective productive members of society they haven't smoked pot. that is the problem with this is everyone can pick their anecdotes and talk past each other and people tend to think -- i didn't want to get too deep
on the science that we have to admit there are competing studies for all this stuff. this is the science that happened in the last five years. i assume all of it is true in the personal case. a third of that is true. there is no study yes some you can cast out on but the overwhelming evidence if you add had a court of law, preponderance of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. >> host: bits get back to the anecdotal part. >> guest: i want to tell you another point which is about the legal. pediatric psychiatrists, this is an anecdote and i understand it's very interesting. we are overwhelmed, she is a
medicaid patient she's overwhelmed with kids coming in with their parents when they had the candy boastfully sometimes they had been vaping. the parents say it's legal. when they see things against the wall as people tend to avoid it. it's important to have the wall they are and not just because it's dangerous but because it sends a signal which most people observe.
something was shifting about his answer and eventually after a little cross examination i found out he wasn't drinking because it wasn't against the law and he didn't want it on his permanent record and that was very weird but also very eye-opening and since then i found that many many places. and it is absolutely true that they care about that kind of stuff. this gets to my point about the anecdote. you have a section where you talk about the fda takes some drugs of the market off the market even two or 3%. >> guest: yet. >> host: i think sometimes they are mad about that kind of stuff. there was a 97% chance and it
might help them in a major way but there is the 3% chance that they die. i want to know what my alternatives are good at the end of the day i wouldn't want the fda deciding whether or not my loved one or i could take this drug. i would want to be the one deciding. now on the other hand, marijuana doesn't cure any diseases, so it is not quite the same thing. but is it -- i guess the question that i have is what is the logical process by which one makes these distinctions is it purely a numbers game once you hit the tipping point of 12% of people armed? >> guest: at all the factors you cite it. i was on viox for my knees and they took off the market because i think that number was 3% we cited in there. but as you correctly noted there were other drugs available. maybe not as good or defective,
but i didn't want to take 3%. this one is only 70% effective. but there is no death rate. and then of course talking about your child. can i say also that on the medical side we do something that a lot of people do put our position don't do. we allow for prescription medication of marijuana. that is if you have this case of the testimony people come forward and say it's the only thing that worked. okay but then follow a protocol following normal medical protocol and get a prescription and if nothing else works etc. etc. and that seems to us to make sense. but you have 200,000 medical marijuana quote users in toronto, a lot of people think
it's a the work of ten or 15 chiropractors writing these permission slips. we don't know the content, we don't know the advertised content, what it is destined for. i know this sounds like big government, but at the end of the day when you put stuff into could stuff into your body you would like some reassurance somebody has tested it out and that it's okay particularly something that goes down into your lungs. you may get mad at the fda but you want and fda, don't you? we need inspection. i don't want it to be crazy but it's growing lines. one of the factors you cite it what else is available how much harm is this doing and what are the risks of taking it or not taking it. >> host: that is one that you don't trust. it has to be the federal drug
enforcement. >> guest: i think of it all that it all depends on the nature and so on. people want to also say find cocaine and meth and heroin. by the way the mexican drug cartels, they are now importing and exporting large amounts of heroin into the american list. two can play at this game. >> host: i'm not sure that we want the public policy held hostage. >> guest: we don't. but we try to put them out of business. they did something very unusual call to diversify, change the project. >> host: that turns out entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs no matter where they are. so, i want to get a little bit back into your cultural concerns. again going back to this analogy on tobacco and forget the question whether we would
we are very early in the process of the mainstream marijuana and we both agree that it will have twists and turns and ups and downs and all the rest. what would preclude the culture responding that is going to come in and eventually there could be some serious lawsuit with people messing things up. >> guest: you will see them. >> host: but i'm waiting for that i think it's sort of fascinating is when employers start saying we are going to fire you if you -- if we can test you for having taken a illegal substance and there will be lawsuits about that. i'm sure there already are lawsuits about that in colorado. but eventually all of the different institutions will yield in what is to prevent the culture and the legal institutions and all of that
from doing what they've done to tobacco and minimizing and shrinking its usage? >> guest: they may do that but after what played at what cost could this have been avoided, yes they might. although i have heard both stories. in colorado we talked some employers who said we don't even bother to test any more. there is just no point. we've heard that lots of places because there are so many young people using it but i think you will see somebody that requires the testing and then gets sued either way. i also think that you will have the bar and again not often allies of mine but the association says these people are selling something which scientifically is demonstrably harmful. they know they are selling it. they are not warning people and these guys should be sued for
everything they are worth. >> host: truck drivers have been smoking pot and get into an accident i'm not a lawyer but -- >> guest: we are seeing more and more of this, too. what just talk about education. i told the folks in colorado just keep doing this and you will see your scores go down and they are already not great. but if you lose this is a would've iq points. and we hear teachers and administration started up kids in class it looks like figure chewing on a pencil that they are vaping, inhaling marijuana. this by the way the development of the brain starting at 12 and 13 is just the time of onset for a lot of marijuana use just exactly at the wrong time in terms of development site seems
to be all the things we want to do and all the things we are fighting for and where you don't this just doesn't help. >> host: two points i want to get to. first of all, what about -- i will probably get hell from libertarians if i don't bring it up at about the argument that sure, it's bad sure it's not ideal or pot isn't great for everybody but it's okay for some people, but the social cost of mass incarceration, the social costs of the sword of militarization of police and the over criminalization of society those are costs to society, too right? >> guest: is the best we can estimate a lot less than if it were not available. the estimates for what we spend on the prosecuting.
they say four to 5 billion 11 million come you get way past 11 billion the harm and damage pretty soon. the estimates are with alcohol and the analogy is that for every dollar we spend that we get from taxes we have to spend $10 because of the harm done by alcohol. a lot of people believe that is about the same ratio. by the way the numbers let's get these numbers very important. the number of people in state prison for marijuana where that is the most serious offense in marijuana possession, .61%. .61%. smoke a joint and you're not going to jail. people plead down, people in federal prisons for the position
it's about 1.3 1.4%, average amount of possession is 15 pounds. so those numbers are wildly exaggerated. how much of this is really downstream larger social problems come as a kid that is in math class secretly vaping pot in high school, that is probably reflective of the situation at home. i know that there are other things going on.
i have very strong feelings about all of this personally that comes from different lifestyles and places, so we are talking about the macro level and a lot of the problems that you are trying to address our upstream from smoking pot. >> we know from here tells where where you stand and how secure the foundation is has a lot to do with how much it will be moved. there were very few lives lost it was horrible but lives were not lost. i sold a panel discussion on
c-span. it was this person from the washington state saying when we open our dispensaries we need to put them in the poor neighborhoods so that people who have been most victimized by the police will have a chance to return a profit. now there is a good idea. [laughter] going after the advertising people yelled at me on our side of the table but none of the less it was the right thing to do. if your motivation for school isn't quite as strong your odds of succeeding are lower.
so distribute it equally to all classes, people will offend in allandall classes but the effect of the harm some people have treatment centers, some people will fall right through and they will never get up again. >> host: as you know we have about four minutes left. oklahoma's bad for you but that hasn't stopped me from being a friend of. >> guest: me either. in my book of virtues he came by and decided that the virtuous? [laughter] >> host: let us show that we have had martinis together. [laughter]
you even get to this earlier the only reason why you're not applying the same is because it is so much more embedded into the culture. so prohibition was the right idea but it couldn't work because it was so deeply embedded into the culture. >> this is one of the things that was important in the alcohol consumption. it does all sorts of things but it wouldn't let it stand. they just wanted to have their booze. we couldn't understand it at the last supper. you live with the demons you have to some extent but don't introduce new ones and it seems to me. we know the harm it causes.
every family has this problem. a lot of families have a drug problem, almost every family i know. the distinction between the other problems is very the blurred. >> guest: this is a long series of arguments would take is that if anything if you looked at marijuana and its tobacco, cigarettes and alcohol, you would conclude all of this makes me think that there is a stronger sense against tobacco and alcohol than there is for marijuana. >> about the inroads have mattered. they have done good work and all this stuff about seriousness towards smokers has decreased. there are now more teenagers smoking marijuana than smoking
cigarettes. but i don't think that it can put that back in the bottle. it can but we can stop this one from getting out and that is what i'm arguing. >> host: we are just about out of time. i want to thank you. if people have any comments questions, complaints or want to say things about me that's fine. >> host: and the point of fact if they want to say things about me they should also go there because i don't want to hear it. [laughter] >> guest: anything you want to aim at him a match me. >> host: this was great. thank you for doing this. >> guest: my pleasure. thank you.
>> that was "after words," booktv signature program in which authors of the latest nonfiction books are interviewed by journalists, public policymakers and others familiar with their material. "after words" airs every weekend on booktv at 10 p.m. on saturday, 12 and 9 p.m. on sunday and 12 a.m. on monday to read and you can also watch "after words" online. go to booktv.org and click on "after words" in the book tv series and the topics list of the upper right side of the page. as you look back on the political choices which did so much did you look back and say that was good work or do you look back and say i don't know? >> which of my clients do you think were responsible? i am curious about that.
>> the governors were not my clients come in the state legislative leaders one of my clients and i mostly work for the mayors of chicago and the two that i worked for had served briefly in the 80s and i think that a lot of reforming in the politics of the city breaking down racial beer years in which rich daley who was considered a model and at the end there were fiscal issues and he overcommitted to do some of the things that he did and left some fiscal problems. but i'm proud of working for those guys. i'm happy to respond if you have a particular politician who you think was responsible and curious who that would be.
>> guest: i think that it's the handiwork of many. >> host: you can watch this and others online to booktv.org. >> welcome to day number two of the live coverage of the tucson festival of books. several author panels are headed today. topics include the obamaobama administration, immigration im concussions and footballin politics and natural and man-made disasters. the full schedule is available on the website. now on your screen gallagher t theatre on the campus of thehe iversity university of arizona which hasof been the home of the tucsone festival of books for the past seven years. now the panel on the obamaobama administration will beginnistra shortly.t shory. mark and david are two authorss participating in a panel and afterwards, he will join for a call-in program. his book is a biography of president obama called barack obama the story. this is the live coverage from
tucson. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning everybody. thank you all for coming here today and for being part of the tucson festival of books. really one of america's premier book festivals and one of the great perks of being in arizona so i appreciate seeing everybody here today. as some of you know, my name is andrei cherny formerly the chair of the democratic party. [applause] not everywhere can you say that in arizona and get applause. [laughter] they are what we call the base.
[laughter] but thank you for that. the founder and ceo of aspiration.com. we are excited to have this group of authors with us today for a conversation about politics in the age of obama and a lot to talk about the solidity just before we dive in i have a few thank you's first to cox communications for sponsoring this venue and holly and steve who have sponsored this session as you all know we are going to go for about 55 minutes. ..